יבמות י׳Yevamot 10

Mishnah

משנה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ נִשֵּׂאת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַּעֲלָהּ תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וּצְרִיכָה גֵט מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְאֵין לָהּ לא כְּתוּבָּה. וְלֹא פֵירוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה. וְאִם נָטְלָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה תַּחֲזִיר וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. וְלֹא זֶה וְזֶה מִטַּמְּאִין לָהּ. וְלֹא זֶה וְזֶה זַכָּאִים לֹא בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וְלֹא בְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. הָיְתָה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. וּבַת לֵוִי מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וּבַת כֹּהֵן מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵין יוֹרְשָׁיו שֶׁל זֶה וְלֹא יוֹרְשָׁיו שֶּׁל זֶה יוֹרְשִׁין אֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. מֵתוּ אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶֶה וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין.

MISHNAH: A woman’s husband went overseas and some persons came and told her, your husband died. If she remarried and then the husband returned, she has to leave both husbands, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

Halakhah

הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם כול׳. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתָן שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים שֶׁמָּא מְעוֹבָּרוֹת הֵן. וְאִם הָיוּ קְטַנּוֹת וְלֹא הָיוּ רְאוּיוֹת לְוְולָד מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתָן מִיָּד. וְאָמַר אַף הָכָא כֵן. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא תַמָּן שֶׁאֲחֵרִים הִטְעוּ בָהֶן. וְהָכָא לֹא אֲחֵרִים הִטְעוּ בָהּ. קְנָס קָנְסוּ בָהּ שֶׁתְּהֵא בוֹדֶקֶת יָפֶה. וְיִקְנְסוּ בָה אֶצֶל הַשֵּׁינִי וְלֹא יִקְנְסוּ בָה אֶצֶל הָרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵרֵיחַ עֶרְוָה נָגְעוּ בָהּ. מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לוֹ דֶרֶךְ הֵיתֵר. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אוֹמֵר אֲנִי. שֶׁמָּא שִׁילַּח לָהּ גִיטָּהּ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם. הָתִיב רִבִּי חַגַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. אָמְרוּ לָהּ. מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ. וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא [בַעֲלָהּ]. מוּתֶּרֶת לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. שֶׁמָּא שִׁילַּח לָהּ גִיטָּהּ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם. תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן כִּיפֵּר. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן כִּיפֵּר אָמַר. מִן הָאֵירוּסִין מוּתֶּרֶת. וְלֹא מוֹדֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן כִּיפֵּר שֶׁאִם נָתַן לָהּ הָאַחֲרוֹן גֵּט לֹא פְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ הָאַחֲרוֹן גֵּט לֹא פְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא. כְּדֵי לְבָרֵר אִיסּוּרוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן.

HALAKHAH: “A woman’s husband went overseas,” etc. As you say there, “these women one separates for three months to see whether they are pregnant. If they were minors not yet able to have a child one returns them at once.” Should one not say the same here? There is a difference, since there others deceived them. Did here not also others deceive them? They instituted a fine so that she should investigate carefully. Then they should fine her with respect to the second [husband] but not with respect to the first! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Then she should not need a bill of divorce from him! There is a difference since she was married to him in a lawful manner. Samuel said, I say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did we not state: “If they said to her, your husband has died, she was betrothed and then her husband came, she is permitted to return to him.” If you say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas; should she not be forbidden to return to him? But it must follow Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, as Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said, from betrothal it is permitted. Did Rebbi Yose ben Kipper not agree that if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce that she was not disabled from priesthood? As we have stated, “even if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce, she was not disabled from priesthood.” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Hila: In order to make clear the prohibition of the first.

עַד כְּדוֹן בְּיוֹדַעַת שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. לֹא הָיְתָה יוֹדַעַת שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. קְטַנָּה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְהָלְכָה וְהִשִּׂיאָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. תַּנֵּי תַּמָּן. כָּל הַעֲרָיוֹת אֵינָן צְרִיכוֹת הִימֶּינּוּ גֵט חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בִּלְבָד. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אַף אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא תַּמָּן בֵּין שֶׁהִיא יוֹדַעַת בֵּין שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת. וְהָכָא לֹא שַׁנְיָיא בֵּין שֶׁהִיא יוֹדַעַת בֵּין שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת.

So far if she knows that she is a married woman. What if she did not know that she was a married woman? Let us hear from the following: An underage girl who was married off by her father. She was divorced and went and married on her own. About this Rebbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister and his brother’s wife. Is there a difference? There, whether she knows or does not know, here also whether she knows or does not know.

וְלֹא פֵירוֹת. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אֲבִינָא. שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת שֶׁאָכַל. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁאָכַל עַד שֶּׁלֹּא בָא הָרִאשׁוֹן. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל מִשֶּׁבָּא הָרִאשׁוֹן מוֹצִיאָה.

“Nor usufruct.” Rebbi Avina said, that she cannot recover from him the usufruct he took. That means, before the first [husband] returned. But if he took after the return of the first, she can recover.

וְאִם נָטְלָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה תַּחֲזוֹר. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁנָּטְלָה מִשֶּׁבָּא הָרִאשׁוֹן. אֲבָל אִם נָטְלָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָא הָרִאשׁוֹן כְּמָא דְלָא מַפְקָה מִינֵּיהּ כֵּן לֹא מַפְקֵא מִינָּהּ.

“And if she took anything one takes it away from her.” That means, if she took something after the first [husband] returned. But if she took before the first returned, just as she cannot take from him so he cannot take from her.

וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. נִיחָא דִוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִן הַשֵּׁינִי. הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי [זְעִירָה] אָמַר. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הִיא. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. הַבָּא עַל סוֹטָתוֹ הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. הַמַּחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָּׁתוֹ מִשְּׁנִּישֵּׂאת הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הַוְולָד כָּשֵּׁר. כְּגִיטָּהּ כֵּן מַמְזֵירָהּ. מַה נְפַק מן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. נָתַן לָהּ הַשֵּׁינִי גֵט וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ הָרִאשׁוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָה הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הַוְולָד כָּשֵּׁר.

“Any child from either of the men is a bastard.” One understands that the child is a bastard from the second [husband]. Is it a bastard from the first? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba says if a man copulates with his wife whom he accuses of infidelity the child is a bastard, if a man takes back his divorcee after she had remarried the child is a bastard. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable; the status of her bill of divorce is the status of her bastardy. What is the difference between them? If the second one gave her a bill of divorce and then the first one copulated with her. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the child is a bastard following Rebbi Aqiba; in the opinion of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable.

לֹא זֶה וְזֶה מִיטַּמִּין לָהּ. הָדָא הִיא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. מִטַּמֵּא הוּא אָדָם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ כְשֵׁירָה. וְאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ פְסוּלָה.

