Yevamot 233

שאין האחין נכנסין לנחלה על פיה

THAT ON HER EVIDENCE, THE BROTHERS MAY NOT ENTER INTO THEIR INHERITANCE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though inheritance is a monetary affair, Only in order to save her from a life-long widowhood was a woman allowed on her own evidence to marry again. In monetary matters, however, the evidence of two eligible witnesses (cf. Deut. XIX. 15) is a sine qua non. ');">¹</span> SAID BETH SHAMMAI TO THEM: DO WE NOT LEARN THIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she is entitled to her kethubah. ');">²</span> FROM HER <i>KETHUBAH</i> SCROLL WHEREIN [HER HUSBAND] PRESCRIBES FOR HER, 'IF THOU BE MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN, THOU WILT RECEIVE WHAT IS PRESCRIBED FOR THEE'! THEREUPON BETH HILLEL WITHDREW THIS OPINION, THENCEFORTH TO RULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEW OF BETH SHAMMAI. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Hisda stated: If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman who reported the death of her husband. ');">³</span>

אמרו להם בית שמאי והלא מספר כתובה נלמוד שהוא כותב לה שאם תנשאי לאחר תטלי מה שכתוב ליכי וחזרו בית הלל להורות כדברי ב"ש:

is taken in levirate marriage the levir enters into the inheritance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the deceased. Cf. supra 40a. ');">⁴</span> on her evidence. If they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai, and later also Beth Hillel, in our Mishnah. ');">⁵</span> made an exposition on the <i>kethubah</i>, shall we not make an exposition on the Torah? The All Merciful said, Shall succeed in the name of his brother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6, explained Rabbinically to refer to the levir. ');">⁶</span> and he has surely succeeded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he is also entitled to the inheritance. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב חסדא נתייבמה יבמה נכנס לנחלה על פיה הם דרשו מדרש כתובה אנו לא נדרוש מדרש תורה

R. Nahman ruled: If [a woman] came before <i>Beth din</i> and stated, 'My husband is dead; permit me to marry again'. permission must be granted her to marry again. and she is given her <i>kethubah</i>. [If she demanded]. 'Give me my kethubah', she must not be permitted even to marry. What is the reason? Because she came with her mind intent on the kethubuh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She probably knows that her husband is alive and she has no intention of marrying again. All she aims at is the acquisition of the money. ');">⁸</span> The question was raised: What is the ruling [where she said], 'Permit me to marry and give me my kethubah'? Has she come with her mind intent on the <i>kethubah</i>, since she specified her <i>kethubah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even marriage should, therefore, be forbidden to her, ');">⁹</span> or [is it assumed that] a person [naturally] lays before the <i>Beth din</i> all the claims he has!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But her main purpose was matrimony. Hence both her requests should be granted. ');">¹⁰</span> And<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reading of Rashal, inserted in cur. edd, within square brackets. ');">¹¹</span>

(דברים כה, ו) יקום על שם אחיו אמר רחמנא והרי קם

should you find [a reason for deciding in her favour because] a person submits whatever claim he has to the <i>Beth din</i>, [the question still remains as to] what [is the law where she stated]. 'Give me my <i>kethubah</i> and permit me to marry'? [Is it assumed that] in this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she mentioned her kethubah first, ');">¹²</span> she has undoubtedly come with her mind bent on the <i>kethubah</i>. or is it possible [that she mentioned her <i>kethubah</i>] because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She may have thought that it was the kethubah that releases her from her dead husband and it is for this reason that she mentioned it first. Cf. supra note 3' ');">¹³</span> she did not know by what means she becomes permitted [to marry again].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She may have thought that it was the kethubah that releases her from her dead husband and it is for this reason that she mentioned it first. Cf. supra note 3' ');">¹³</span> — This is undecided.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teku. v. Glos, ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב נחמן באת לבית דין ואמרה מת בעלי התירוני להנשא מתירין אותה להנשא ונותנין לה כתובתה תנו לי כתובתי אף להנשא אין מתירין אותה מאי טעמא אדעתא דכתובה אתאי

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ALL ARE REGARDED AS TRUSTWORTHY TO GIVE EVIDENCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That her husband died. ');">¹⁵</span> FOR HER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any woman. ');">¹⁶</span> EXCEPTING HER MOTHER-IN-LAW. THE DAUGHTER OF HER MOTHER-IN-LAW, HER RIVAL, HER SISTER-IN-LAW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife of her husband's brother, who becomes her rival if levirate marriage is contracted. ');">¹⁷</span> AND HER HUSBAND'S DAUGHTER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All these are assumed to be, for one reason or another, hostile to her and are therefore suspected of giving false evidence (cf. supra n. 8) in the expectation that she will marry again and thereby become forever forbidden to their relative, her first husband. ');">¹⁸</span>

איבעיא להו התירוני להנשא ותנו לי כתובתי מהו כיון דאמרה כתובתה אדעתא דכתובה אתאי או דלמא כל מילי דאית ליה לאיניש אמר להו לבי דינא ואת"ל כל מילי דאית ליה לאיניש אמר תנו לי כתובתי והתירוני להנשא מהו

WHEREIN LIES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN [THE ADMISSIBILITY OF] A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND [THAT OF THE EVIDENCE OF] DEATH?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., why are the relatives mentioned accepted as qualified bearers of her letter of divorce, (v. Git, 23b) and not as eligible witnesses to testify to the death of her husband? ');">¹⁹</span> IN THAT THE WRITTEN DOCUMENT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The letter of divorce, ');">²⁰</span> PROVIDES THE PROOF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is mainly the document itself that constitutes the validity of the divorce and not the eligibility of its bearer. ');">²¹</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The question was raised: What [is the law in regard to the eligibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To give evidence that her husband was dead, ');">²²</span>

הכא ודאי אדעתא דכתובה אתאי או דלמא הואיל דלא ידעה במאי משתריא תיקו:

of] the daughter of her father-in-law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From another wife who is not her mother-in-law. ');">²³</span> Is the reason [for the ineligibility] of the daughter of her mother-in-law because there is a mother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., her mother-in-law. ');">²⁴</span> who hates her she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter of that mother-in-law. ');">²⁵</span> also hates her; here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the daughter of her father-in-law, ');">²⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הכל נאמנין להעידה חוץ מחמותה ובת חמותה וצרתה ויבמתה ובת בעלה

however, there is no mother who hates her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter of her father-in-law is therefore eligible as a witness. ');">²⁷</span> Or is it possible that the reason [for the ineligibility] of the daughter of her mother-inlaw is because she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter. ');">²⁸</span> believes that the other squanders<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'eats'. ');">²⁹</span> the savings of her mother; there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the daughter of her father-in-law, ');">²⁶</span>

מה בין גט למיתה שהכתב מוכיח:

then, she also believes that she squanders<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'eats'. ');">²⁹</span> the savings of her father-in-law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.,'wife's family'. In consequence of which she hates her and is, therefore, ineligible to be her witness. ');">³⁰</span> Come and hear: 'All are regarded as trustworthy to give evidence for her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 824. nn. 8 and 9. ');">³¹</span> excepting five women'; but if that were so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the daughter of a father-in-law is also ineligible as witness. ');">³²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איבעיא להו בת חמיה מהו טעמא דבת חמותה משום דאיכא אימא דסניא לה היא נמי סניא לה והכא ליכא אימא דסניא לה

[the number should] be six!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since our Mishnah had enumerated five others. From this then it may be inferred that the daughter of a father-in-law is eligible. ');">³³</span> — It is possible that the reason [for the ineligibility] of the daughter of her mother-in-law is because she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter. ');">³⁴</span> believes that the other squanders the savings of her mother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH. Cur. edd., 'of the father-in-law'. ');">³⁵</span> [and, therefore] there is no difference between the daughter of her mother-in-law and the daughter of her father-in-law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both, therefore, may be regarded as one. Hence the number five, ');">³⁶</span>

או דלמא טעמא דבת חמותה דאמרה קאכלה לגירסנא דאימא הכא נמי קאמרה אכלה לגירסנא דבי נשאי

But, surely. it was taught.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'we learned'. ');">³⁷</span> 'Excepting seven women'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While our Mishnah enumerates only five. ');">³⁸</span> — This is the view of R. Judah. For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'we learned'. ');">³⁹</span> R. Judah adds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the number of women who are ineligible to testify to the death of another woman's husband. ');">⁴⁰</span>

תא שמע הכל נאמנין להעידה חוץ מחמש נשים ואם איתא שית הויין דלמא טעמא דבת חמותה דאמרה קאכלה לגירסנא דבי נשאי לא שנא בת חמותה ולא שנא בת חמיה

also a father's wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The stepmother of the woman in question. ');">⁴¹</span> and a daughter-In-law. They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages. ');">⁴²</span> said to him: A father's wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The stepmother of the woman in question. ');">⁴¹</span> is, in fact, included in the expression 'a husband's daughter',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a husband's daughter is ineligible as witness for a husband's wife it is obvious that the latter also, since both stand in the same relationship to one another, is equally ineligible as witness for the former. V. infra n. 6. ');">⁴³</span>

והאנן תנן חוץ משבע נשים ההיא ר' יהודה היא דתנן רבי יהודה מוסיף אף אשת אב והכלה

and a daughter-in-law is obviously included in the expression 'her mother-in-law'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a mother-in-law is precluded from giving evidence for her daughter-in-law so, it is obvious, is the latter (cf. supra n. 5) precluded from giving evidence for the former. There was no need, therefore, to enumerate all the four. The mention of two of these embraces the four. ');">⁴⁴</span> And R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why in view of the explanation of the Rabbis does he enumerate seven? ');">⁴⁵</span> - Because one can well understand why a mother-in-law should hate her daughter-in-law, since the former believes that the latter squanders her Savings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the wife of her son and heir she would in due course become mistress of her possessions. ');">⁴⁶</span> but why should a daughter-in-law hate her mother-in-law!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her ineligibility, therefore, cannot be inferred from the other. Hence it was necessary specifically to mention her. ');">⁴⁷</span>

אמרו לו אשת אב הרי היא בכלל בת הבעל כלה הרי בכלל חמותה

Similarly one may well understand why a husband's daughter hates her father's wife, since the former believes that she is squandering her mother's savings, but why should a father's wife hate her husband's daughter!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her ineligibility, therefore, cannot be inferred from the other. Hence it was necessary specifically to mention her. ');">⁴⁷</span> Why, then, does he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah. ');">⁴⁸</span> add the two?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, as was just explained, are not hostile to the others, and should, therefore, be eligible to give evidence for them! ');">⁴⁹</span> — But [this is the true explanation]: Why does a daughter-in-law hate her mother-in-law? Because the latter reports<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'reveals', 'discloses'. ');">⁵⁰</span>

ור' יהודה בשלמא חמותה סניא לה לכלה דאמרה קאכלה לגירסני אלא כלה מאי טעמא סניא לחמותה בשלמא בת הבעל דסניא לאשת האב דאמרה קאכלה לגירסני דאם אלא אשת האב מאי טעמא סניא לבת הבעל

to her son all that she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her daughter-in-law. ');">⁵¹</span> does. [Similarly] a father's wife also hates her husband's daughter because the latter reports<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'reveals', 'discloses'. ');">⁵⁰</span> to her father all that she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her father's wife; her stepmother. ');">⁵²</span> does. And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, in view of R. Judah's explanation, do they omit the two from their list? ');">⁵³</span>

אלא מאי מוסיף תרתי אלא כלה מ"ט סניא לחמותה דמגלה לבנה כל דעבדה אשת אב נמי סניא לבת הבעל דמגלה לאביה כל דעבדה

— As in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' prov. XXVII, 19. Hatred is mutual. As a husband's daughter hates her father's wife so does the latter hate the former; and the same reciprocity exists between a mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. There was no need, therefore, to mention them all. The four are covered by the two. ');">⁵⁴</span> And R. Judah? — The text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">⁵⁵</span> applies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.. 'is written'. ');">⁵⁶</span> to [the study of] the words of the Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Effort and success are interdependent as in water face answereth face. Or: The successful achievement of the student is dependent on the sympathy and understanding (the cheerful countenance) of the Master. ');">⁵⁷</span>

ורבנן (משלי כז, יט) כמים הפנים לפנים כן לב האדם לאדם ורבי יהודה ההיא בדברי תורה כתיב

R. Aha b. 'Awya said: In the West<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Palestine, which lay on the West of Babylon. ');">⁵⁸</span> they asked: What is the ruling in respect of a potential<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.. 'that comes afterwards'. i.e., the mother of the levir and stepmother of the husband of the woman in question. who might become her mother-in-law if her husband died childless and she had to contract the levirate marriage with the levir. ');">⁵⁹</span> mother-in-law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is she eligible as witness if she testifies that her stepson is dead in consequence of which the wife of the deceased must either marry her son or perform halizah with him and marry a stranger (Rashi). [R. Hananel (v. Lewin B. M. Ozar ha-Geonim, Yebamoth p. 334) explains the problem differently. viz., can a woman give evidence on behalf of her potential mother-in-law? Where. for instance, Jacob had two wives, Leah and Rachel, the former of whom bore him a son, Reuben, and the latter, Joseph; and the question arises whether the wife of Reuben may testify as to the death of Jacob, her father-in-law, permitting the remarriage of Rachel, her potential mother-in-law. For should her own husband Reuben die, she would have to contract levirate marriage with his brother Joseph. Rachel thus becoming her mother-in-law]. ');">⁶⁰</span> Does it occur to her that [this woman's]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For whom she tenders evidence. ');">⁶¹</span>

אמר רב אחא בר עויא בעי במערבא חמותה הבאה לאחר מיכן מהו מי מסקה אדעתה דמית בעל ונפלה קמי יבם וסניא לה או לא

husband might die [without issue] and she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As her future mother-in-law. ');">⁶²</span> would thereby be subject to the levir, and therefore. she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As her future mother-in-law. ');">⁶²</span> hates her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence she is ineligible as a witness for her. ');">⁶³</span> or does it not?