Yevamot 187

Chapter 187

א דסניא ליה אמר להו רב ששת תניתוה אמרו לה מת בעליך ואח"כ מת בנך ונשאת ואח"כ אמרו לה חילוף היו הדברים תצא והולד ראשון ואחרון ממזר
1 hate her brother-in-law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 636. n. 3. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> — R. Shesheth answered them: You have learned it, IF A WOMAN.. WAS TOLD, YOUR HUSBAND DIED AND YOUR SON DIED AFTERWARDS', AND SHE MARRIED AGAIN, AND LATER SHE WAS TOLD, 'IT WAS OTHERWISE', SHE MUST DEPART; AND ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE OR AFTER IS A BASTARD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 636, n. 4. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> Now, how is this to be understood? If it be suggested [that there were] two witnesses against two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 636, n. 5. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב היכי דמי אילימא תרי ותרי מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני ועוד ממזר ספק ממזר הוא וכ"ת לא דק הא מדקתני סיפא הראשון ממזר והאחרון אינו ממזר ש"מ דדוקא קתני
2 what reason do you see [it may be asked] for relying on the latter? Rely rather on the former! Furthermore, [how could the child be described as a] BASTARD, [when he is only] an uncertain bastard! And should you reply that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 636, n. 6. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> was not exact in his expression. Surely [it may be pointed out] since in the final clause he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 636, n. 6. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> stated, ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE [THE DEATH OF HER FIRST HUSBAND] IS A BASTARD, BUT ONE BORN AFTER IT IS NO BASTARD,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 636, n. 4. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג אלא לאו חד וטעמא דאתו בי תרי אכחשוה הא לאו הכי מהימן לעולם תרי ותרי וכדאמר רב אחא בר מניומי בעדי הזמה
3 it may be inferred that he was exact in his expressions! Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but not'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> [it must be concluded that the first report was that of] one witness, and that the reason [why he is not believed is] because two witnesses came and contradicted his evidence, but had this not been the case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not thus'. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> he would have been believed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it follows that the evidence of one witness is accepted in permitting a sister-in-law to marry a stranger. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ד הכא נמי בעדי הזמה
4 [No]. In fact [it may be retorted, there may have been] two witnesses against two, and [this is the explanation]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the evidence of the second pair is regarded as more reliable than that of the first pair. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> As As R. Aha b. Manyumi stated, 'Where the witnesses have proved an alibi',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H], cf. Deut. XIX, 19) 'causing witnesses to be subjected to the law of retaliation' by disproving their evidence. This is effected when a second pair of witnesses testify that the first pair were with them at a certain place at the time when according to their evidence an act had been committed or an event had occurred at another place. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> so here also [It is a case where the second pair of] witnesses have proved an alibi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They testified that the former were with them at the time they alleged the death of the husband or that of the son to have occurred. Cf. Mak. 5a. In such a case, the second report is accepted. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ה א"ל רב מרדכי לרב אשי ואמרי ליה רב אחא לרב אשי ת"ש אין האשה נאמנת לומר מת יבמי שאנשא ולא מתה אחותי שאכנס לביתה היא ניהי דלא מהימנא הא עד אחד מהימן
5 Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi, — others Say. R. Aha said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: A woman is not believed if she says. 'My brother-in-law is dead, and so I may marry again', or, 'My sister is dead, and so I may enter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry her husband. A sister's husband is forbidden while the sister is alive. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> her house'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Infra 118b with slight variants. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> Only she is not believed but one witness is believed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Could not then this Mishnah supply the answer to the enquiry addressed to R. Shesheth? ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ו וליטעמיך אימא סיפא אין האיש נאמן לומר מת אחי שאייבם את אשתו ולא מתה אשתי שאשא את אחותה הוא ניהו דלא מהימן הא עד אחד מהימן בשלמא גבי אשה משום עיגונא אקילו בה רבנן אלא גבי איש מאי איכא למימר
6 According to your argument, however, [it may be retorted] read the final clause: A man is not believed when he says.'My brother is dead, and so I may contract the levirate marriage with his wife', or, 'My own wife is dead, and so I may marry her sister' — 10 Is it only he who is not believed, but one witness is believed? In the case of a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is permitted to marry again on the evidence of one witness. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> one can well understand that in order to prevent her perpetual desertion the Rabbis have relaxed the law in her favour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra n. 6. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> What, however, can be said in the case of a man! [This statement]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah cited, that a woman is not believed. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ז אלא כי איצטריך לר"ע איצטריך סד"א הואיל וא"ר עקיבא יש ממזר מחייבי לאוין אימא חיישא אקלקולא דזרעא ודייקא קמ"ל (דאקלקולא דידה חיישא אקלקולא דזרעא לא חיישא)