“Neither of them may defile himself for her.” That is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A man defiles himself for his acceptable wife but he does not defile himself for his disqualified wife.”

אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. תֵּצֵא בִשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דָּבָר. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. תֵּצֵא בְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר דָּבָר. מָאן דָּמַר. תֵּצֵא בִשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דָּבָר. עֲבַד בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ חָדָא. וּמָאן דָּמַר. בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר דָּבָר. עֲבַד כָּל חָדָא וְחָדָא מִינְּהוֹן חָדָא.

Some Tannaim state, she leaves under thirteen disabilities, but some Tannaim state, she leaves under fourteen disabilities. He who says that she leaves under thirteen disabilities takes what she finds and what she earns as one case, but he who says under fourteen disabilities takes each one by itself.

אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. לְוִיָּה שֶׁזִּינָת אוֹכֶלֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. לְוִיָּיה שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית אוֹ שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַפְּסוּלִין לָהּ לֹא כָל הֵימֶנָּה לְפוֹסְלָהּ. לְוִיִים הַמְזוּהָמִין מֵאִימָּן לֹא חָשׁוּ לָהֶם מִשּׁוּם רֵיחַ פְּסוּל. וְהָתַנִּינָן בַּת לֵוִי מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בֶן.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, the promiscuous levitic woman still eats tithe. One has stated thus: If a levitic woman was kidnapped or if any one barred for her copulated with her, he is not empowered to disable her. One does not suspect even a hint of disability for Levites who were compromised from their mother’s side. But did we not state: “the daughter of a Levite from tithe”? Rebbi Yose said, explain it that an Israel came upon her and she bore him a son.

רִבִּי בִּיסְנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁזִּינָת אוֹכֶלֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. בַּת כֹּהֵן מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. הָא בְמַעֲשֵׂר אוֹכֶלֶת. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין נוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי נָסָא. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן פְּלִיגִין. דְאָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹסִינָא בְשֵׁם רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה. כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל גְּרוּשָׁה וְהוֹלִיד בֶּן וּמֵת הָאָב. בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים הַבֶּן חַיָּיב לִפְדוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם חֲזָקָה שֶׁפְּדָייוֹ אָבִיו. וְאִם לָאֲחֵרִים הוּא פוֹדֶה לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בְּנוֹ.

Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A promiscuous priestly woman may eat tithe. Is that not the Mishnah: “the daughter of a Cohen from heave,” this implies that she eats tithe. It may follow him who says that tithe is not given to Cohanim. Rebbi Nasa said, the words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Hila, Simeon ben Yosina, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said: If a Cohen came upon a divorcee, had a son from her, and died. [If the father died] within thirty days [of the son’s birth], the son must redeem himself. After thirty days, the presumption is that his father redeemed him. If he redeems for others, certainly for his son.

וְלֹא כְּבָר תְּנִינָתָהּ. אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. בָּהּ קָנְסוּ וְלֹא קָנְסוּ בְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרִיךְ מֵימַר. אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה.

Had it not already been stated: “she has no ketubah”? Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, that you should not say, they fined her but not her heirs. Therefore it was necessary to say, she has no ketubah.

סוֹטָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ הִיא אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבַּעַל כָּךְ הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבּוֹעֵל. יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁצָּרַת סוֹטָה אֲסוּרָה לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבַּעַל כָּךְ תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבּוֹעֵל. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם. בָּאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ. מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ. וְהָיָה לָהּ יָבָם כָּאן וְיִבְּמָהּ וָמֵת. וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַּעֲלָהּ. אָסוּר בָּהּ וּמוּתָּר בְּצָרָתָהּ. אָסוּר בָהּ וּמוּתָּר בְּאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לֹא כְצָרַת סוֹטָה הִיא. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁצָּרַת סוֹטָה מוּתָּר לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבּוֹעֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. אַתְיָיא כְרַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא וְתַנֵּיי תַמָּן. כָּל הַעֲרָיוֹת אֵינָן צְרִיכוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בִּלְבָד. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אַף אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו (לֹא כְצָרַת סוֹטָה הִיא. הָדָא אָמְרָה. צָרַת סוֹטָה מוּתֶּרֶת לְאָחִיו שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל.) בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִן דְּהָכָא. רִבִּי חִיָיה אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה הִימֶּינּוּ גֵט מִשּׁוּם הֲלָכָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ קָנָה בָהּ. עֶרְוָה [הִיא]. וְעֶרְוָה פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. אֲפִילוּ כְרַבָנִן דְּהָכָא אַתְיָיא הִיא. בָּהּ קָנְסוּ וְלֹא קָנְסוּ בְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִילֵּל. אִם כְּרַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן יְהֵא מוּתָּר בָּהּ. רִבִּי זְעִירָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. צָרַת סוֹטָה אֲסוּרָה וְצָרַת גְּרוּשָׁה מוּתֶּרֶת. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל הַצָּרוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת חוּץ מִצָּרַת סוֹטָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. גְּרוּשָׁה עַצְמָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְבֵיתָהּ. מַה פְלִיג. בְּגִין דַּהֲווֹן עָסְקִין בְּצָרוֹת לֹא אִדְכָּרִין גְּרוּשׁוֹת. צָרַת סוֹטָה לָמָּה הִיא אֲסוּרָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מֵרֵיח עֶרְוָה נָגְעוּ בָהּ. רַב אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ טוּמְאָה כַעֲרָיוֹת.

Just as the woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. I might think that just as the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she should be forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Let us hear from the following: “A woman’s husband went overseas; they came and told her that her husband had died, and she had a levir here; he married her in levirate and died. Then her husband returned. She is forbidden to him but her co-widow is permitted to him; she is forbidden to him but his brother’s wife is permitted to him.” Is his brother’s wife not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That means that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother. Rebbi Judan said, this follows the rabbis there, as Rebbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister and his brother’s wife (not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That implies that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother.) But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, everybody agrees that his brother’s wife needs a bill of divorce from him because of the rule of a married wife. He married a person forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is accepted even according to the rabbis here. They fined her but not her heirs. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, according to the rabbis there, she should be permitted to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden, the co-wife of a divorcee is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All co-wives are permitted except the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity. Samuel said, the divorcee herself is permitted in her house. Does he disagree? Since they were discussing co-wives they did not mention divorcees. Why is the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity forbidden? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Rav said, because impurity is written there parallel to incest prohibitions.

Mishnah

משנה: רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן זַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֶׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר בִּיאָתָהּ אוֹ חֲלִיצָתָהּ מֵאָחִיו הָרִאשׁוֹן פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְאֵין הַוְולָד מִמֶּנּוּ מַמְזֵר. נִשֵּׂאת שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת מוּתֶּרֶת לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ. נִישֵּׂאת עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין תֵּצֵא וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. וְשֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין תֵּצֵא וְחַיֶיבֶת בַּקָּרְבָּן. יִיפָּה כֹּחַ שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁפְּטוּרָה מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. הוֹרוּהָ בֵּית דִּין לְהִינָּשֵׂא וְהָלְכָה וְקִלְקְלָה חַיֶּבֶת בַּקָּרְבָּן שֶׁלֹּא הִיתִּירוּהָ אֶלָּא לְהִינָּשֵׂא.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose says, her ketubah is from the property of her first husband. Rebbi Eleazar says, the first [husband] is entitled to what she finds and earns and may annul her vows. Rebbi Simeon says, copulation with her or ḥaliṣah with her by a brother of the first [husband] frees her co-wives and a child from him is not a bastard; if she was married without permission she is permitted to return to him. If she married by a decision of the court, she must leave but is free from the sacrifice; without a decision of the court, she must leave but must bring the sacrifice. The power of the court frees her from the sacrifice. If the court instructed her to marry but she misbehaved, she must bring a sacrifice since they permitted her only to marry.

Halakhah

הלכה: נִישֵּׂאת עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין כול׳. רִבִּי בָּא. רַב הַמְנוּנָא וְרִבִּי זְעִירָא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. זֶהוּ רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁלַּפֶּרֶק. מַה אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. כָּל שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים אֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. רַב הַמְנוּנָא וְרִבִּי זְעִירָא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. זֶהוּ רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁלַּפֶּרֶק. הָדָא אָמְרָה. לֹא חָלוּק רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים.

HALAKHAH: “If she married by a decision of the court,” etc. Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. This means that Rebbi Yose does not disagree about the other matters.

מַה אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר בִּכְתוּבָּה. מַה אִם דְּבָרִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ דֶרֶךְ אִיסּוּר אַתְּ אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי. כְּתוּבָּה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לוֹ דֶרֶךְ הֵיתֵר לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן.

What does Rebbi Eleazar say about ketubah? If you say that he is entitled to things that come to him in prohibition, then ketubah that came to him in permission certainly!

מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי לָעְזָר יוֹדוּן לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. הָדָא אָמְרָה עַל דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּיאָה פְסוּלָה פוֹטֶרֶת.

It is reasonable to say that Rebbi Eleazar agrees with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose does not agree with Rebbi Eleazar; Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Eleazar agree with Rebbi Simeon but Rebbi Simeon does not agree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Eleazar. This means that in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, invalid intercourse frees.

לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּלֹא נִיסֵּית בִּרְשׁוּת מוּתֶּרֶת. שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת אֲסוּרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עָשׂוּ בֵית דִּין הוֹרָיָיתָן בְּזָדוֹן אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה. נִישֵּׂאת שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת כְּשִׁגְּגַת אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית כָּאן פְּטוּרָה אֶלָּא חַיֶיבֶת. הָתִיב רִבִּי חַגַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וִיהֵא כֵן בְּהוֹרָיָיה. בְּשֶׁהוֹרוּ מוּתָּר לָבוֹא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. וְלֹא עֲקִירַת גּוּף הוּא. בְּשֶׁהוֹרוּ עַד חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים אֲסוּרָה מִיכָּן וְאֵילַךְ מוּתֶּרֶת. וִיהֵא כֵן בְּקִילְקוּל. הַקִּילְקוּל דּוֹמֶה לַאֲכִילַת חֵלֶב וְדָם. בְּשֶׁהוֹרוּ מוּתָּר לֶאֱכֹל חֵלֶב וְדָם.

Would it not be reasonable that she should be permitted if she remarried with permission, forbidden if she remarried without permission? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Simeon [imply] that the court made their decision like intentional [relations between] man and woman, if she remarried without permission like erroneous [relations between] man and woman. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “free” here but “obligated”. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: should it not be an act of instruction? When they instructed that it is permitted to sleep with an [otherwise] married woman. Is that not uprooting a principle? When they instructed that she is forbidden for five years, from then on permitted. Then it should be so if she misbehaved! Misbehaving is like eating fat or blood. When they instructed that fat is permitted and [she ate] blood.

Mishnah

משנה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ וּבְנָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת בְּנֵךְ וְנִישֵּׂאת וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לָהּ חִילּוּף הָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים. תֵּצֵא וְהַוְולָד הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהָאַחֲרוֹן מַמְזֵר.

MISHNAH: A woman’s husband and son went overseas and people came and told her, your husband died and after that your son died, and she remarried. After that, they said to her, the sequence was inverted. Then she must leave and the first and the last children are bastards.

Halakhah

הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶּׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ וּבְנָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם כוּל׳. מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד. כְּעֵידֵי מִיתָה אוֹ כְעֵידֵי גֵירוּשִׁין. אִין תַּעַבְדִּינָהּ כְּעֵידֵי מִיתָה. פְּלִיגָא עַל רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. אִין תַּעַבְדִּינָהּ כְּעֵידֵי גֵירוּשִׁין פְּלִיגָא בֵּין עַל רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא בֵין עַל רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. שֻׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים מֵת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא מֵת. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וִאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. לֹא שַׁנְיָיא. הִיא מִיתָה הִיא גֵירוּשִׁין לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. עַל דַעֲתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן נִיחָא. הִיא מִיתָה הִיא גֵירוּשִׁין. עַל דַעֲתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן דְּהָכָא מַה בֵין מִיתָה מַה בֵין גֵּירוּשִׁין. רִבִּי זְעִירָה אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הַדַּעַת מַכְרָעַת בְּעֵידֵי מִיתָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ יָבוֹא הוּא מַכְחִישׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן כְּדַעְתִּין. כְּמוֹ דְּרַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן אוֹמְרִים. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיָּצָאת בְּעֵידוּת בְּרוּרָה יָצָאת בּוֹ. כֵּן רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא אָמְרִין. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּיסֵּית בְּעֵידוּת בְּרוּרָה נִיסֵּית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלָא מִחְלְפָא שִּׁיטָּתִין דְּרַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. לֹא מוֹדֵיי רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן שֶׁאִילּוּ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. מֵת אָבִיהָ מִתּוֹכָהּ. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא מֵת אָבִיהָ מִתּוֹכָהּ. שֶׁהַשָּׂדֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁלָּרְאוּבֵן. אִילּוּ אָמְרוּ שְׁנַיִם. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְנִשֵּׂאת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. לֹא תֵצֵא. יְאוּת.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman’s husband and son went overseas,” etc. How do you consider this situation, comparing to witnesses of death or witnesses of divorce? If you compare it to witnesses of death, it disagrees with the (rabbis there). If you compare it to witnesses of divorce, it disagrees (both with the rabbis here and those there). Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses said, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses said, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave. There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he comes he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certain testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, and two say his father died while not in possession, that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was married, divorced, and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave.

מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. פָּתַר לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַים אוֹמְרִים. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. מַה בֵּינָהּ לְקַדְמִיתָא. תַּמָּן הוּחְזְקָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בִּפְנֵי הַכֹּל. בְּרַם הָכָא לֹא הוּחְזְקָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ. זֶהוּ שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ.

A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was betrothed, and two are saying, she was not betrothed, she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was betrothed and divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others would come and identify the man who was betrothed to her.

מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא טְמֵיאָה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. טְהוֹרָה. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. טְמֵיאָה. כְּמִי שֶׁאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִשְּׁבֵּית. וְאָנוּ כְּחַיִין מִפִּיהָ.

A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says.

שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה מְדַמֵּי לָהּ לַחֲלָבִין. אִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. פְּלוֹנִי אָכַל חֵלֶב. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא אָכַל חֵלֶב. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי מִסָּפֵק. וְהָכָא יִתֵּן גֵּט מִסָּפֵק. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא תְדַמִּינָהּ לַחֲלָבִין. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ אָמַר. לִבִּי נוֹקְרֵינִי. מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְסֵיפָא פְלִיג עַל רִבִּי יוֹנָה. אִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. תִּינָּשֵׂא. וְלֹא דְרִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר אִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. לֹא אָמַר לָהּ אֶלָּא לֹא תְדַמִּינָהּ לַחֲלָבִים. שֶּׁאֲפִילוּ אָמַר. לִבִּי נוֹקְרֵינִי. מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rebbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two would say, X ate fat, and two would say, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rebbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not be married. The end disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rebbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice.

Mishnah

משנה: אָמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בְּנֵךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ וְנִתְיַבְּמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לָהּ חִילּוּף הָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים תֵּצֵא וְהַוְולָד הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהָאַחֲרוֹן מַמְזֵר.

MISHNAH: They came and told her, your son died and after that your husband died, and she was married in levirate. After that, they said to her, the sequence was inverted. Then she must leave and the first and the last children are bastards.

Halakhah

הלכה: אָמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בְּנֵךְ כול׳. לֹא הָיְתָה צְרִיכָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא אֶלָּא לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. וְהוּא יְבָמָה שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת בְּלֹא חֲלִיצָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. זֶה חוֹלֵץ וְזֶה מְקַיֵים. רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תֵּצֵא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא. תֵּצֵא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שְׁאִיל לְרִבִּי פִינְחָס. הֵיךְ סָבַר רִבִּי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כְּרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חֲזוֹר בָּךְ. דִּלֹא כֵן אֲנִי כוֹתֵב עָלֶיךָ. זָקֵן מַמְרֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְבִידָא. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים בּוֹ. כְּדִבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה רַבּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵין מַמְזֵר בִּיבָמָה. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא אֵין מַמְזֵר בִּיבָמָה. הָא לָצֵאת תֵּצֵא. וְהָתַנִּינָן תֵּצֵא. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תֵּצֵא.

HALAKHAH: “They came and told her, your son died,” etc. If she should not have married but entered levirate, this is the case of a sister-in-law who married without ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this man performs ḥalīṣah, the other one keeps her. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She must leave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: She must leave. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Phineas, how does the rabbi hold? He said, with Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him, change your mind, for otherwise I shall publicly call you a rebellious Elder. Rebbi Zevidah said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “She must leave both of them and the thirteen items apply to her, following Rebbi Meïr who said it in the name of his teacher Rebbi Aqibah. But the Sages say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law.” They only said, “there is no bastard from a sister-in-law,” therefore she must leave. And we have stated, “she must leave”. And Rebbi Joḥanan said, she must leave.

Mishnah

משנה: אָמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ וְנִשֵּׂאת וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לָהּ קַיָים הָיָה וּמֵת תֵּצֵא וְהַוְולָד הָרִאשׁוֹן מַמְזֵר וְהָאַחֲרוֹן אֵינוֹ מַמְזֵר. אָמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַעֲלָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ הָאַחֲרוֹן גֵּט לֹא פְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. אֶת זוֹ דָרַשׁ רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן מַתָּיא. וְאִשָּׁה גְּרוּשָׁה מֵאִישָׁהּ. וְלֹא מֵאִישׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ אִישָׁהּ.

MISHNAH: If they told her, your husband died, and she remarried, and then they told her, he was alive but died, she must leave and the first child is a bastard, but the last is not a bastard. If they told her, your husband died; she was betrothed and after that her husband returned, she is permitted to return to him. Even though the second [husband] gave her a bill of divorce he did not disable her from priesthood. This Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthew explained, “a woman divorced from her husband,” and not a woman divorced from a non-husband.

Halakhah

הלכה: אָמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ כול׳. אָמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם זֵיהוּם כְּהוּנָּה וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְזָהֲמִין אוֹתָהּ.

HALAKHAH: “If they told her, your husband died,” etc. “If they told her, your husband died; she was betrothed,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Her only problem would be aspersion on the priesthood, but the court will not tolerate aspersion.

מַה אַתְּ מְקַיֵים לָהּ. בְּעֵד אֶחָד אוֹ בִשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. אִין תְּקַיְימִינָהּ בְּעֵד אֶחָד. נִמְצֵאת אוֹמֵר. עֵד אֶחָד מַתִּירָהּ לְיָבָם. אִין תְּקַיְימִינָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. הֲוָה פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב נַחמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בְּשֵׁם רַב. נִישֵּׂאת עַל פִּי שְּׁנַיִם אֲפִילוּ דְהוּא אֲתִי אָמְרָה לָהּ. לֵית תני.

How do you explain these? With one witness or with two witnesses? If you explain with one witness, then one witness would permit her to the levir. If you explain with two witnesses, then it disagrees with Rav since Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said in the name of Rav, if she was married by the testimony of two witnesses, even if he returns, she says to him, you are not him.

וּמְנַיִין שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר. כְּשֶׁתֵּצֵא מִבֵּיתוֹ יְהֵא לָהּ הֲוָיָה אֶצֶל אַחֵר. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּכָל הָעֲרָיוֹת. רִבִּי תַנְחוּמָא בְשֵׁם רַב הוּנָא. וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר. וּמַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַחֵר. פְּרָט לְפָרָשַׁת עֲרָיוֹת.

From where that no betrothal is valid for a married woman? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s.” When she leaves his house she may be with another. And from where that no betrothal is valid for incestual relations? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Huna: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s.” Why does the verse say “another”? To exclude the list of incest relations.

Mishnah

משנה: מִי שֶׁהָלְכָה אִשְׁתּוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם בָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ מֵתָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ וְנָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאת אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ. הוּא מוּתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת שְׁנִיָיה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה מוּתֶּרֶת בִּקְרוֹבָיו. וְאִם מֵתָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מוּתָּר בַּשְּׁנִיָיה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ מֵתָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ וְנָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לוֹ קַיֶימֶת הָיְתָה וּמֵתָה הַוְולָד הָרִאשׁוֹן מַמְזֵר וְהָאַחֲרוֹן אֵינוֹ מַמְזֵר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. כָּל שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים אֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ מֵתָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ. מֵתָה וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ מֵתָה וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ. מֵתָה וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ וְנִמְצְאוּ כוּלָּן קַיָימוֹת מוּתָּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁית וּבַחֲמִישִּׁית וּפוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְאָסוּר בַּשְּׁנִיָיה וּבָרְבִיעִית וְאֵין בִּיאַת אַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. וְאִם בָּא עַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מוּתָּר בַּשְּׁנִיָיה וּבָרְבִיעִית וּפוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְאָסוּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית וּבַחֲמִישִּׁית וְאֵין בִּיאַת אַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ.

MISHNAH: A man’s wife went overseas, they came and told him: your wife died, and he married her sister. If after that his wife returned, she is permitted to return to him. He is permitted [to marry] the relatives of the second, the second is permitted his relatives. If the first [sister] died, the second one is permitted to him. They said to him, your wife died, and he married her sister; if afterwards they said to him that she was still alive but died later, the first child is a bastard, the last is not a bastard. If they said to him “your wife died,” and he married her paternal sister, “she died” and he married her maternal sister, “she died” and he married her paternal sister, “she died” and he married her maternal sister, but it turned out that all were alive, the first, third, and fifth are permitted to him and they would release their co-wives; the second and fourth are prohibited to him and intercourse of any one of these does not release the co-wife. If he has intercourse with the second one after the death of the first, the second and fourth are permitted to him and they would release their co-wives; the third and fifth are prohibited to him and intercourse of any one of these does not release the co-wife.

Halakhah

הלכה: מִי שֶׁהָלְכָה אִשְׁתּוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם כול׳. כְּתִיב וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אוֹתָהּ. שְׁכִיבָתָהּ אוֹסְרָתָהּ וְאֵין שְׁכִיבַת אַחֶרֶת אוֹסְרָתָהּ. וְאָמַר אַף הָכָא תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ. פְּרָט לְאוֹנְסִין.

HALAKHAH: “If a man’s wife went overseas,”, etc. It is written: “If a man slept with her;” her sleeping prohibits her, the sleeping of another woman does not prohibit her. There, it also says “replacing your husband,” that excludes rape cases.

אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה. גָּזְרוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מָצוּי וְלֹא גָזְרוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׂאֵינוֹ מָצוּי. דֶּרֶךְ הָאִישׁ לָצֵאת לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם. אֵין דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁלָּאִשָּׁה לָצֵאת לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם.

Rebbi Mattaniah said, they made a fence about situations that occur frequently but not about rare situations. A man frequently travels overseas; it is infrequent that a woman travels overseas.

תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. מוֹדִין בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּבָא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ שֶׁפָּסַל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְעַל מַה נֶחְלְקוּ. בְּבָא עַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. פָּסַל. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. לֹא פָסַל. חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוּדָה בָּאַשׁ יִשְׂרְפוּ אוֹתוֹ וְאֶתֶהֶן. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם לְעִנְיָין שְׂרֵיפָה אֵין נִשְׂרֶפֶת אֶלָּא אַחַת. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לִשְׂרֵיפָה תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָין לְאִיסּוּר. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרְפוּ אוֹתוֹ וְאֶתְהֶן. הוּא וְאֶת שְׁנִיָיה. וְהָיוּ בֵית שַׁמַּי דָנִין. מַה בְמָקוֹם שֶׁבָּא אִיסּוּר הַקַּל עַל אִיסּוּרָה הַקַּלָּה אָסַר אֶת אוֹסְרָיו. כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא אִיסּוּר הֶחָמוּר עַל אִיסּוּרָה הַחֲמוּרָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנֶּאֱסוֹר אֶת אוֹסְרָיו. וְהֵיי דֵין אִיסּוּר קַל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רֹאשָׁה דְפִירְקָא. וְהָהֵן נוּקַל. אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוֹמֶר. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לוֹ דֶרֶךְ הֵיתֵר.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that one who copulates with his mother-in-law disables his wife. Where did they disagree? If he copulates with his wife’s sister; where the House of Shammai say, he disabled her, but the House of Hillel say, he did not disable her. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: “In fire they should burn him and them.” Where do we hold? If it is about burning, only one of them is burned. So if it cannot be relevant for burning, let it be relevant for prohibition. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “In fire they should burn him and them,” him and the second one. And the House of Shammai was arguing: Since in a case where a slightly prohibited person copulated with a slightly prohibited person the cause of the prohibition became forbidden, if a strongly prohibited person copulated with a strongly prohibited person, it is only logical that the cause of the prohibition is forbidden. Which rule is slight? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the beginning of the chapter. But this is very strong! There is a difference since she was permitted to be married to him.

רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא רַבָּה אָמַר. בְּמַחֲזִיר אֶת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. לָמָּה לִי מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת. אֲפִילוּ מִשְּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה. בְּגִין דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפֵּר. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפֵּר אָמַר. מִן הָאֵירוּסִין מוּתֶּרֶת. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. בִּיבָמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לִפְנֵי שְׁנֵי יְבָמִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. עָשָׂה בָהּ אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַאֲמָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ הַשֵּׁינִי. לָמָּה לִי עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר. אֲפִילוּ לֹא עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר. לָמָּה לִי בָּא עָלֶיהָ. אֲפִילוּ לֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ. בְּגִין בֵּית שַׁמַּי. בְּגִין רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּבָא עַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פָסַל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְעַל מַה נֶחְלְקוּ. בְּבָא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. פָּסַל. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. לֹא פָסַל. וְהָיוּ בֵית הִלֵּל דָּנִין. הָאִישׁ מוּתָּר בְּכָל הַנָּשִׁים וְהָאִשָּׁה מוּתֶּרֶת בְּכָל הָאֲנָשִׁים. קִידְּשָׁהּ. [הוּא] אָסְרָהּ וְהִיא אֲסַרְתּוֹ. מְרוּבָּה אִיסּוּר שֶׁאָסְרָהּ מֵאִיסּוּר שִׁהִיא אֲסַרְתּוֹ. שֶׁהוּא אוֹסְרָהּ לֵילֵךְ לְהִינָּשֵׂא לְאִישׁ זָר. וְהִיא לֹא אָסְרָתוֹ אֶלָּא עַל קְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ בִּלְבַד. וַהֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מַה אִם הִיא שֶׁאֲסוּרָה אִיסּוּר מְרוּבֶּה וְשָׁגְגָה עָלָיו בְּאִיסּוּרָהּ וְלֹא נֶאְסְרָה אֶלָּא לְמוּתָּר לָהּ. הוּא שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר מְמוּעָט וְשָׁגַג בְּאִיסּוּרוֹ אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אָסוּר אֶלָּא לְמוּתָּר לוֹ. הָדֵין דִּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג. בְּמֵזִיד מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹתָהּ. אוֹתָהּ שְׁכִיבָתָהּ אוֹסְרָתָהּ. אֵין שְׁכִיבַת אַחֶרֶת אוֹסְרָתָהּ.

The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said, the baraita is about someone who takes back his divorcee after she had been married to another. Why after she had been married, not also after she had been betrothed? Because of Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, since Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said, she is permitted after betrothal. Rebbi Eleazar said, the baraita is about a sister-in-law who became eligible before two levirs, when one of them “bespoke” her and then the other copulated with her. Why when one of them “bespoke” her, even if he had not “bespoken” her! Why if he copulated with her, even if he did not copulate with her! Because of the House of Shammai, because of Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated, Rebbi Simeon said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one who copulates with his wife’s sister disables his wife. Where did they disagree? If he copulates with his mother-in-law; where the House of Shammai say, he disabled her, but the House of Hillel say, he did not disable her. The House of Hillel were arguing: A man is permitted all women, a woman is permitted all men. When he becomes betrothed to her, he forbids her and she forbids him. The prohibition through which he forbids her is greater than the prohibition through which she forbids him, since he forbids her to go to marry any other man but she forbids him only her relatives. And is that not an argument de minore ad majus? If she, whose prohibition is greater, transgressed the prohibition in error, is not forbidden even to the one permitted to her, he, whose prohibition is less, if he transgressed the prohibition in error, is it not logical that he should not be forbidden even to the one permitted to him? That works for an error. From where if intentional: The verse says “with her;” her sleeping prohibits her, the sleeping of another woman does not prohibit her.

אִימִּי אָבוֹי דִשְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רַב יְהוּדָה. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא וָאַפִּיק לָהּ. דְּהוּא סָבַר כְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיְתָה מִתְרַגֶּלֶת לָבוֹא אֶצְלוֹ.

Immi the father of Samuel bar Immi in the name of Rav Jehudah: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon. There came a case before Rebbi Mana and he removed her from him. Does he hold with Rebbi Jehudah? No, she regularly came to him.

רִבִּי בָּא. רַב הַמְנוּנָא וְרִבִּי זְעִירָא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. זֶהוּ רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל פֶּרֶק. מַה אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים. נִשְׁמְיעִנָהּ מִן הָדָא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. כָּל שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים אֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא וְרִבִּי זְעִירָא תְּרֵויהוֹן אָמְרִין. זֶהוּ רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁלַּפֶּרֶק.

Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter.

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. כָּל שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל כול׳. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ נְשׂוּאָה הוֹאִיל וְהוּא פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. וַאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ פְנוּיָה הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים אֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. דָּמַר רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. צְרִיכָה הִימֶּינּוּ גֵט.

“Rebbi Yose says, anything which disables,” etc. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If his wife’s sister was married, since he disables her for others, he disables her for himself. But his wife’s unmarried sister which he does not disable for others, he does not disable for himself. As Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, she needs a bill of divorce from him.

[אָמְרוּ לוֹ מֵתָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ כול׳.] וְהֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. גְּבַר אִית לֵיהּ בַּר וְחוֹרְגָא וְאִינְתּוּ אִית לָהּ בַּר וְחוֹרְגָה וְאַסְבּוֹן דֵּין לְדִין וְאוֹלִידוֹן בְּרָא. מְשָׁרֵיי מִן חוֹרְגְתָא דְאִיתְתָא.

“If they said to him “your wife died,” etc. How can that be? A man has a daughter and a stepdaughter, a woman has a daughter and a stepdaughter. They married and had a daughter. It starts with the woman’s stepdaughter.

Mishnah

משנה: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הוּא פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אַחִים וְאַחִים פּוֹסְלִין עַל יָדוֹ. אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל תְּחִילָּה וְאַחִין פּוֹסְלִין תְּחִילָּה וְסוֹף. כֵּיצַד בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִימְתּוֹ פָּסַל עַל יְדֵי אַחִים. בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ אַחִים עָשׂוּ בָהּ מַאֲמָר נָתְנוּ גֵט אוֹ חָלְצוּ פָּסלוּ עַל יָדוֹ.

MISHNAH: [A male] nine years and one day old disables for the brothers and the brothers disable for him; only that he disables at the beginning and the brothers disable at beginning and end. How is that? [A male] nine years and one day old who copulated with his sister-in-law disabled her for the brothers. If [any one of] the brothers copulated with her, “bespoke” her, divorced her, or performed ḥalîṣah with her, they disabled her for him.

Halakhah

הלכה: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הוּא פוֹסֵל כול׳. הָא בְסוֹף אֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מַאֲמָרוֹ אֲבָל לְאַחַר בִּיאָתוֹ פוֹסֵל. אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל בְּדָבָר אֶחָד וְהֵן פּוֹסְלִין בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים.

HALAKHAH: “[A male] nine years and one day old disables,” etc. At the end he does not disable after his “bespeaking”, but after his intercourse he disables. However he can disable only by one act but they may disable by four acts.

כֵּיצַד בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד. וְאִם לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה. לִבְנוֹ הוּא מְיַיעֲדָהּ. אֵינוֹ מְיַיעֲדָהּ לָאַחִין. וְיִיעֲדֶינָּהּ לָאַחִין מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. מַה אִם הַבֶּן שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָם תַּחְתָּיו לַחֲלִיצָה וּלְיִיבּוּם הֲרֵי הוּא מְיָיעֲדָהּ לוֹ. אָחִיו שֶׁהוּא קָם תַּחְתָּיו לַחֲלִיצָה וּלְיִיבּוּם אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִיעָדֶנָּה לוֹ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְאִם לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה. הוּא מְיָיעֲדָהּ. אֵינוֹ מְיָיעֲדָהּ לְאָחִיו. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּבֶן שֶׁהוּא קָם תַּחְתָּיו בִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָה. תֹּאמַר בְּאָחִיו שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָם תַּחְתָּיו בִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָה. הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ קָם תַּחְתָּיו בִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיָיעֲדֶנָּה לוֹ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְאִם לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה. לִבְנוֹ הוּא מְיָיעֲדָהּ וְאֵינוֹ מְיָיעֲדָהּ לְאָחִיו.

