Yevamot 62

Chapter 62

א וארעא אוקמא בחזקת בר שטיא

1 and let the land remain in the possession of the lunatic! — Rather, said Abaye. Its friend telleth concerning it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XXXVI, 33. [H], (E.V., the noise thereof) is here rendered its friend. The text is taken to imply that passages in close proximity are to be compared to one another and what is applicable to one is to be applied to the other also. ');">1 that which was taught in connection with betrothal2 is also to be applied to divorce,3

ב אלא אמר אביי (איוב לו, לג) יגיד עליו ריעו תנא בקידושין וה"ה לגירושין תנא בגירושין וה"ה לקידושין

2 and what was taught in connection with divorce4 is also to be applied to betrothal. Said Raba to him: If its friend telleth concerning it' what was the object of stating THIS IS?5

ג א"ל רבא אי יגיד עליו ריעו מאי זהו דקתני

3 -Rather, said Raba, whatever is applicable to betrothal6 is also to be applied to divorce, but certain points are applicable to divorce,7 which cannot be applied to betrothal. And THIS IS8

ד אלא אמר רבא כל שיש בקידושין יש בגירושין ויש בגירושין מה שאין בקידושין וזהו דגירושין לאו דוקא אלא משום דתנא זהו בקידושין תנא נמי זהו בגירושין וזהו דקידושין למעוטי מאי למעוטי זמן דליכא בקידושין

4 which was mentioned in the case of divorce is not to be taken literally. as THIS IS was used in connection with betrothal9 only because it was also used in connection with divorce. What was THIS IS mentioned in connection with betrothal meant to exclude? — To exclude the question of date which is inapplicable to betrothal.10

ה ומפני מה לא תקנו זמן בקידושין הניחא למ"ד משום פירי ארוסה לית לה פירי

5 And wherefore was no date ordained to be entered in [documents of] betrothal? This11 may well be satisfactorily explained according to him who holds [that the date is required In a letter of divorce]12 on account of the usufruct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the wife is entitled to reclaim from her husband, in respect of her estate, from the date of her letter of divorce, though the document itself may not have been delivered to her until a much later date. v. Git. 17a. ');">13

ו אלא למ"ד משום בת אחותו ליתקין זמן

6 since a betrothed woman has no [need to reclaim] usufruct — 14 According to him, however, who holds [that it15 was ordained] on account of one's sister's daughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was his wife and had committed adultery. Her uncle, in his desire to protect her, might supply her with an undated letter of divorce which would enable her to escape her due punishment by pleading that the offence had been committed after she had been divorced. ');">16 the insertion of a date should have been ordained [in the case of betrothal also]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a betrothed woman also possessing an undated document of betrothal could protect herself against punishment for adultery. by pleading that the offence had been committed prior to the betrothal. ');">17

ז משום דאיכא דמקדש בכספא ואיכא דמקדש בשטרא לא תקון רבנן זמן

7 — Since some men betroth with money18 and others betroth with a document the Rabbis did not ordain the inclusion of a date. Said R. Aha son of R. Joseph to R. Ashi: What about the case of a slave of whom some acquire possession by means of money and others by means of a deed, yet the inclusion of a date has nevertheless been ordained by the Rabbis! — In that case19

ח א"ל רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף לרב אשי והא עבדא דאיכא דקני בכספא ואיכא בשטרא ותקון רבנן זמן התם רובא בשטרא הכא רובא בכספא

8 acquisition is generally by means of a deed; here,20 it is generally by means of money. If you prefer I might say: Because it is impossible.21 For how should one proceed? Were it22

ט אב"א משום דלא אפשר היכי ליעביד לינחה גבי דידה מחקה ליה לינחה גבי דידיה זמנין דבת אחותו היא ומחפה עלה

9 to be left with her, she might erase it.23 Were it22 to be left with him, it might happen that the betrothed might be his sister's daughter and he would shield her.24

י לינחה גבי עדים אי דזכירי ליתו ליסהוד ואי לא זמנין דחזו מכתבא ואתו מסהדי ורחמנא אמר מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם

10 Were it to be left with the witnesses-well, if they remember25 they could come and tender their evidence;26 and if they do not,27

יא אי הכי בגירושין נמי נימא הכי התם להצלה דידה קאתי הכא לחובה דידה קאתי:

11 they may sometimes consult the document and then come and tender evidence, while the All Merciful said, 'out of their mouth'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XVII, 6, At the mouth of two witnesses etc., which is taken to imply that evidence must be given from memory (the witnesses' own mouth) and not from information obtained from a written document. V. Git. 71a. ');">28 but not out of their writing. If so, let the same argument29 be applied to divorce also! — There,30

יב <big>מתני׳</big> ג' אחין נשואין ג' נכריות ומת אחד מהן ועשה בה השני מאמר ומת הרי אלו חולצות ולא מתייבמות

12 it31 comes to save her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless she produced it, were she ever to be accused of adultery. she would certainly be condemned since she was known as a married woman. The letter of divorce being her sole protection, it being the sole proof that her married state had ended, she should in her own interest carefully preserve it intact for fear that should she tamper with it, the deed may be declared invalid. (Cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.). ');">32 here,33

יג שנאמר (דברים כה, ה) ומת אחד מהן יבמה יבא עליה שעליה זיקת יבם אחד ולא שעליה זיקת ב' יבמין רבי שמעון אומר מייבם לאיזו שירצה וחולץ לשניה:

13 it31 comes to condemn her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The document is proof that she had passed out of her unmarried state and that henceforward she is forbidden to all men except her betrothed. She (or any friend of hers) is not anxious to preserve such a document; and, should an accusation of adultery ever be brought against her, she could either destroy it or erase the date and claim her previously confirmed status of an unmarried woman. Hence no date was ordained to be included. ');">34 MISHNAH. IN THE CASE WHERE THREE BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO THREE WOMEN WHO WERE STRANGERS [TO ONE ANOTHER]. AND ONE OF THEM HAVING DIED35

יד <big>גמ׳</big> ואי זיקת ב' יבמין דאורייתא חליצה נמי לא תיבעי אלא מדרבנן וגזירה שמא יאמרו ב' יבמות הבאות מבית אחד מתייבמות

14 THE SECOND BROTHER ADDRESSED TO HER36 A MA'AMAR37 AND DIED, BEHOLD, THESE38

טו ונייבם לחדא וניחלוץ לחדא גזירה שמא יאמרו בית אחד מקצתו בנוי

15 MUST PERFORM HALIZAH39 BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE; FOR IT IS SAID. AND ONE OF THEM DIED [ETC.] HER HUSBAND'S BROTHER SHALL GO IN UNTO HER.40 ONLY SHE WHO IS BOUND TO ONE LEVIR41 BUT NOT SHE WHO IS BOUND TO TWO LEVIRS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first to whom she was bound by the levirate tie and the second to whom she is bound by the ma'amar. A ma'amar of a levir, unlike his levirate marriage. cannot sever the bond between the widow and her deceased husband-the levirate tie. ');">42 R. SIMEON SAID: HE MAY TAKE IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WHICHEVER OF THESE HE WISHES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra 19a. If the ma'amar has the validity of marriage, the surviving levir is marrying his second brother's wife, and if a ma'amar is invalid he is marrying either the wife of his first brother or the wife of the second. ');">43 AND THEN PARTICIPATE IN THE HALIZAH WITH THE OTHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levirate marriage of the one cannot exempt the other from the halizah, since it is possible that a ma'amar is invalid and the two widows are consequently of different brothers. He may not marry the two, since a ma'amar may be valid and he would thus be marrying two widows of the same brother. ');">44 GEMARA. If, however, the levirate bond with two levirs45 is Pentateuchal,46 even halizah should not be required! — But it47 is only Rabbinical,48 a preventive measure having been enacted against the possible assumption that two sisters-in-law coming from the same house49 may both be taken in levirate marriage. Then let one be taken in levirate marriage and the other be required to perform halizah! — A preventive measure has been enacted against the possible assumption that one house was partially built

Previous Chapter Next Chapter