Yevamot 211

תנו רבנן חליצה מוטעת כשרה אי זו היא חליצה מוטעת אמר ר"ל כל שאומרים לו חלוץ ובכך אתה כונסה

Our Rabbis taught: A <i>halizah</i> under a false assumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H] Hof.) lit., 'misled'. ');">¹</span> is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Yeb. XII, Keth. 74a. ');">²</span> What is meant by 'a <i>halizah</i> under a false assumption'? Resh Lakish explained: Where a levir is told, 'Submit to <i>halizah</i> and you will thereby wed her'. Said R. Johanan to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish. ');">³</span>

אמר ליה רבי יוחנן אני שונה בין שנתכוון הוא ולא נתכוונה היא בין שנתכוונה היא ולא נתכוון הוא חליצתה פסולה עד שיתכוונו שניהם כאחד ואת אמרת חליצתה כשירה

I am in the habit of repeating a Baraitha, 'Whether he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">⁴</span> had the intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he submitted to halizah. ');">⁵</span> [of performing the commandment of <i>halizah</i>] and she had no such intention, or whether she had such intention and he had not, her <i>halizah</i> is invalid, it being necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until'. ');">⁶</span>

אלא כל שאומרים לו חלוץ לה ע"מ שתתן לך מאתים זוז תניא נמי הכי חליצה מוטעת כשירה אי זו היא חליצה מוטעת כל שאומרים חלוץ לה על מנת שתתן לך מאתים זוז

that both shall at the same time have such intention',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Yeb. XII, supra 102b. ');">⁷</span> and you say that her <i>halizah</i> is valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even when the levir was misled into thinking that he was performing an act of marriage! ');">⁸</span> But [in fact this is the meaning]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of 'halizah under a false assumption'. ');">⁹</span>

ומעשה באשה אחת שנפלה לפני יבם שאין הגון לה ואמרו לו חלוץ לה על מנת שתתן לך מאתים זוז ובא מעשה לפני רבי חייא והכשירה

When a levir is told, 'Submit to her <i>halizah</i> on the condition that she gives you two hundred zuz'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Even if the promised sum was not forthcoming, the halizah is valid. Any condition in connection with an act which, like halizah. cannot be performed through an agent is illegal and void. Cf. Keth. 74a. ');">¹⁰</span> So it was also taught [elsewhere]: A <i>halizah</i> under a false assumption is valid; and what is meant by a <i>halizah</i> under a false assumption? One in which the levir is told 'Submit to her <i>halizah</i> on condition that she gives you two hundred zuz'. Such an incident, in fact, occurred with a woman who fell to the lot of an unworthy levir who was told, 'Submit to her <i>halizah</i> on condition that she gives you two hundred zuz'. When this case came before R. Hiyya he ruled that the <i>halizah</i> was valid. A woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sister-in-law who fell to the lot of an undesirable levir. (V. infra). ');">¹¹</span>

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי חייא בר אבא אמר לה בתי עמודי אמרה ליה אימא ישיבתה זו היא עמידתה אמר לה ידעת ליה אמרה ליה אין ממונא הוא דחזא לה וקבעי למיכליה מינה

once came before R. Hiyya b. Abba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To meet the levir. ');">¹²</span> 'Stand up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to contract the levirate marriage. ');">¹³</span> my daughter', the Rabbi said to her. 'Her sitting is her standing',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She was lame or suffered from some other chronic disease which disabled her from standing up. Another interpretation: Her 'sitting', i.e., her abstention from the marriage is her 'standing', i.e., salvation. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר לה לא ניחא לך אמרה ליה לא אמר ליה חלוץ לה ובכך אתה כונסה לבתר דחלץ לה אמר ליה השתא מינך אפסלא לה חלוץ לה חליצה מעלייתא כי היכי דתישתרי לעלמא

replied her mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH. ');">¹⁵</span> 'Do you know this man?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., did she know why he insisted on marrying a disabled woman? According to the second interpretation the question was whether she knew anything against his character. ');">¹⁶</span> the Rabbi asked. 'Yes', she answered him, 'it is her money that he saw and he would like to it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After which he would get rid of her. Lit., 'and he desires to eat it from her'. ');">¹⁷</span>

בת חמוה דרב פפא נפלה לפני יבם שאין הגון לה אתא לקמיה דאביי אמר ליה חלוץ לה ובכך אתה כונסה אמר ליה רב פפא לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר רבי יוחנן ואלא היכי אימא ליה

