Yevamot 61

כיון דקא מצרכת חליצה מידע ידעי דחומרא בעלמא הוא א"ה גירושין נמי ליתני וליצרכה חליצה ומידע ידעי דחומרא בעלמא הוא

— Since she is required to perform <i>halizah</i> it is sufficiently known that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to take her in levirate marriage. ');">¹</span> is a mere restriction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is not due to the fact that the betrothal of the forbidden relative was valid. ');">²</span> If so, let him, in the case of divorce also,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of betrothal. ');">³</span>

אם אתה אומר חולצת מתייבמת הכא נמי אם אתה אומר חולצת מתייבמת ותתייבם ואין בכך כלום אחזקה קא קיימא

state it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of uncertainty as to whether the letter of divorce rested nearer to the husband or nearer to the wife (v. our Mishnah). ');">⁴</span> and require her to perform <i>halizah</i>, and it will be sufficiently known that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The halizah. ');">⁵</span> Was a mere restriction!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that levirate marriage was forbidden to her. ');">⁶</span>

איתיביה אביי נפל הבית עליו ועל בת אחיו ואין ידוע איזה מהם מת ראשון צרתה חולצת ולא מתייבמת

— Were you to say that she was to perform <i>halizah</i> it might also be assumed that she may be taken in levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And by marrying the rival of a forbidden relative one might become subject to the penalty of kareth. ');">⁷</span> But here also,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of doubtful betrothal. ');">⁸</span> were you to say that she is to perform <i>halizah</i>, she might also be taken in levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And by marrying the rival of a forbidden relative one might become subject to the penalty of kareth. ');">⁷</span>

אמאי הכא נמי נימא אשה זו בחזקת היתר לשוק עומדת ומספק אתה בא לאוסרה אל תאסרנה מספק

-Well, let her be taken in levirate marriage and it will not matter at all since thereby she only retains her former status.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of being permitted to marry the levir. ');">⁹</span> Abaye raised the following objection against him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah. ');">¹⁰</span> If the house collapsed upon him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was childless. ');">¹¹</span>

וכי תימא ה"נ לחומרא חומרא דאתי לידי קולא הוא שאם אתה אומר חולצת מתייבמת גירושין דשכיחי גזרו בהו רבנן מפולת דלא שכיחי לא גזרו בהו רבנן

and upon his brother's daughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom he had been married. ');">¹²</span> and it is not known which of them had died first, her rival must perform <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the daughter's father, the brother of the deceased. Though the dead woman was his forbidden relative, since it is possible that she had been killed before the man, her rival becomes subject to the obligation of performing halizah. ');">¹³</span> but may not contract the levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 67b. Since it is also possible that the man was killed first and the rival remained forbidden to the levir as the rival of his daughter. ');">¹⁴</span>

אי נמי גירושין דקיימא ערוה דקא מוכח וצרתה קמצרכת לה חליצה אמרי קמו ביה רבנן בגיטא דגיטא מעליא הוא ואתו לייבומי לצרה מפולת מי קמו בהו רבנן במפולת

But why? Here also it may be said, 'This woman finds herself in the status of permissibility to all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 192, n. 12. ');">¹⁵</span> would you forbid her [marriage on the basis] of a doubt? You must not forbid her [on the basis] of a doubt'! And should you suggest that here also the prohibition is due to a restriction, [it may be retorted that] it is a restriction which may result in a relaxation, for should you say that she is to perform the <i>halizah</i> she might also be taken in levirate marriage! — In respect of divorce which is of frequent occurrence the Rabbis enacted a preventive measure;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That wherever the divorce is doubtful the rival must not perform halizah in order that this performance might not lead also to levirate marriage. ');">¹⁶</span> in respect of the collapse of a house which is not of frequent occurrence the Rabbis did not enact any preventive measure. Or else:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It may be replied. ');">¹⁷</span>

וגבי גירושין מי לא תנן והתנן היתה עומדת ברה"ר וזרקו לה קרוב לה מגורשת קרוב לו אינה מגורשת מחצה על מחצה מגורשת ואינה מגורשת

In the case of divorce, where the forbidden relative is demonstrably alive, were her rival to be required to perform <i>halizah</i>, it might have been thought that the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The scholars or experts who dealt with the case. ');">¹⁸</span> had ascertained that the letter of divorce was a valid document,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the forbidden relative was no more the wife of the deceased. ');">¹⁹</span> and the rival might, therefore, be taken in levirate marriage. In the case of a house that has collapsed. however, could the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The scholars or experts who dealt with the case. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואמרינן למאי הלכתא דאי כהן הוא אסורה ליה ואי ערוה היא צרתה בעיא חליצה ולא אמרינן שאם אתה אומר חולצת מתייבמת

have ascertained [who was first killed] in the ruin!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It would be obvious, therefore, that the requirement of halizah was a mere restriction. ');">²⁰</span> Have we not learned a similar law in the case of divorce? Surely we learned: If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife. ');">²¹</span> stood in a public domain, and he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband. ');">²²</span>