“How is that? [A male] nine years and one day old.” “If he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to the brothers. He should be able to allot her to the brothers by an argument de minore ad majus! If he may allot her to his son who may not take his place for ḥalîṣah and levirate, should it not be logical that he may allot her to his brother who may take his place for ḥalîṣah and levirate? The verse says, “if he allots her to his son.” He allots her [to his son] but may not allot her to the brothers. No. If you would accept the son since he will take [the father’s] place in a field of inheritance, what can you say about his brother who will not take his place in a field of inheritance? Would it be reasonable that he may allot her to him? The verse says, “if he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to the brothers.

וְאִם לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה. לִבְנוֹ הוּא מְיָיעֲדָהּ וְאֵינוֹ מְיָיעֲדָהּ לְבֶן בְּנוֹ. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. בְּפָרֲשַׁת נְחָלוֹת אַתְּ עֲבַד בֶּן בֵּן כְּבֵן וְהָכָא לֵית עֲבַד בֶּן בֵּן כְּבֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מָאן דָּמַר לִי הָדָא מִילְּתָא אֲנָא מַשְׁקֶי לֵיהּ קוֹנְדִּיטוֹן. הָתִיב רִבִּי תַנְחוּם. הֲרֵי פָרֲשַׁת נְחָלוֹת הֲרֵי עָשִׂיתָ אָח כְּבֵן וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַקְּרוֹבִים כְּבֵן. (וְאֵין) אַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה בֶּן בֵּן כְּבֵן. הָתִיבוֹן רַבָּנִן דְּקַיסָרִין. הֲרֵי פָרֲשַׁת טֻמְאוֹת הֲרֵי עָשִׂיתָה אָח כְּבֵן וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַקְּרוֹבִים כְּבֵן. וְאֵין אַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה בֶּן בֵּן כְּבֵן. אָמַר הָא אֲזִיל קוֹנדִּיטוֹן.

“If he allots her to his son;” he allots her to his son but he may not allot her to his grandson. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: In matters of inheritance you take the grandson like the son but here you do not take the grandson like the son? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if anybody explains this matter, I shall pour him spiced wine. Rebbi Tanḥum answered: In matters of inheritance where the brother can take the place of the son and all others can take the place of the son, the grandson takes the place of the son. The rabbis of Caesarea answered: In matters of impurity you consider the brother like the son and all [near] relatives like the son but not the grandson like the son. He said, there went the spiced wine.

וְאִם לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה. לְדַעַת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית כָּאן לְדַעַת. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא כֵּן. אִית כָּאן כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְדוֹמָא. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר אִית כָּאן כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יְהוּדָה לֹא קָטָן הוּא. אִם לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה. לְדַעַת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְיָיעֲדֶנָּהּ בֵּין לִבְנוֹ הַגָּדוֹל בֵּין לִבְנוֹ הַקָּטָן בֵּין לְדַעַת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵינוֹ מְיָיעֲדָהּ אֶלָּא לִבְנוֹ הַגָּדוֹל בִּלְבַד לְדַעַת.

“If he allots her to his son;” with [the girl’s] agreement. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no agreement here. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said so, the statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say the statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, is he not a minor? “If he allots her to his son;” with [the latter’s] agreement. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he allots her to his minor or adult son, with and without the latter’s agreement. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he allots her only to his adult son with the latter’s agreement.

בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד עוֹשֶׂה אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדֶיוֹט. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּהוּא פָתַר לָהּ בְּיִיעוּדִין נִיחָא יִיעוּדִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִנְיָין בָּהּ עוֹשֶׂה אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּהוּא פָתַר לָהּ בְּנִישּׂוּאִין תְּהֵא פְטוּרָה מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִיבּוּם. וְהָתַנִּינָן נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וּמֵת הֲרֵי זוֹ פְטוּרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד עַד בֶּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ שׁוּמָא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ סֵימָנִין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. וְהֵן שֶׁעָמְדוּ בוֹ בִשְׁעַת סֵימָנִין.

“A male nine years and one day old makes a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who performed ḥalîṣah for a common priest.” In the opinion of R. Joḥanan who will explain this for allotments it is understandable; since he acquires by allotment he makes a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who performed ḥalîṣah for a common priest. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who must explain this for a marriage, she should also be free from levirate or ḥalîṣah, as we have stated: “If he married a woman, that one is free from levirate or ḥalîṣah.” Rebbi Abin said, following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it comes following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated so: If a male nine years and one day old up to twelve years and one day old grew two pubic hairs, they are warts. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, they are indicators [of puberty]. Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they were still there at the time of indicators.

רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בָּעֵי. עָמְדוּ בוֹ בִשְׁעַת סֵימָנִין. לְמַפְרֵיעוֹ הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה אִישׁ אוֹ מִיכָּן וּלְבָּא. רִבִּי אָבוּן פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ. לְמַפְרֵיעוֹ הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה אִישׁ כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לָבֹא. דּוּ פָתַר הָדָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְלָמָּה לֵית רִבִּי יוֹסֵי פָּתַר הָדָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. דְּהִיא צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. עָמְדוּ בוֹ בִשְׁעַת סֵימָנִין לְמַפְרֵיעוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה אִישׁ אוֹ מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא. נִיחָא אַלְמָנָה. וּגְרוּשָׁה. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ מִשֶּׁהִגְדִּיל נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט. חֲלִיצָה. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ וָמֵת וְחָלְצוּ לָהּ אַחִין וְעַל יָדָיו הִיא נַעֲשֵׂית חֲלוּצָה. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ פָּחוֹת מִתֵּשַׁע. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְדוֹמָא. וְכֵינִי. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנָּא כּוּלְהוֹן תֵּשַׁע תַנָּא אַף הוּא עִמְּהוֹן.

Rebbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? For Rebbi Abun it is obvious that he becomes a man retroactively, so certainly also for the future, for he explains the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Why does Rebbi Yose not explain the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah since he asked, when they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? Rebbi Mana said, because he had difficulty. Rebbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? One understands the case of a widow. But a divorcee? Explain it if he copulated with her after he became an adult and divorced her. Ḥalîṣah? Explain it if he copulated with her, died, and the [adult] brothers performed ḥalîṣah; she had ḥalîṣah because of him. In that case, even if he was younger than nine [years]! Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is correct. But because in all cases one stated “nine”, one stated this with them.

רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. מֵאָחָז לָמַד רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנֵּי. אָחָז הוֹלִיד בֶּן תֵּשַׁע וְהָרָן בֶּן שֵׁשׁ וְכָלֵב בֶּן עֶשֶׂר. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. הוּא כָּלֵב בֶּן חֶצְרוֹן הוּא כָּלֵב בֶּן יְפוּנֶּה.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah learned from Aḥaz, as it was stated: Aḥaz produced a child at age nine, Haran at age six, and Caleb at age ten following him who identifies Caleb ben Ḥeṣron with Caleb ben Yephuneh.