'Do you not like him then?' he asked the woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sister-in-law. ');">¹⁸</span> 'No', she replied. 'Submit to her halizah', [the Rabbi] said to [the levir], 'and you will thereby wed her'. After the latter had submitted to <i>halizah</i> at her hands he said to him, 'Now she is ineligible to marry you; submit again to a proper <i>halizah</i> that she may be permitted to marry a stranger'. A daughter of R. Papa's father-in-law fell to the lot of a levir who was unworthy of her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But who insisted on contracting with her the levirate marriage. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר ליה חלוץ לה ע"מ שתתן לך מאתים זוז לבתר דחלץ לה אמר לה זיל הב ליה אמר ליה משטה אני בך עבדה ליה

When [the levir] came before Abaye the latter said to him, 'Submit to her <i>halizah</i> and you will thereby wed her'. Said R. Papa to him, 'Does not the Master accept the [relevant] ruling of R. Johanan?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Requiring both the man and the woman to be of the unanimous intention, during the ceremony, of fulfilling the commandment of halizah. V. supra. ');">²⁰</span> — 'What then could I tell him?' [the other asked]. 'Tell him', the first replied, '"submit to her <i>halizah</i> on condition that she gives you two hundred <i>zuz</i>."' After [the levir] had submitted to <i>halizah</i> at her hand [Abaye] said to her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sister-in-law. ');">¹⁸</span> 'Go and give him [the stipulated sum]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the halizah was in any case valid, Abaye held that the condition must be complied with. ');">²¹</span>

מי לא תניא הרי שהיה בורח מבית האסורין והיתה מעברא לפניו ואמר ליה טול דינר והעבירני אין לו אלא שכרו

'She', R. Papa replied, 'was merely fooling him';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., '(the trick of) " i="" fooled="" with="" you",="" she="" did="" to="" him'.="" since="" the="" halizah="" is="" valid,="" and="" it="" levir's="" duty="" perform="" it,="" no="" legal="" obligation="" incurred="" by="" promising="" him="" an="" excessive="" sum="" for="" doing="" that="" which="" was="" his="" do.="" ');"="">²²</span> was it not, in fact taught: If a man escaping from prison beheld a ferry boat and said [to the ferryman], 'Take a <i>denar</i> and lead me across',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An excessive fee for crossing a river. ');">²³</span> [the latter] can only claim his ordinary fare.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 116a. ');">²⁴</span>

אלמא אמר ליה משטה אני בך הכא נמי משטה אני בך

From this then it is evident that the one can say to the other, 'I was merely fooling you'; so here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of halizah under discussion. ');">²⁵</span> [the woman may say], 'I was merely fooling you'. 'Where is your father?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye's query implied that R. Papa seemed to have all his needs provided for by his parents and that this left him leisure enough to indulge in fine dialectics. ');">²⁶</span> [Abaye] asked him. — 'In town', the other replied. 'Where is your mother?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye's query implied that R. Papa seemed to have all his needs provided for by his parents and that this left him leisure enough to indulge in fine dialectics. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר ליה אבוך היכא א"ל במתא אימך היכא א"ל במתא יהיב בהו עיניה ושכיבן:

— 'In town', the other again replied. He set his eyes upon them and they died. Our Rabbis taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Others read, 'Raba said' (She'iltoth section Ki Theze). ');">²⁷</span> A <i>halizah</i> under a false assumption is valid; a letter of divorce [given] under a false assumption is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the condition on which it was given was not fulfilled. A condition in the case of divorce has legal validity, since a divorce may be effected through the agency of witnesses. V. Keth. 74a and cf. supra p. 730, n. 10, final clause. ');">²⁸</span>

ת"ר חליצה מוטעת כשרה גט מוטעה פסול חליצה מעושית פסולה גט מעושה כשר היכי דמי אי דאמר רוצה אני אפי' חליצה נמי ואי לא אמר רוצה אני גט נמי לא

A <i>halizah</i> under coercion is invalid; a letter of divorce [given] under compulsion is valid. How is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second ruling relating to coercion. ');">²⁹</span> to be understood? If it is a case where the man [ultimately]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After Beth din had brought pressure to bear upon him. ');">³⁰</span> says, 'I am willing', the <i>halizah</i> also [should be valid]; and if he does not say, 'I am willing', a letter of divorce also should not [be valid]! — It is this that was meant: A <i>halizah</i> under a false assumption is always valid, and a letter of divorce [given] on a false assumption is always invalid; but a <i>halizah</i> under coercion and a letter of divorce [given] under coercion are sometimes valid and sometimes invalid, the former when the man [ultimately]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After Beth din had brought pressure to bear upon him. ');">³⁰</span>