7 then [it must be explained] was required in accordance with the view of R. Akiba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It Is for this purpose only that was recorded; and no inference, such as those suggested. may be drawn from it. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> It might have been assumed that, since R. Akiba stated that the offspring of a union between those who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments is a bastard, she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman who is subject to a levir, and marriage with whom by a stranger is forbidden by a negative commandment. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> may be presumed to be desirous of avoiding injury<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her person and status. Should the report prove to have been false, she is penalized as stated supra. 'Of the child', In cur. edd. is deleted by BaH. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
ח רבא אמר עד אחד נאמן ביבמה מק"ו לאיסור כרת התרת לאיסור לאו לא כל שכן א"ל ההוא מרבנן לרבא היא עצמה תוכיח דלאיסור כרת התרת לאיסור לאו לא התרת
8 and to institute, therefore, careful enquiries.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before she definitely asserts that her brother-in-law is dead. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> hence we were taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis: 'That she apprehends her own injury; she does not apprehend the injury of the child' (v. Rashi). ');"><sup>21</sup></span> [that she is not to be believed].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fear she might hate her levir, v. supra 93b. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
ט ואלא איהי מ"ט לא מהימנא דכיון דזימנין דסניא ליה לא דייקא ומינסבא עד אחד נמי דכיון דזמנין דסניא ליה לא דייקא ומינסבא:
9 Raba said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reply to the enquiry addressed to R. Shesheth. supra. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> That one witness is believed in the case of a sister-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 637, n. 2. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> [may be inferred] a minori ad majus: If you have permitted [a woman to marry again]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the evidence of one witness who testified that her husband was dead. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
י זה מדרש דרש רבי אלעזר בן מתיא וכו': אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הוה ליה לר' אלעזר למדרש ביה מרגניתא ודרש ביה חספא
10 in face of a prohibition involving <i>kareth</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the major penalties for connubial intercourse with a married woman. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> how much more so in face of a mere prohibitory law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marriage of a sister- in-law by a stranger in the circumstances postulated in the enquiry. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> Said one of the Rabbis to Raba: Her own case proves [the contrary]: In face of a prohibition involving <i>kareth</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 637, n. 2. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
יא מאי מרגניתא דתניא (ויקרא כא, ז) ואשה גרושה מאישה אפילו לא נתגרשה אלא מאישה פסולה לכהונה והיינו ריח הגט דפוסל בכהונה:
11 you have permitted her [to marry again]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she herself declared that her husband was dead. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> while in face of a mere prohibitory law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marriage of a sister- in-law by a stranger in the circumstances postulated in the enquiry. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> you have not permitted her!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a stranger, though she declared that her brother-in-law was dead. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יב <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מי שהלכה אשתו למדה"י באו ואמרו לו מתה אשתך ונשא את אחותה ואח"כ באת אשתו מותרת לחזור
12 The fact, however, is this:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and but'. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> Why is she not believed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a stranger, though she declared that her brother-in-law was dead. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> Because, as she may sometimes hate the levir, she might marry a stranger without first instituting careful enquiries;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether the levir had really died. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> so also in the case of one witness, since she may sometimes hate the levir, she might marry [a stranger] without first instituting the necessary enquiries.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether the levir had really died. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> THIS DID R. ELEAZAR B. MATHIA DERIVE BY MEANS OF THE FOLLOWING EXPOSITION etc. Said Rab Judah in the name of Rab:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Alfasi and Asheri read, 'Rab said'. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> R. Eleazar could have produced<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'expounded'. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> a pearl and produced but a potsherd. What is meant by 'pearl'? — That which was taught: Neither [shall they take] a woman put away from her husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 7. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> even if she was divorced from her husband alone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the husband inserted in the letter of divorce a clause forbidding her to marry anyone else, v. Git., 82b. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though her letter of divorce is, owing to its restrictive clause, of no validity. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> is disqualified from marrying a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if her husband died, and she remained a widow. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> And it is this [that was meant by] the 'scent of the divorce'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even the mere semblance of a divorce, though the document is invalid. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> which disqualifies a woman from marrying a priest. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN'S WIFE HAD GONE TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND HE WAS TOLD,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they came and said to him'. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> YOUR WIFE IS DEAD', AND, AFTER HE MARRIED HER SISTER, HIS WIFE CAME BACK, [THE LATTER] IS PERMITTED TO RETURN