Yevamot 236:1

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> קידש אחת מחמש נשים ואין יודע אי זו קידש כל אחת אומרת אותי קידש נותן גט לכל אחת ואחת ומניח כתובה ביניהן ומסתלק דברי רבי טרפון

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN BETROTHED ONE OF FIVE WOMEN AND HE DOES NOT KNOW WHICH OF THEM HE HAS BETROTHED, AND EACH STATES, 'HE HAS BETROTHED ME. HE GIVES A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO EVERY ONE OF THEM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he has no desire to marry any of them. ');">¹</span> AND, LEAVING THE <i>KETHUBAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sum due to a woman on being divorced. (V. Glos.). ');">²</span> AMONG THEM, WITHDRAWS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He need not give them more than the amount of one kethubah since he had betrothed no more than one woman. It is for the women themselves to come to an agreement on the disposal of that sum. ');">³</span>

רבי עקיבא אומר אין זו דרך מוציא מידי עבירה עד שיתן גט וכתובה לכל אחת ואחת גזל אחד מחמשה ואין יודע מאיזה גזל כל אחד אומר אותי גזל מניח גזילה ביניהן ומסתלק דברי רבי טרפון רבי עקיבא אומר אין זו דרך מוציא מידי עבירה עד שישלם לכל אחד ואחד:

SO R. TARFON. R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, SAID: THIS IS NOT A WAY THAT WOULD TAKE ONE OUT OF THE POWER OF TRANSGRESSION, UNLESS ONE GIVES TO EACH OF THEM BOTH A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND HER <i>KETHUBAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sum due to a woman on being divorced. (V. Glos.). ');">²</span> IF A MAN ROBBED ONE OF FIVE PERSONS AND DOES NOT KNOW WHICH OF THEM HE HAS ROBBED, AND EACH ONE STATES. 'HE HAS ROBBED ME', HE LEAVES THE [AMOUNT OF] THE ROBBERY AMONG THEM AND WITHDRAWS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 2 mutatis mutandis. ');">⁴</span> SO R. TARFON. R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, STATED: THIS IS NOT A WAY THAT WOULD LEAD ONE OUT OF THE POWER OF SIN, UNLESS ONE PAYS [THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE ROBBERY] TO EVERY ONE [OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED].

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> קידש קתני בעל לא קתני גזל קתני לקח לא קתני מני מתני' לא תנא קמא ולא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Since BETROTHED was stated. and not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., was not stated'. ');">⁵</span> 'cohabited'. and since ROBBED was stated and not 'bought'. whose [view, it may be asked, is represented in] our Mishnah? Neither. [apparently. that of] the first Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Baraitha cited infra. ');">⁶</span> nor that of R. Simeon b. Eleazar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Baraitha cited infra. ');">⁶</span>

דתניא רשב"א אומר לא נחלקו רבי טרפון ורבי עקיבא על שקידש אחת מחמש נשים ואינו יודע איזו קידש שמניח כתובה ביניהן ומסתלק על מה נחלקו על שבעל רבי טרפון אומר מניח כתובה ביניהן ומסתלק רבי עקיבא אומר עד שישלם לכל אחת ואחת

For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated that R. Tarfon and R. Akiba did not differ [on the ruling that] where a man betrothed one of five women, and he does not know which of them he betrothed, he leaves the <i>kethubah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sum due to a woman on being divorced. (V. Glos.). ');">²</span> among them and withdraws;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He need not give them more than the amount of one kethubah since he had betrothed no more than one woman. It is for the women themselves to come to an agreement on the disposal of that sum. ');">³</span> they differ only in the case where cohabitation occurred, R. Tarfon ruling that the man leaves the <i>kethubah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sum due to a woman on being divorced. (V. Glos.). ');">²</span>

לא נחלקו רבי טרפון ורבי עקיבא על שלקח מקח מחמשה בני אדם ואין יודע מאיזה מהן לקח שמניח דמי מקח ביניהן ומסתלק לא נחלקו אלא שגזל מחמשה שאמר ר' טרפון מניח גזילה ביניהם ומסתלק ורבי עקיבא אומר עד שישלם גזילה לכל אחד ואחד

among them and withdraws, while R. Akiba ruled [that the man is not exempt from transgression] unless he pays<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The full amount of her kethubah. ');">⁷</span> everyone of them. R. Tarfon and R. Akiba. furthermore, did not differ on [the ruling that] where a person bought something from five men and does not know from which of them he bought, he may leave the price of the purchase among them and depart; they differ only in the case where a person robbed one of five men, R. Tarfon ruling that the man must deposit the amount of the robbery among them and may then depart, while R. Akiba ruled [that the man is not exonerated] unless he pays [the amount of the] robbery to everyone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Yeb. XIV. ');">⁸</span> Now, since R. Simeon b. Eleazar said that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Tarfon and R. Akiba. ');">⁹</span>

מדקאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר בקידש ולקח לא פליגי מכלל דתנא קמא סבר פליגי מני

do not differ in the case where a man betrothed or purchased, it may be inferred that the first Tanna is of the opinion that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Tarfon and R. Akiba. ');">⁹</span> did differ. Whose [view then, is presented in our Mishnah]? If it is that of the first Tanna 'betrothal' and purchase should have been mentioned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not those of 'betrothal' and robbery ');">¹⁰</span> and if [it is that of] R. Simeon b. Eleazar cohabitation and 'robbery' should have been mentioned!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not those if betrothal and 'robbery'. ');">¹¹</span>

אי תנא קמא ליתני קידש ולקח אי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר ליתני בעל וגזל

— [Our Mishnah represents] in fact [the view of] N. Simeon b. Eleazar, but the meaning of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., and what'. ');">¹²</span> BETROTHED is betrothal through cohabitation'. BETROTHED was used in order to acquaint you how far R. Akiba is prepared to go,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'with the power'. ');">¹³</span> as he imposes a penalty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the man must pay the amount if her kethubah to each one of the five women. ');">¹⁴</span>

לעולם רבי שמעון בן אלעזר ומאי קידש קידש בביאה תנא קידש להודיעך כחו דרבי עקיבא

even where one transgressed a Rabbinic prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is only Rabbinically that betrothal through cohabitation is forbidden. Pentateuchally it constitutes a proper kinyan. ');">¹⁵</span> only; and ROBBED was taught in order to acquaint you how far N. Tarfon is prepared to go, as he imposes no penalties<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining as he does that one single sum equal to the amount of the robbery exonerates the robber from all further liability. ');">¹⁶</span> even where one had transgressed a Pentateuchal prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prohibition of robbery was specifically mentioned in the Pentateuch, ');">¹⁷</span>

דאע"ג דאיסורא דרבנן עבד קניס תנא גזל להודיעך כחו דרבי טרפון דאע"ג דאיסורא דאורייתא עבד לא קניס:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A WOMAN WHO WENT WITH HER HUSBAND TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA, HER SON ALSO [GOING] WITH THEM, AND WHO CAME BACK AND STATED, 'MY HUSBAND DIED AND AFTERWARDS MY SON DIED', IS BELIEVED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is exempt from levirate marriage and halizah. Her statement is accepted since thereby she is merely confirming the status in which she found herself before her departure. At that time she had a son who exempted her from the levirate bond; and now that her husband died before that son she is still entitled to the same exemption. Her admission of her son's death does not affect her status, since she is the only source of the information, and as her word is accepted in respect of the death it must be similarly accepted in respect of its date. ');">¹⁸</span> [IF, HOWEVER, SHE STATED.] 'MY SON DIED AND AFTERWARDS MY HUSBAND DIED'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that she is in consequence subject to the levirate bond. ');">¹⁹</span> SHE IS NOT BELIEVED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because her assertion would alter the status in which she was confirmed prior to her departure. Such alteration cannot be authorized in view of the possibility that her report might be due to a desire to marry the levir. ');">²⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האשה שהלכה היא ובעלה למדינת הים ובנה עמהם ובאת ואמרה מת בעלי ואחר כך מת בני נאמנת מת בני ואחר כך מת בעלי אינה נאמנת וחוששין לדבריה וחולצת ולא מתייבמת

BUT NOTE IS TAKEN OF HER ASSERTION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, at any rate, her statement has impaired her former status. ');">²¹</span> AND SHE MUST, THEREFORE, PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before she may be permitted to marry a stranger. ');">²²</span> AND MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She herself having testified that she was forbidden to the levir. ');">²³</span>