הכי קאמר חליצה מוטעת לעולם כשר וגט מוטעה לעולם פסול חליצה מעושית וגט מעושה זימנין כשר וזימנין פסול הא דאמר רוצה אני הא דלא אמר רוצה אני

declared, 'I am willing', and the latter, when he did not declare, 'I am willing'. For it was taught: He shall offer it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 3. ');">³¹</span> teaches that the man is coerced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To carry out his vow if he undertook to bring an offering. ');">³²</span> It might [be assumed that the sacrifice may be offered up] against his will, it was, therefore, expressly stated, In accordance with his will.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ibid., E.V., 'that he may be accepted'. ');">³³</span>

דתניא (ויקרא כב, יח) יקריב אותו מלמד שכופין אותו יכול בעל כרחו ת"ל לרצונו הא כיצד כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני וכן אתה מוצא בגיטי נשים כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני

How then [are the two texts to be reconciled]? He is subjected to pressure until he says, 'I am willing'. And so you find in the case of letters of divorce for women: The man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who refuses to give a divorce. ');">³⁴</span> is subjected to pressure until he says, 'I am willing'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 50a, B.B. 48a, Ar. 21a. ');">³⁵</span> Raba reported in the name of R. Sehora in the name of R. Huna: <i>Halizah</i> may be arranged even though [the parties]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir and his sister-in-law who apply for a halizah to be arranged for them. ');">³⁶</span>

אמר רבא אמר רב סחורה אמר רב הונא חולצין אע"פ שאין מכירין ממאנין אע"פ שאין מכירין

are unknown<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the Beth din. ');">³⁷</span> A declaration of refusal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mi'un. V. Glos. ');">³⁸</span> may be arranged even though the parties<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband and the minor. ');">³⁹</span>

לפיכך אין כותבין גט חליצה אלא אם כן מכירין ואין כותבין גט מיאון אלא אם כן מכירין דחיישינן לבית דין טועין

are unknown.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the Beth din. ');">³⁷</span> For this reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since halizah or mi'un may he arranged even for unknown persons whose declarations might be false. ');">⁴⁰</span> no certificate of <i>halizah</i> may be written<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a woman who applied for such a certificate to enable her to marry again. even if the usual declaration, that the parties were known to the writers, is omitted. V. infra n. 4. ');">⁴¹</span>

ורבא דידיה אומר אין חולצין אלא אם כן מכירין ואין ממאנין אא"כ מכירין לפיכך כותבין גט חליצה אף על פי שאין מכירין וכותבין גט מיאון אף על פי שאין מכירין ולא חיישינן לבית דין טועין:

unless the parties are known,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the writers who witnessed the ceremony. ');">⁴²</span> and no certificate of <i>mi'un</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mi'un. V. Glos. ');">⁴³</span> may be written<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a woman who applied for such a certificate to enable her to marry again. even if the usual declaration, that the parties were known to the writers, is omitted. V. infra n. 4. ');">⁴¹</span> unless the parties are known,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the writers who witnessed the ceremony. ');">⁴²</span> for fear of an erring <i>Beth din</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a second Beth din who might be called upon to deal with the question of the remarriage of the parties and who might be unaware of the law that halizah and mi'un may be arranged even for unknown persons, and who, in their reliance on the written certificate, might permit the woman to marry again; overlooking the fact that the usual declaration that the parties were known to the writers (cf. supra note 1) was wanting from the certificate. ');">⁴⁴</span> Raba in his own name, however, stated: <i>halizah</i> must not be arranged unless the parties<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 732, n. 10. ');">⁴⁵</span> are known,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the Beth din. ');">⁴⁶</span> nor may a declaration of refusal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mi'un. V. Glos. ');">⁴³</span> be heard unless the parties<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband and the minor. ');">⁴⁷</span> are known.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the Beth din. ');">⁴⁶</span> For this reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no Beth din would allow halizah and mi'un unless the parties are known to them. ');">⁴⁸</span> it is permissible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For witnesses who were present during one or other, as the case may be, of such ceremonies. ');">⁴⁹</span> to write a certificate of <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enable the woman to marry again. ');">⁵⁰</span> even though the parties are not known,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the writers who witnessed the ceremony. ');">⁵¹</span> and it is also permissible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For witnesses who were present during one or other, as the case may be, of such ceremonies. ');">⁴⁹</span> to write a certificate of <i>mi'un</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra notes 3 and 10. ');">⁵²</span> even though the parties are not known,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the writers who witnessed the ceremony. ');">⁵¹</span> and we are not afraid of an erring <i>Beth din</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 4 mutatis mutandis. Since the first Beth din must know the parties the question of mistaken identity does not arise. ');">⁵³</span>