Yevamot 174

Chapter 174

א סריקא והשתא גופא מליא אבל זרע אין לה דמעיקרא גופא סריקא והשתא גופא סריקא אימא לא צריכא:

1 was empty and now it is full, but not [a woman whose child was already born],1 whose body was at first empty and is now also empty, [hence was the first text2 also] required.3

ב סימ"ן אמר ליה לא נעש"ה מעשי"ה במית"ה נעש"ה ולא נעשה בולד יבם ותרומה יבום ותרומה סימ"ן:

2 (Mnemonic.4 He said to him: Let us not make5 and make6

ג אמר ליה רב יהודה מדאסקרתא לרבא לא נעשה מתים כחיים לענין יבום מקל וחומר ומה במקום שעשה ולד מן הראשון כולד מן השני לפוסלה מן התרומה לא עשה מתים כחיים מקום שלא עשה ולד מן הראשון כולד מן השני לפוטרה מן הייבום אינו דין שלא נעשה מתים כחיים

3 in death; let us make and not make in the child of the levir and terumah.)7 Said Rab Judah of Diskarta8 to Raba: The dead should not be given9

ד ת"ל (משלי ג, יז) דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום

4 the same status as the living, in respect of the levirate marriage, by inference a minori ad majus: If where a child by the first husband is regarded as the child of the second husband, in respect of disqualifying the woman from the eating of terumah,10 the dead were not given the same status as the living,11 how much less should the dead be given the same status as the living12

ה ונעשה מתים כחיים לענין תרומה מק"ו ומה במקום שלא עשה ולד מן הראשון כולד מן השני לפוטרה מן הייבום עשה מתים כחיים מקום שעשה ולד מן הראשון כולד מן השני לפוסלה מן התרומה אינו דין שנעשה מתים כחיים ת"ל (ויקרא כב, יג) וזרע אין לה והא אין לה

5 where the child of the first husband is not regarded as the son of the second, in respect of exempting the woman from the levirate marriage!13 It was expressly stated, Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. III, 17. Were a woman, whose child died after its father, to be subjected to the obligations of the levirate marriage, the peace and the pleasantness of family life might be disturbed where the woman, for instance, happened to have married after the death of her husband and the child died subsequently. ');">14 Then let the dead be given15

ו ונעשה ולד מן הראשון כולד מן השני לענין יבום מק"ו ומה במקום שלא עשה מתים כחיים לענין תרומה עשה ולד מן הראשון כולד מן השני מקום שעשה מתים כחיים לענין יבום אינו דין שנעשה ולד מן הראשון כולד מן השני ת"ל (דברים כה, ה) ובן אין לו והא אין לו

6 the same status as the living in respect of terumah by inference a minori ad majus: If where a child by the first husband is not regarded as the child of the second In respect of exempting the woman from the levirate marriage,13 the dead were given the same status as the living,16 how much more so should the dead be given the same status as the living17

ז ולא נעשה ולד מן הראשון כולד מן השני לתרומה מק"ו מה במקום שעשה מתים כחיים לפוטרה מן הייבום לא עשה ולד מן הראשון כולד מן השני מקום שלא עשה מתים כחיים לענין תרומה אינו דין שלא נעשה ולד מן הראשון כולד מן השני תלמוד לומר אין לה והא יש לה:

7 where a child of the first husband is regarded as the son of the second, in respect of disqualifying the woman from terumah!18 It was expressly stated, And [she] have no child19 and she, surely, has none.20

ח <big>הדרן עלך יש מותרות</big>

8 Let the child of the first husband be regarded as the child of the second husband in respect of the levirate marriage by inference a minori ad majus: If where the dead were not given the same status as the living, in respect of terumah21 the child of the first husband is regarded as the son of the second,22 how much more should the child of the first husband be regarded as the child of the second23

ט מתני׳ <big>האשה</big> שהלך בעלה למדינת הים ובאו ואמרו לה מת בעליך וניסת ואח"כ בא בעלה תצא מזה ומזה וצריכה גט מזה ומזה

9 where the dead were given the status of the living in respect of the levirate marriage!21 — It was expressly stated, And [he] have no child,24 and this man, surely, has none.