Mishnah

משנה: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִימְתּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ אָחִיו שֶׁהוּא בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד פָּסַל עַל יָדוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא פָסַל. בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִימְתּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עַל צָרָתָהּ פָּסַל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא פָסַל. בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִימְתּוֹ וָמֵת חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וָמֵת הֲרֵי זוֹ פְטוּרָה. בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִימְתּוֹ וּמִשֶׁהִגְדִּיל נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת וָמֵת אִם לֹא יָדַע אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מִשֶּׁהִגְדִּיל הַשְּׁנִיָיה אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. וְהָרִאשׁוֹנָה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מְיַיבֵּם לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְחוֹלֵץ לַשְּׁנִיָיה. אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שֶׁהוּא בֶּן עֵשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְלֹא הַבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת.

MISHNAH: If [a male] nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and after that his brother, who [also] was nine years and one day old, copulated with her, [the brother] disabled her for [the first levir]. Rebbi Simeon says, he did not disable. If [a male] nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law, and after that he copulated with her co-wife, he disabled her for himself. Rebbi Simeon says, he did not disable. If [a male] nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and died, she performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate. If he married a woman and died, she is free. If [a male] nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and after he became an adult married another woman and died, if he never had intercourse with the first after he became an adult, the second [wife] either performs ḥalîṣah or levirate, the first performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate. Rebbi Simeon says, he takes in levirate the one he likes and performs ḥalîṣah with the other. It makes no difference whether he is nine years and one day or twenty years old, as long as he did not grow two pubic hairs.

Halakhah

הלכה: שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. עָשׂוּ בִיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כְּמַאֲמָר בְּגָדוֹל. וּכְמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר. עָשׂוּ בִיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כְּמַאֲמָר בְּגָדוֹל. וְדִכְוָותָהּ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיצָה בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כְּגֵט בְּגָדוֹל. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. אֵין חֲלִיצַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כְּלוּם. וְלָמָּה עָשׂוּ בִיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כְּמַאֲמָר בְּגָדוֹל. שֶׁכֵּן בִּיאָה בְגָדוֹל קוֹנָה בֵּין לְדַעַת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת. נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיצָה בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כְּגֵט בְּגָדוֹל. וַחֲלִיצָה בְגָדוֹל אֵינָהּ פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶלָּא לְדַעַת.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: They made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult. And as you said, they made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult, they made the ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day like a bill of divorce of an adult. But the rabbis said, the ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day is nothing. And why did they make the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult? Because the intercourse of an adult acquires whether intentional or not intentional. The ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day was made like a bill of divorce by an adult. But ḥalîṣah by an adult can free only if it is intentional.

אִילּוּ שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁנָּפְלָה לִפְנֵי כַמָּה יְבָמִין שֶׁמָּא אֵינָהּ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָּא. אֵשֶׁת מֵת אֶחָד מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. וְלֹא אֵשֶׁת שְׁנֵי מֵתִים. שְׁנִיָּה לָמָּה אֵינָהּ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר. כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְיַיבְּמֵנִי אֵין מְיַיבֵּם צָרָתִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִינִּי שְׁמָעָהּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְאָמְרָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ. מִשֶׁהִגְדִּיל וְנָשָׂא אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת. אִם לֹא יָדַע הָרִאשׁוֹן מִשֶׁהִגְדִּיל. הַשְּׁנִיָיה אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. הָכָא אִיתְמַר חוֹלֶצֶת. וְהָכָא אִיתְמַר מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. הֵן דְּתֵימַר חוֹלֶצֶת רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְהֵן דְתֵימַר מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבָּנִן.

Can a woman waiting for a levir who became available to several brothers-in-law not be married in levirate? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one dead [husband] is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, “any one who cannot marry me in levirate, cannot marry my co-wife in levirate.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar formulated what he had heard from me. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “If [a male] nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and after he became an adult married another woman and died, if he never had intercourse with the first after he became an adult, the second [wife] either performs ḥalîṣah or levirate, the first performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate. The first one must perform ḥalîṣah and cannot be married in levirate.” Here you say, she performs ḥalîṣah; there you say, she is married in levirate! Where you say she performs ḥalîṣah, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon; where you say, she is married in levirate, Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis.

פְּשִּׁיטָא הָדָא מִילְּתָא. פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת לְמַפְרֵיעוֹ הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה אִישׁ. וְיוֹתֵר מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת מִיכָּן וְהֵילַךְ הוּא אִישׁ. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּבֶן עֶשְׂרִים. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לְמַפְרֵיעוֹ הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה אִישׁ. רַב אָמַר. מִיכָּן וְהֵילַךְ הוּא אִישׁ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא בֵּין עַל דֵּין בֵּין עַל דֵּין. הַסָּרִיס אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֶּן סוֹרֶר וּמוֹרֶה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ הַקָּפַת זָקָן. וְיַתִּיר בּוֹ שֶׁמָּא יָבִיא שְּׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִּׁים. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין הַתְרָיָיה עַל הַסָּפֵק. מַתְנִיתִין פְלִיגָא עַל שְׁמוּאֵל. אֶחָד בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בֶּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֶה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְּׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת לְמַפְרֵיעוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה אִישׁ. כְּמַה דְּתֵימַר. בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְעַד בֶּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֶה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת לְמַפְרֵיעוֹ הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה אִישׁ. וְדִכְוָותָהּ בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת מִיכָּן וְהֵילַךְ הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה אִישׁ. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ שְׁמוּאֵל. פָּתַר לָהּ סָמוּךְ לְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה.

The following is obvious: If a person younger than twenty years of age developed two pubic hairs, he becomes a man retroactively. Older than twenty years of age, he becomes a man from that point into the future. Where do they disagree? If he is twenty. Samuel said, he becomes a man retroactively. Rav said, he becomes a man from that point into the future. A baraita disagrees with both of them: The castrate cannot become a rebellious son since he has no pubic hair. Should one not warn him, maybe he will develop two pubic hairs within the next three months? Following him who says, one does not accept conditional warnings. Our Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: Does it make no difference whether he is nine years and one day or twelve years and one day old, if by then he did not grow two pubic hairs, he becomes a man retroactively? Could you say: If he did grow two pubic hairs between the ages of nine years and one day until twelve years and one day, he becomes a man retroactively? Similarly, if he is older than twenty years of age and did not grow two pubic hairs, he becomes a man from that point into the future. How does Samuel handle this? He explains it: soon after he turns twenty.