ניתן לי בן במדינת הים ואמרה מת בני ואחר כך מת בעלי נאמנת מת בעלי ואחר כך מת בני אינה נאמנת וחוששין לדבריה וחולצת ולא מתייבמת

[IF A WOMAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had no children at the time she left her home town. ');">²⁴</span> STATES].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On returning from across the sea. ');">²⁵</span> 'A SON WAS GIVEN TO ME [WHILE I WAS] IN A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA' AND SHE ALSO ASSERTS, 'MY SON DIED AND AFTERWARDS MY HUSBAND DIED', SHE IS BELIEVED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And remains subject to the levirate bond and may perform halizah or contract levirate marriage. Her statement is accepted because it confirms the status in which she was established prior to her departure. Cf. supra p. 836. n. 11 mutatis mutandis. ');">²⁶</span>

ניתן לי יבם במדינת הים אמרה מת בעלי ואחר כך מת יבמי יבמי ואחר כך בעלי נאמנת

[IF, HOWEVER, SHE STATES]. 'MY HUSBAND DIED AND AFTERWARDS MY SON DIED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that, were her statement to be accepted, she would be exempt from the levirate bond to which, in virtue of her former status, she is still subject. ');">²⁷</span> SHE IS NOT BELIEVED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 2 mutatis mutandis. As a rule, a woman is supposed to hate her brother-in-law. ');">²⁸</span> BUT NOTE IS TAKEN OF HER ASSERTION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 3. ');">²⁹</span>

הלכה היא ובעלה ויבמה למדינת הים אמרה מת בעלי ואחר כך יבמי יבמי ואחר כך בעלי אינה נאמנת שאין האשה נאמנת לומר מת יבמי שתנשא ולא מתה אחותה שתכנס לביתו ואין האיש נאמן לומר מת אחי שייבם אשתו ולא מתה אשתו שישא אחותה:

AND SHE MUST, THEREFORE, PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 4. ');">³⁰</span> BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 5. ');">³¹</span> [19 F A WOMAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was known to have no brother-in-law. ');">³²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן המזכה גט לאשתו במקום יבם מהו כיון דסניא ליה זכות הוא לה וזכין לאדם שלא בפניו או דלמא כיון דזימנין דרחמא ליה חוב הוא לה ואין חבין לאדם שלא בפניו

STATES]. 'A BROTHER-IN-LAW WAS GIVEN TO ME [WHILE I WAS] IN A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., her mother-in-law, who was with her overseas, gave birth to a son during their stay there. ');">³³</span> AND SHE ALSO STATES, 'MY HUSBAND DIED AND AFTERWARDS MY BROTHER-IN-LAW DIED OR 'MY BROTHER-IN-LAW DIED AND AFTERWARDS MY HUSBAND DIED', SHE IS BELIEVED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in either case she only confirms her former status. Cf. supra p. 836. n. 11 mutatis mutandis. ');">³⁴</span> IF A WOMAN AND HER HUSBAND AND HER BROTHER-IN-LAW WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA, AND SHE [ON RETURNING HOME] STATED, 'MY HUSBAND DIED AND AFTERWARDS MY BROTHER-IN-LAW [DIED]' OR 'MY BROTHER-IN-LAW [DIED] AND AFTERWARDS MY HUSBAND [DIED]'. SHE IS NOT BELIEVED; FOR A WOMAN IS NOT TO BE BELIEVED WHEN SHE ASSERTS 'MY BROTHER-IN-LAW IS DEAD', IN ORDER THAT SHE MAY MARRY AGAIN. NOR [WHEN SHE STATES THAT] HER SISTER IS DEAD. IN ORDER THAT SHE MAY ENTER HIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her sister's husband's. ');">³⁵</span>

אמר ליה תנינא וחוששין לדבריה וחולצת ולא מתייבמת

HOUSE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to marry him, which she is forbidden to do during the lifetime of her sister. ');">³⁶</span> A MAN ALSO IS NOT BELIEVED WHEN HE ASSERTS 'MY BROTHER IS DEAD', SO THAT HE MAY CONTRACT LEVIR' ATE MARRIAGE WITH HIS WIFE, NOR [WHEN HE ASSERTS THAT] HIS WIFE IS DEAD, IN ORDER THAT HE MAY MARRY HER SISTER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 2 mutatis mutandis. ');">³⁷</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Raba enquired of R. Nahman: What [is the legal position] if a husband transferred to his wife [through an agent]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom the childless husband had asked to act on behalf of his wife, his intention being to spare her from the levirate obligations on his death. Elsewhere a divorce is invalid unless it had actually been delivered into the woman's hands or into those of an agent who was duly appointed by her. ');">³⁸</span>

אמר ליה רבינא לרבא המזכה גט לאשתו במקום קטטה מהו כיון דאית לה קטטה בהדיה זכות הוא לה או דלמא ניחא דגופא עדיף לה תא שמע דאמר ריש לקיש טב למיתב טן דו מלמיתב ארמלו

the possession of a letter of divorce, where a brother-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom she would be subject in the absence of a letter of divorce. ');">³⁹</span> is in existence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the place of'. ');">⁴⁰</span> [Is the divorce], since she [usually] hates her brother. in-law, an advantage to her and [consequently valid, because] a privilege may be conferred upon a person in his absence; or is it possible [that the divorce], since she sometimes loves her brother-in-law, is a disadvantage to her and [consequently invalid because] no disadvantage may be imposed upon a person in his absence? The other replied. We have learned this: NOTE IS TAKEN OF HER ASSERTION AND SHE MUST, THEREFORE, PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i>. BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this is the ruling in our Mishnah both in the case where It is assumed that she loves the levir (cf. supra p. 837, n. 2) and in that where she is assumed to hate him (cf. supra p. 837. n. 10). it is obvious that it is uncertain whether a divorce given in the circumstance described by Raba is an advantage or a disadvantage to the woman. The legal position in such a case would consequently be that the woman would have to perform halizah but would not be permitted levirate marriage. ');">⁴¹</span>

אביי אמר דשומשמנא גברא כורסיה בי חרתא רמו לה רב פפא אמר דנפצא גברא תיקרי בסיפי בבא ותיתיב

Said Rabina to Raba: What [is the legal decision] if a husband transferred to his wife [through an agent]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 838. n' 4. ');">⁴²</span> the possession of a letter of divorce at a time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the place of'. ');">⁴³</span> when a quarrel [raged between them]? [Is the divorce], since she has a quarrel with her husband, an advantage to her or [is it a disadvantage, since] the gratification of bodily desires is possibly preferred by her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She might prefer a married life in quarrels to a peaceful life of separation. ');">⁴⁴</span>

רב אשי אומר דקולסא גברא לא בעיא טלפחי לקידרא תנא וכולן מזנות ותולות בבעליהן:

— Come and hear what Resh Lakish said: 'It is preferable to live in grief<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'together', 'as husband and wife'. V. following note. ');">⁴⁵</span> than to dwell in widowhood'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman's maxim. She prefers an unhappy life in a married state to a happy one in solitude. [H] 'with a load of grief', 'in trouble' (last.). According to Rashi, [H] = 'two bodies' (cf. supra n. 4). Levy compares it with the Pers., tandu, 'two persons'. ');">⁴⁶</span> Abaye said: 'With a husband [of the size of an] ant her seat is placed among the great'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A proverb. [H] a free woman, ');">⁴⁷</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך האשה שלום</strong></big><br><br>

R. Papa said: Though her husband be a carder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'flax-beater'; Aruk, [H] 'a watchman of vegetables'; a very poor and humble occupation. ');">⁴⁸</span> she calls him to the threshold and sits down [at his side].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To show her friends that she is a married woman. She is proud of her husband despite his lowly social status. ');">⁴⁹</span> R. Ashi said: If her husband is only a cabbage-head<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'dull', or 'ugly' (cf. last.); 'of a tainted family' (Rashi). ');">⁵⁰</span> she requires no lentils<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarded as a cheap food. ');">⁵¹</span> for her pot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sake of a married life, a woman willingly renounces all other pleasures. even the enjoyment of the poorest meal. ');">⁵²</span> A Tanna taught: All such women<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and all of them', those married to the unlovely types of husband mentioned. ');">⁵³</span> play the harlot and attribute the results<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and hang (it) on'. ');">⁵⁴</span> to their husbands.