י ואין לה כתובה ולא פירות ולא מזונות ולא בלאות לא על זה ולא על זה ואם נטלה מזה ומזה תחזיר

10 Then let the child of the first husband not be regarded as the child of the second husband, in respect of terumah, by inference a minori ad majus: If where the dead were given the same status as the living, in respect of exempting her from the levirate marriage, the child of the first husband was not regarded as the child of the second,22 how much less should the child of the first husband be regarded as the child of the second, where the dead were not regarded as the living in respect of eating terumah!21 — It was specifically stated, And [she] have none,25

יא והולד ממזר מזה ומזה ולא זה וזה מטמא לה ולא זה וזה זכאים לא במציאתה ולא במעשה ידיה ולא בהפרת נדריה

11 but she surely has [one]. MISHNAH. A WOMAN WHOSE HUSBAND HAD GONE TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND ON BEING TOLD,26 'YOUR HUSBAND IS DEAD', MARRIED, MUST, IF HER HUSBAND SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED, LEAVE THE ONE AS WELL AS THE OTHER, AND SHE ALSO REQUIRES27

יב היתה בת ישראל נפסלה מן הכהונה ובת לוי מן המעשר ובת כהן מן התרומה ואין יורשין של זה ויורשין של זה יורשין את כתובתה ואם מתו אחיו של זה ואחיו של זה חולצין ולא מייבמין

12 A LETTER OF DIVORCE FROM THE ONE AS WELL AS FROM THE OTHER. SHE HAS NO [CLAIM TO HER] KETHUBAH, USUFRUCT, MAINTENANCE28 OR WORN CLOTHES29 EITHER AGAINST THE FIRST HUSBAND OR AGAINST THE SECOND. IF SHE HAS TAKEN ANYTHING FROM THE ONE OR FROM THE OTHER, SHE MUST RETURN IT. THE CHILD BEGOTTEN BY THE ONE HUSBAND OR BY THE OTHER IS A BASTARD;30

יג ר' יוסי אומר כתובתה על נכסי בעלה הראשון רבי אלעזר אומר הראשון זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה רבי שמעון אומר ביאתה או חליצתה מאחיו של ראשון פוטרת צרתה ואין הולד ממנו ממזר

13 NEITHER OF THEM31 MAY DEFILE HIMSELF FOR HER;32 NEITHER OF THEM HAS A CLAIM TO WHATEVER SHE MAY FIND33

יד ואם ניסת שלא ברשות מותרת לחזור לו ניסת על פי ב"ד תצא ופטורה מן הקרבן

14 OR MAKE WITH HER HANDS;34 AND NEITHER HAS THE RIGHT OF INVALIDATING HER VOWS.35 IF SHE WAS THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE, SHE BECOMES DISQUALIFIED FROM MARRYING A PRIEST; IF THE DAUGHTER OF A LEVITE, FROM THE EATING OF TITHE; AND IF THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST, FROM THE EATING OF TERUMAH. NEITHER THE HEIRS OF THE ONE HUSBAND NOR THE HEIRS OF THE OTHER ARE ENTITLED TO INHERIT HER KETHUBAH, AND IF [THE HUSBANDS] DIE, THE BROTHER OF THE ONE AND THE BROTHER OF THE OTHER MUST SUBMIT TO HALIZAH, BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. R. JOSE SAID: HER KETHUBAH REMAINS A CHARGE UPON THE ESTATE OF HER FIRST HUSBAND. R. ELEAZAR SAID: THE FIRST HUSBAND IS ENTITLED TO WHATEVER SHE MAY FIND, OR MAKE WITH HER HANDS, AND ALSO HAS THE RIGHT OF INVALIDATING HER VOWS. R. SIMEON SAID: HER COHABITATION OR HALIZAH WITH THE BROTHER OF THE FIRST HUSBAND EXEMPTS HER RIVAL,36

טו לא ניסת על פי ב"ד תצא וחייבת בקרבן יפה כח ב"ד שפוטרה מן הקרבן הורוה ב"ד לינשא והלכה וקלקלה חייבת בקרבן שלא התירוה אלא לינשא:

15 AND A CHILD BEGOTTEN BY HIM37 IS NOT A BASTARD. IF SHE MARRIED WITHOUT AN AUTHORIZATION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Beth din; i.e., if she married on the strength of the evidence of two witnesses who testified to her husband's death, in which case no authorization by a court is required. ');">38 SHE MAY RETURN TO HIM.37

טז <big>גמ׳</big> מדקתני סיפא נשאת שלא ברשות מותרת לחזור לו שלא ברשות ב"ד אלא בעדים מכלל דרישא ברשות ב"ד ובעד אחד אלמא עד אחד נאמן

16 IF39 SHE MARRIED WITH THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BETH DIN,40 SHE MUST LEAVE,41

יז ותנן נמי הוחזקו להיות משיאין עד מפי עד ואשה מפי אשה ואשה מפי עבד ומפי שפחה אלמא עד אחד מהימן

17 BUT IS EXEMPT FROM AN OFFERING.42 IF SHE MARRIED, HOWEVER, WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BETH DIN, SHE MUST LEAVE41 AND IS ALSO LIABLE TO AN OFFERING. THE AUTHORITY OF THE BETH DIN IS THUS MORE EFFECTIVE IN THAT IT EXEMPTS HER FROM THE OFFERING. IF THE BETH DIN RULED43

יח ותנן נמי עד אחד אומר אכלת חלב והוא אומר לא אכלתי פטור טעמא דאמר לא אכלתי הא אישתיק מהימן אלמא עד אחד מהימן מדאורייתא

18 THAT SHE MAY BE MARRIED AGAIN AND SHE WENT AND DISGRACED HERSELF44 SHE45 MUST BRING AN OFFERING, BECAUSE THE BETH DIN PERMITTED HER ONLY TO MARRY.46

יט מנא לן דתניא (ויקרא ד, כג) או הודע אליו חטאתו ולא שיודיעוהו אחרים יכול אע"פ שאינו מכחישו יהא פטור תלמוד לומר או הודע אליו מ"מ

19 GEMARA. Since in the final clause it was stated, IF SHE MARRIES WITHOUT PERMISSION SHE MAY RETURN TO HIM, [which means obviously], without the authorization of the Beth din but [in reliance on the evidence] of witnesses, the first clause, it is to be inferred, [speaks of a woman who married] with the permission of the Beth din and on the evidence of a sing]e witness.47 Thus it clearly follows that one witness is trusted. Furthermore, we learned: The practice was adopted of allowing a marriage on the evidence of one witness reporting48 another single witness, and of a woman reporting another woman, and of a woman reporting a bondman or a bondwoman;49

כ היכי דמי אילימא דאתו תרי ולא קא מכחיש להו קרא למה לי אלא לאו חד וכי לא קא מכחיש ליה מהימן ש"מ עד אחד נאמן וממאי דמשום דמהימן דלמא משום דקא שתיק ושתיקה כהודאה דמיא

20 from which it is obvious that one witness is trusted. Furthermore we learned: [The man to whom] one witness said, 'You have eaten50 suet',51 and who replied, 'I have not eaten', is exempt.52

כא תדע דקתני סיפא אמרו שנים אכלת חלב והוא אומר לא אכלתי פטור רבי מאיר מחייב אמר ר' מאיר קל וחומר אם הביאוהו שנים לידי מיתה חמורה לא יביאוהו לידי קרבן הקל

21 Now the reason [for his exemption is] because he said, 'l have not eaten'; had he, however, remained silent [the witness] would have been trusted.53 From this it is clearly evident that one witness is trusted in accordance with Pentateuchal law;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had such evidence been Pentateuchally inadmissible, the sin-offering would consist of a Pentateuchally unconsecrated beast which must not be offered on the altar and is also forbidden to be eaten by the priests. ');">54 whence is this55

כב אמרו לו מה אם ירצה לומר מזיד הייתי רישא

22 deduced? From what was taught: If his sin … be known to him,56 but not when others have made it known to him. As it might have been assumed that even where he does not contradict the evidence he is exempt, it was expressly stated, If … be known to him,57 in any manner.58 Now, how is this statement to be understood? If it be suggested [that it refers to a case] where two witnesses appeared, and he does not contradict them, what need then was there for a Scriptural text!59 Must it not then refer to the case of60 one witness, and yet [we see that] when the accused does not contradict him he is trusted.61 From this, then, it maybe inferred that one witness is to be trusted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had such evidence been Pentateuchally inadmissible, the sin-offering would consist of a Pentateuchally unconsecrated beast which must not be offered on the altar and is also forbidden to be eaten by the priests. ');">54 But whence is it inferred that [the reason62 is] because he is trusted? Is it not possible that it is due to the fact that the other had remained silent, silence being regarded as an admission! You can have proof that this is so,63 since in the final clause it was stated: [A man to whom] two witnesses said, 'You have eaten64 suet,65 and who replied. 'I have not eaten', is exempt; but R. Meir declares him guilty. Said R. Meir: This66 may be inferred a minori ad majus. If two witnesses may bring upon a man the severe penalty of death, should they not be able to bring upon him the minor penalty of a sacrifice! The others replied: What if he desired to say, 'I have acted presumptuously'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a presumptuous sin no sin-offering is brought. In such a case the evidence of the witnesses would be of no value. They can only testify to one's action but not to one's motive or state of mind. Since the accused could annul the evidence by such a plea he is also believed when he simply contradicts the evidence. ');">67 Now, in the first clause,68

Previous Chapter Next Chapter