הא איתמר עלה רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרווייהו הכא בשתי כיתי עדים עסקינן אחת אומרת קרוב לה ואחת אומרת קרוב לו דהוה ליה ספיקא דאורייתא ומתניתין דהכא בכת אחת דה"ל ספיקא דרבנן

threw it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The letter of divorce. ');">²³</span> to her, she is divorced if it fell nearer to her; but if nearer to him she is not divorced. If it was equidistant,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'half on half'. ');">²⁴</span> she is divorced and not divorced. And when it was asked, 'What is the practical effect of this',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement that she is divorced and not divorced. ');">²⁵</span>

וממאי דמתניתין דהכא בכת אחת דומיא דקדושין מה קדושין בכת אחת אף גרושין בכת אחת וקדושין גופייהו ממאי דבכת אחת דלמא בב' כיתי עדים אי בב' כיתי עדים תתייבם ואין בכך כלום

[the reply was] that if he was a priest she is forbidden to him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest must not marry or continue to live with a divorced woman. ');">²⁶</span> and if she is a forbidden relative, her rival must perform the <i>halizah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 78a. ');">²⁷</span> We do not say, however, that were you to rule that she must perform <i>halizah</i> she might also be taken in levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that even in the case of divorce no preventive measure has been enacted. ');">²⁸</span>

קיימי עדים וקאמרי קרוב לה ואת אמרת תתייבם ואין בכך כלום ותו בשתי כיתי עדים נמי ספיקא דרבנן היא דאמרי' אוקי תרי לבהדי תרי ואשה אוקמה אחזקה

-Concerning this statement, surely, it was said: Both Rabbah and R. Joseph maintain that here we are dealing with two groups of witnesses, one of which declare that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The letter of divorce. ');">²³</span> was nearer to her and the other declares that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The letter of divorce. ');">²³</span> was nearer to him, which creates a doubt involving a Pentateuchal [prohibition] — 29 Our Mishnah, however, speaks of one group.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One witness of which is contradicting the other. ');">³⁰</span>

מידי דהוה אנכסי דבר שטיא דבר שטיא זבין נכסי אתו בי תרי ואמרי כשהוא חלים זבין ואתו בי תרי ואמרו כשהוא שוטה זבין ואמר רב אשי אוקי תרי להדי תרי

where the doubt involved is only Rabbinical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, in the matter of betrothal, where the rival enjoyed the status of permissibility to the levir, the law that halizah is required in the case of such contradictory evidence could well be applied, since she cannot be deprived of her status by the evidence of the single witness who states that the token of betrothal was nearer to her. In the case of divorce, however, where the rival has the status of permissibility to marry any stranger, the law that halizah is required in the case of contradictory evidence of two single witnesses could not be applied. since the evidence of one witness is not sufficient to deprive her of that right. particularly as it can also be claimed that were she required to perform halizah she might be taken in levirate marriage also. ');">³¹</span> Whence is it proved that our Mishnah speaks of one group? — On analogy with betrothal:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Divorce and betrothal being mentioned side by side in this Mishnah. ');">³²</span> As in betrothal only one group is involved so also in divorce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had it been included in our Mishnah. ');">³³</span> one group only could be involved. Whence is it known that in betrothal itself only one group is involved? Is it not possible that it involves two groups of witnesses! — If two groups of witnesses had been involved, she would have been allowed to contract the levirate marriage, and no wrong would have been done.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the evidence of one pair would have been sufficient to confirm the rival in her status of permissibility to the levir. Hence, as levirate marriage was forbidden it cannot be a case of two groups of witnesses. ');">³⁴</span> Witnesses stand and declare that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The token of betrothal. ');">³⁵</span> was nearer to her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus presenting a Pentateuchal doubt (cf. supra p. 195. n. 9). ');">³⁶</span> and you say that she may be taken in levirate marriage and no wrong will be done!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This, surely. might result in the breach of a Pentateuchal law! ');">³⁷</span> Furthermore, even where two groups of witnesses are involved the doubt is only Rabbinical, since it might be said 'Put one pair against the other and let the woman retain her original status'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why. then, even in the case of divorce itself, when the two groups of witnesses cancel each other, should the rival, who was hitherto in a state of permissibility to marry anyone. be required to perform halizah! ');">³⁸</span> This indeed is similar to [the incident with] the estate of a certain lunatic. For a certain lunatic once sold some property. and a pair of witnesses came and declared that he had effected the sale while in a sound state of mind, and another pair came and declared that the sale was effected while he was in a state of lunacy. And R. Ashi said: Put two against two