Torah Community Connections

Week 55 - Wednesday - 13 December 2000

YEVAMOT: CHAPTER 10: MISHNAH 2

If she married with the consent of the Court -- she goes out, and she is exempt from an offering. If she did not marry with the consent of the Court -- she goes out, and she is liable to an offering. Such is the power of hte Court that it exempts her from an offering. If the court ruled that she may be married, and she went and acted improperly -- she is liable to an offering, for they permitted her only to be married.

Kehati

If she married with the consent of the Court -- if there was only one witness who stated that her husband had died, and she was married to the second husband by the ruling of the Court, and afterwards her first husband came, she goes out -- from the first and from the second, as was taught in the preceding mishnah, and she is exempt from an offering -- since a person who sins in consequence of a ruling of the Court is exempt from a sin-offering.

If she did not marry with the consent of the Court -- i.e., she was married on the testimony of two witnesses that her husband had died, without requiring authorization by the Court, she goes out, and she is liable to a sin-offering for she sinned unintentionally.

Such is the power of the Court that it exempts her from an offering -- for when she is married by its authorization, she is exempt from an offering. The halakhah does not follow this mishnah, rather even if she married with the authorization of the Court, she and her second husband are liable to bring an offering. The Gemara explains the reason: this is not a valid ruling of the Court, but an error (see Tosefot Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

If the court ruled that she may be married, and she went and acted improperly -- e.g., being a widow she married a High Priest, or being a divorcee she married a common priest, she is liable to a sin-offering, for they permitted her only to be married -- to whomever she is permitted. Since she did not act in accordance with the Court's ruling, she is not exempt from the sacrifice.

YEVAMOT: CHAPTER 10: MISHNAH 3

If a woman's husband and son went overseas, and they came and said to her, "Your husband died, and afterwards your son died," and she married, and afterwards they said to her, "The reverse was the case" -- she must go, and the first and last child is a mamzer. If they said to her, "Your son died, and afterwards your husband died," and she was married by yibum, and afterwards they said to her, "The reverse was the case" -- she must go, and the first and last child are a mamzerim. If they said to her, "Your husband died," and she married, and afterwards they said to her, "He was alive and he died" -- she must go, and the first child is a mamzer, and the last is not a mamzer. If they said to her, "Your husband died," and she was betrothed, and afterwards her husband came -- she is permitted to return to him. Even though the latter gave her a bill of divorce, he did not disqualify her from the priesthood. This was expounded by Rabbi Eleazar ben Matyah: "a woman divorced from her husband" (Lev. 21:7) -- and not from a man who is not her husband.

Kehati

If a woman's husband and son went overseas, and they came and said to her, "Your husband died, and afterwards your son died" -- and consequently she has no yibum tie, since when her husband died the son was alive,

And she went and married -- on the basis of this testimony,

And afterwards they said to her, "The reverse was the case" -- "Your son died, and afterwards your husband died," and therefore she has a yibum tie, and she was prohibited from marrying another. This would be a case in which the first witnesses were refuted (Nimukei Yosef),

She must go -- from her second husband,

And the first and last child -- i.e., the child born to her before the death of her first husband, and the child born to her after her husband died when she required yibum, are mamzerim -- this mishnah follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva who holds (4:13, above) that the offspring of a union involving a Torah prohibition punishable by lashes is a mamzer and therefore the last one is also a mamzer, though his mother transgressed only the prohibition stated in the Torah section about yibum: "the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad to one not of his kin" (Deut. 25:5). The halakhah, however, is that the offspring of a union involving a Torah prohibition punishable by lashes is not a mamzer.

If they said to her, "Your son died, and afterwards your husband died" -- thus requiring yibum, and she was married by yibum -- by her husband's brother, and afterwards they said to her, "The reverse was the case" -- her husband died first, and afterwards her son, so that she was prohibited to the yavam

She must go -- away from him, and the first and last child are mamzerim -- even according to the opinion of the Sages, for he is the offspring of transgressors liable to karet, for whoever has intercourse with his brother's wife not in fulfillment of a mitzvah is liable to karet.

If they said to her, "Your husband died," and she married -- on the basis of this testimony, and afterwards they said to her, "He was alive -- at the time that you were married, and he died" -- afterwards, she must go forth -- away from her husband, for the Sages penalized her because she did not investigate the matter, and when she married her husband was still alive, and the first child -- with whom she became pregnant during her first husband's lifetime, is a mamzer -- for he s from a union with another man's wife, and the last -- with whom she became pregnant after her first husband died, is not a mamzer -- for she no longer was another man's wife. According to one interpretation, he is not a mamzer b y Torah law, but is a mamzer by Rabbinic law as a penalty (Tosafot Yeshanim).

If they said to her, "Your husband died," and she was betrothed -- but she had not yet been married, and afterwards her husband came -- she is permitted to return to him -- without a bill of divorce from the second one, for as she had not yet committed a transgression (of having intercourse) the Sages did not penalize her.

Therefore, Even though the latter gave her a bill of divorce, he did not disqualify her from the priesthood -- because she did not require a bill of divorce, and his bill of divorce therefore has no effect.

This was expounded by Rabbi Eliezer ben Matyah: "a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take" (Lev. 21:7) -- as the expression "from her husband is superfluous, it is used to emphasize "from her husband," and not from a man who is not her husband -- i.e., if she received a bill of divorce from someone who is not her husband, she is not considered to be a divorced woman; and in this case as well, the second one who betrothed her is not her husband, and his bill of divorce is not valid. She therefore is not disqualified from the priesthood, and if her first husband is a priest, she is eligible for him.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives