Torah Community Connections

Week 58 - Shabbat - 6 January 2001

YEVAMOT: CHAPTER 15: MISHNAH 6

If a woman went with her husband overseas, and she came and said, "My husband died," -- she may marry and she takes her ketubah, but her rival is forbidden. If she was the daughter of an Israelite to a priest -- she may eat terumah; so Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says, This is not the way to remove her from the path of transgression, rather she should be prohibited from marrying, and prohibited from eating terumah.

Kehati

If a woman went with her husband overseas -- and she had a rival, i.e., her husband had another wife who remained at home, and she -- the woman, came -- from the overseas, by herself, and said, "My husband died" -- overseas, she may marry -- they permit her to marry, on of her own testimony, and she takes her ketubah -- we have already explained that the Sages were lenient to believe her, because of the enactment regarding agunot, for it is presumed that the woman does not want to ruin herself and prohibit herself to both her first and second husband; and since they permitted her to marry, she collects the financial settlement of her ketubah; but her rival is forbidden, -- to marry, for they do not grant permission to her rival on her testimony, as taught above (15:4); even though through her own action she was allowed to marry, nevertheless we fear that she intends to ruin her rival, like Samson's act when he said, "Let me die with the Philistines" (Jud. 16:20) (Gemara).

If she -- her rival, was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest -- she may eat terumah -- based on the presumption that her husband is alive; so Rabbi Tarfon -- who holds that since the wife from overseas is not believed to permit her rival to marry, she also is not believed to disqualify her from eating terumah.

Rabbi Akiva says, This -- permitting the rival to eat terumah, is not the way to remove her -- the rival, from the path of transgression, rather she is prohibited from marrying, and she is prohibited from eating terumah -- i.e., according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, due to the doubt we rule stringently regarding two matters: she is prohibited from marrying, since her husband might be alive, and she is prohibited from eating terumah, since he might be dead. The halakhah follows Rabbi Tarfon (Gemara; Rambam).

YEVAMOT: CHAPTER 15: MISHNAH 7

If she said, "My husband died and afterwards my father-in-law died" -- she may marry and she takes her ketubah, but her mother-in-law is forbidden. If she was the daughter of an Israelite to a priest -- she may eat terumah; so Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says, This is not the way to remove her from the path of transgression, rather she is prohibited from marrying, and she is prohibited from eating terumah. If he betrothed one of five women, and he does not know which he betrothed, and each one says, "He betrothed me" -- he gives a bill of divorce to each one, and he places a ketubah between them, and goes away; so Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says, This is not the way to remove him from the path of transgression, rather he gives a bill of divorce and a ketubah to each one. If a person robbed one of five, and he does not know whom he robbed, and each one says, "He robbed me" -- he places the stolen object between them, and he goes away; so Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says, This is not the way to remove him from the path of transgression, rather he pays the value of the stolen object to each one.

Kehati

If she said, "My husband died and afterwards my father-in-law died" -- e.g., a woman went overseas, together with her husband and her father-in-law, and she came and said that her husband had died there, and that afterwards her father-in-law had died there, she may marry and she takes her ketubah -- for she is believed regarding herself, as explained in the preceding mishnah, but her mother-in-law is forbidden -- to marry, for her daughter-in-law is not believed when she testifies regarding her mother-in-law to permit her to marry, just as her mother-in-law is not believed when she testifies regarding her, as taught above (15:4), because they dislike one another. And even though she first said, "My husband died," and according to her statement she is no longer her daughter-in-law, she nevertheless is not believed regarding her.

If she -- her mother-in-law, was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest -- she may eat terumah -- on the presumption that her husband is alive; so Rabbi Tarfon -- for the reason explained in the preceding mishnah.

Rabbi Akiva says, This is not the way to remove her from the path of transgression, rather she is prohibited from marrying, and she is prohibited from eating terumah -- we rule stringently, and regarding marriage her daughter-in-law's testimony is not believed but regarding the matter of terumah we do consider her testimony.

If he betrothed one of five women, and he does not know which one of them he betrothed, since each one says, "He betrothed me" -- and he does not want to marry all of them, he gives a bill of divorce to each one -- for each one of them is possibly his wife, and he places a ketubah between them -- i.e., he places for them in the Court the financial settlement of a ketubah of one wife (Tosefot Yom Tov), and he goes away -- from them; so Rabbi Tarfon -- for according to the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, he is not required to give a ketubah to each one, and the one who can produce proof that she is his wife receives the money of the ketubah which he deposited in Court. According to Rambam, this refers to a case in which he had written a ketubah to the one whom he had betrothed, the document of the ketubah was lost, and each one says, "I am the one whom you betrothed, you wrote me a ketubah, and the ketubah was lost," for a betrothed woman has the financial settlement of a ketubah only if he writes one for her. According to Ravad, even if he simply stipulated the settlement of the ketubah, even though he did not put it into writing, he is required to give her her ketubah.

Rabbi Akiva says, This is not the way to remove him from the path of transgression, rather he gives a bill of divorce and a ketubah to each one -- the Gemara explains that this was a case in which he betrothed by an act of intercourse, thereby transgressing a Rabbinic prohibition, for the Sages enacted that a person betroths a woman first by money or by a document, but not by intercourse -- as the Gemara records that Rav would sentence to lashes whoever betrothed initially by intercourse (Yev. 52a); Rabbi Akiva therefore disagrees with Rabbi Tarfon, and holds that they punish him by obligating him to give a bill of divorce and the financial settlement of a ketubah to each woman. If, however, he had betrothed by money or by a document, Rabbi Akiva agrees that he places the financial settlement of a ketubah between them and goes away. This is the halakhah.

If a person robbed one of five -- people, and he does not know whom he robbed -- and he wishes to return the stolen object, and each one says, "He robbed me" -- he places the stolen object between them -- as explained regarding the ketubah, and he deposits the stolen object in Court, until it becomes clear which of them was robbed, and he goes away -- from them; so Rabbi Tarfon.

Rabbi Akiva says, This is not the way to remove him from the path of transgression, -- the transgression of robbery, rather he pays the value of stolen object to each one -- for only in this manner will he certainly return the stolen object to the victim. The halakhah follows Rabbi Akiva.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives