Yevamot 22

Chapter 22

א ולא מתייבמת [אמר לך רב] אמינא לך אנא סוטה ודאי ואמרת לי את סוטה ספק ומ"ש סוטה ודאי (מ"ט משום דכתיב בה טומאה

1 though she may not marry the levir!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the sotah herself must go through the ceremony of halizah, much more so her rival; how then could Rab state that the rival of a sotah (and much more so the sotah herself, v. supra p. 53, n. 1) is exempt from halizah? ');">1 — Rab can answer you. 'I speak of a definite sotah, and you speak of a doubtful one'. But why should a definite sotah be different? Obviously because in relation to her the expression of 'uncleanness' is used;2

ב סוטה ספק נמי טומאה כתיבא בה דתניא ר' יוסי בן כיפר אומר משום רבי אלעזר המחזיר גרושתו מן הנישואין אסורה מן האירוסין מותרת משום שנאמר (דברים כד, ד) אחרי אשר הוטמאה

2 is not, however, the expression of 'uncleanness' also used in relation to a doubtful sotah! For it was taught: R. Jose b. Kipper said in the name of R. Eleazar, The remarriage by a husband of his divorced wife is forbidden after marriage3 and permitted after betrothal,4

ג וחכ"א אחת זו ואחת זו אסורה אלא מה אני מקיים אחרי הוטמאה לרבות סוטה שנסתרה

3 because it is stated in the Scriptures. After that she is defiled.5 The Sages, however, say, the one as well as the other6

ד ומאי נסתרה נבעלה ואמאי קרי ליה נסתרה לישנא מעליא נקט נבעלה טומאה בהדיא כתיב בה (במדבר ה, יג) ונסתרה והיא נטמאה

4 is forbidden,7 and the expression8

ה למיקם עלה בלאו ור' יוסי בן כיפר לאו בסוטה לית ליה ואפי' זנאי נמי

5 'After that she is defiled' implies the inclusion of a sotah who secluded herself with a man!9 — The underlying meaning of 'secluded herself' is 'sexual intercourse'. Why then did he say 'secluded herself'? — In order to employ a euphemism.10

ו מאי טעמא הויה ואישות כתיב בה

6 But in relation to sexual intercourse, [surely,] uncleanness was actually mentioned in the Scriptures. She being defiled secretly!11 — To subject the offence12

ז בעא מיניה רב יהודה מרב ששת המחזיר גרושתו משניסת ומת צרתה מהו אליבא דרבי יוסי בן כיפר לא תיבעי לך כיון דאמר ר' יוסי בן כיפר טומאה במחזיר גרושתו הוא דכתיבא צרתה כמותה

7 to a negative precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to cause to stand concerning it in a negative (prohibition)'; the negative can only be derived from Deut. XXIV, 4: May not take her again to be his wife. ');">13 And R. Jose b. Kipper?14

ח ואי משום דכתיב בה (דברים כד, ד) תועבה היא היא תועבה ואין בניה תועבין הא צרתה תועבה

8 — He does not hold the view that a negative precept is applicable to a sotah, even in the case where she had actually committed adultery. What is the reason? — [Because in reference to the remarriage of a divorced wife] Scripture uses the expression of15 becoming16

ט כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבנן אע"ג דאמור רבנן טומאה בסוטה הוא דכתיב אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו

9 as well as that of matrimony.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., Or if the latter husband ([H]) die, implying that the divorced woman's connection with the second man must be that of 'husband and wife', i.e., lawful matrimony. In the case of the sotah the intercourse was unlawful and cannot come, therefore, under the prohibition of Deut. XXIV, 4. ');">17 Rab Judah inquired of R. Shesheth: What is the law in regard to the rival of a woman whom her former husband remarried after her second marriage and died?18

י או דלמא כיון דאיעקר איעקר איכא דאמרי אליבא דרבנן לא תיבעי לך כיון דאיתעקר איעקר

10 According to the view of R. Jose b. Kipper the question does not arise. For R. Jose b. Kipper having stated that 'uncleanness' is mentioned in the case of him who remarried his divorced wife, it follows that her rival is subject to the very same restrictions. And if [objection be raised] from the Scriptural text, She is an abomination,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 4, dealing with a woman remarried after divorce. The text She is an abomination. [H], might be taken to imply that the designation, and consequently the restrictions, refer to the woman only ([H] = she) and not to her rival. ');">19 [it may be replied that the implication is] that she is an abomination and not her children,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the exclusion of [H] may refer not to her rival but to her children who, unlike their mother who is regarded as an 'abomination', may marry into priestly families. ');">20

יא כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבי יוסי בן כיפר מאי אע"ג דאמר ר' יוסי בן כיפר טומאה במחזיר גרושתו הוא דכתיבא מיעט רחמנא היא תועבה ואין צרתה תועבה או דלמא היא תועבה ואין בניה תועבין הא צרתה תועבה

11 her rival, however, being an abomination. The question, however, arises on the view of the Rabbis: Does the Scriptural text,21 despite the fact that the Rabbis had applied the expression 'uncleanness' to the sotah, also bear its ordinary meaning,22

יב א"ל תניתוה היתה אחת כשרה ואחת פסולה אם היה חולץ חולץ לפסולה ואם היה מייבם מייבם לכשרה

12 or since it23 was once torn away [from its ordinary meaning] it must in all respects so remain?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that it was uprooted it was uprooted', i.e., since it was removed from its context and applied to the sotah, it can never be re-applied to its original case. Hence a rival would not come under the same restrictions as the sotah herself. ');">24

יג מאי כשרה ומאי פסולה אילימא כשרה כשרה לעלמא פסולה פסולה לעלמא כיון דלדידיה חזיא מאי נפקא ליה מינה

13 Others say: According to the Rabbis no question arises, for since the text has once been torn away [from its ordinary meaning] it must in all respects so remain. The question, however, arises according to the view of R. Jose b. Kipper: What is the law? [Is it assumed that] although R. Jose b. Kipper stated that the expression of 'uncleanness' refers to the remarriage of a divorced wife, the All Merciful has written 'She is an abomination' to indicate that 'she' is an abomination but not her rival,25 or is the implication, perhaps, that 'she' is an abomination, but her children are not; a rival, however, being an abomination?26

יד אלא לאו כשרה כשרה ליה פסולה פסולה ליה ומאי ניהו מחזיר גרושתו וקתני ואם היה מייבם מייבם לכשרה

14 — The other replied: You have learnt it, 'If one of them27 was a permitted wife and the other a forbidden one; if he28

טו לא לעולם כשרה כשרה לעלמא פסולה פסולה לעלמא ודקאמרת כיון דלדידיה חזיא מאי נפקא ליה מינה משום דרב יוסף

15 submit to halizah he must submit to that of the forbidden one;29 and if he marries he marries the permitted one.'29

טז דאמר רב יוסף כאן שנה רבי לא ישפוך אדם מי בורו ואחרים צריכים להם

16 Now what is meant by 'permitted' and 'forbidden'? If it be suggested that 'permitted' means permitted for all the world,30 and 'forbidden' means forbidden for all the world,31

יז ת"ש המחזיר גרושתו משנשאת היא וצרתה חולצת היא וצרתה ס"ד [אלא] אימא או היא או צרתה

17 what practical difference, in view of the fact that she is In either case suitable for him,32 could this make to him? Consequently 'permitted' must mean permitted to him, and 'forbidden', forbidden to him; and this may happen where33

יח ולאו תרוצי קמתרצת לה תריץ הכי היא חולצת צרתה או חולצת או מתייבמת

18 he34 remarried his divorced wife;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the woman who was remarried is forbidden to the levir as she was forbidden to his deceased brother who had married her unlawfully, while her rival, having been lawfully married, is permitted to the levir. ');">35

יט אמר רבי חייא בר אבא רבי יוחנן בעי המחזיר גרושתו משניסת צרתה מהו אמר ליה רבי אמי ותיבעי לך היא גופה היא גופה לא קמיבעיא לי

19 and yet it was taught, 'and if he marries he marries the permitted one'!36 — No; 'permitted' may still mean permitted to all the world30

כ דאמרינן קל וחומר במותר לה אסורה באסור לה לא כל שכן כי קא מיבעיא לי צרתה מאי מי אלים ק"ו למידחי צרה או לא

20 and 'forbidden', forbidden for all the world;31 and as to your question, 'what practical difference, in view of the fact that she is in either case suitable for him, could this make', one must take into account the moral lesson37

כא רב נחמן בר יצחק מתני הכי אמר ר' חייא בר אבא בעי ר' יוחנן המחזיר גרושתו משניסת מהו א"ל ר' אמי ותיבעי לך צרתה צרתה לא קמיבעיא לי דלא אלים קל וחומר למידחי צרה אלא כי קמיבעיא לי היא גופה מאי מי אלים קל וחומר במקום מצוה או לא

21 of R. Joseph. For R. Joseph stated: Here38 Rabbi taught that a man shall not pour the water out of his cistern so long as others may require it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man should not destroy anything which may be of use to others though it is of no use to him. In the case under discussion, the levir submits to halizah from the forbidden one and thus liberates the permitted one to marry even a priest to whom she would have been forbidden had the halizah been performed by her. ');">39 Come and hear: 'Where a man remarried his divorced wife after she had been married,40 she and her rival are to perform the halizah.' Is it possible to say 'she and her rival'?41 Consequently it must mean, 'Either she or her rival.'42 Did you not, however, have recourse to an interpretation?43 [You might as well] interpret thus: She is to perform halizah, while her rival may either perform halizah or be married by the levir. R. Hiyya b. Abba said: R. Johanan inquired as to what is the law44 in regard to a rival of a divorced woman whom her former husband remarried after her second marriage. Said R. Ammi to him: Enquire rather regarding herself!45 — Concerning herself I have no question since her case may be inferred a minori ad majus: If she is forbidden to him46 to whom she was originally47 permitted, how much more so to the man48 to whom she was originally47 forbidden!49 The question, however, remains concerning her rival: Is the inference a minori ad majus strong enough to exclude a rival50 or not? R. Nahman b. Isaac taught as follows: R. Hiyya b. Abba said, R. Johanan enquired as to what is the law44 in regard to a divorced woman whom her husband remarried after her second marriage. Said R. Ammi to him: Enquire rather regarding her rival! — Concerning her rival I have no question, for an inference a minori ad majus51 is not strong enough to exclude a rival;50 the question, how ever, remains regarding herself. Is the inference a minori ad majus strong enough [to be acted upon] where a precept52 is involved or not?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter