Talmud for Yevamot 15:1

ובן אין לו מן הנשואה החיצונה לא תהיה לאיש זר. אמר ליה לא יחסדונן כותאי דאת מקיים דרשיהון. תני רבי שמעון בן אלעזר נומיתי לסופרי כותים מי גרם לכם לטעות דלית אתון דרשין כרבי נחמיה דתני בשם רבי נחמיה כל דבר שהוא צריך למ"ד מתחילתו ולא ניתן לו. ניתן לו ה"א בסופו. כגון לחוץ חוצה. לשעיר. שעירה. לסוכות סוכותה. מתיבין לרבי נחמיה והא כתיב (תהילים ט׳:י״ח) ישובו רשעים לשאולה. אמר רבא בר זבדא לדיוטי התחתונה של שאול. תני אמר רבי יוחנן בן נורי ראה היאך הלכה זו רווחת בישראל אם לקיים דברי בית שמאי הוולד ממזר מדברי בית הלל. אם לקיים דברי בית הלל הוולד ממזר מדברי בית שמאי. בואו ונתקן שיהו הצרות חולצות ולא מתייבמות. תני לא הספיקו להתקין עד שנטרפ' השעה. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ואם כן מה נעשה לצרות הראשונות שנישאו. אמר רבי לעזר אע"פ שנחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בצרות מודין היו שאין הוולד ממזר. שאין ממזר אלא מאשה שהוא אסורה עליו איסור ערוה וחייבין עליה כרת. אמר רבי טרפון תאב אני שיהא לי צרת הבת שאשיאה לכהונה. שאלו את רבי יהושע בני צרות מה הן. אמר להן הרי אתם מכניסין את ראשי בין שני ההרים הגבוהים בין דברי בית שמאי ובין דברי בית הלל בשביל שיריצו את מוחי. אבל מעיד אני על משפחת בית ענוביי מבית צבועים ועל משפחת בית נקיפי מבית קושש שהיו בני צרות והיו בני בניהם כהנים גדולים עומדין ומקריבין על גבי המזבח ר' יעקב בר אידי בשם ר' יהושע בן לוי מעשה שנכנסו זקנים אצל ר' דוסא בן הרכינס לשאול לו על צרת הבת. אמרו לו את הוא שאת מתיר בצרות. אמר לון מה שמעתון דוסא בן הרכינס. אמרו לו בן הרכינס אמר לון יונתן אחי הוה בכור שטן ומתלמידי בית שמאי הוזהרו ממנו שלש מאות תשובות יש לו על צרת הבת. אזלון לגבי' שלח וכתב לי' היזהר שחכמי ישראל נכנסין אצלך. עלון ויתיב להו קומוי. הוה מסביר להון ולא סברין מיסבר להון ולא סברין. שריין מתנמנמין. אמר להן מה אתון מתנמנמין שרי מישדי עליהון צרירין. ואית דמרין בחד תרע עלון ובתלתא נפקין. שלח אמר ליה מה שלחת לי בני נש בעו מילף ואמרת לי אינון חכמי ישראל. אתו לגביה אמרון ליה את מה את אמר. אמר להן

and on the Festivals at the first watch. The crowing of the rooster would not approach until the [Temple] court was full of Israelites. Said R. Mana: It is not reasonable [to have the ashes removed at midnight for Yom Kippur and at the first watch for the Festivals]. But [on] Yom Kippur fro the first watch and on the Festivals from midnight, so that they shall not come into the hands of thirst. Said R. Yochanan: The removal of the ashes is the beginning of the service of the morrow, and he must sanctify his hands and feet from the laver which was sunk in water. Originally, whosoever wanted to remove [the ashes from] the Altar, removed [it]. At a time that they were many they would run and ascend the ramp [of the altar] and he that came first into the four cubits won [the privilege]. And if two were even, the appointed one would say to them [all]: Raise the finger(s). And what did they put forward [i.e. raise]? One or two. And [but] they do not put forth [raise] the thumb in the Temple: It happened [once] that two were even, and [they] were running and ascending the ramp. And one [of them] pushed his fellow and his foot was broken. And when the court saw that they were coming into danger, they enacted that they shall not remove [the ashes from] the altar except by lot. There were four lots there, and this [one] was the first lot. R. Manna questioned: And why did they not institute a lot for the removal of the ashes? Come and see: Slaughtering is valid with a stranger, and you say it has a lot; the removal of the ashes is prohibited [to be done] by a stranger, and you say, it has no lot? R. Manna the said again: Slaughtering is only valid by day, but the removal of the ashes is valid all night, if you say will cast a lot, even he will not arise on the doubtful [chance]. What did you see to say so? (Leviticus 6:2-3) "All the night and he shall remove [lift up]." From here [we learn] that the removal of the ashes is valid all night. A stranger [i.e. a non-priest] who removed [the ashes, what is the law]? R. Yochanan said: He is guilty [of death]. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He is exempt. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? (Numbers 18:7) "A service of gift", excluding this one which is [a service of] removal. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yochanan? (Numbers 18:7) "In everything pertaining to the altar." Rabbi Yossi bei Rabbi Bun in the name of Rav: Four

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

²⁰This baraita is also discussed in the Babli, 107b. If somebody together with his wife left for overseas, then she returns and says, my husband died, she shall be supported and collect her ketubah²¹Since Mishnah Yebamot 15:1 states that in this case the widow may remarry without proof of the husband’s death, she certainly must be believed regarding the monetary implications of her husband’s death.. My husband divorced me²²In this case she is not permitted to remarry unless she proves the fact of her divorce either by a court document or by witnesses. Since her word alone is not accepted in criminal law, it cannot be accepted in civil law., she shall be supported from her ketubah since, as you take it, if she be a married woman, she must be supported from her husband’s; if she is no longer a married woman²³But she really is divorced., she can be supported from her ketubah²⁴If her husband’s death later becomes known, she can collect only the amount of her ketubah minus the amounts already taken for her sustenance (Interpretation of the Babli).. ²⁵Tosephta 12:4; Babli 107a.“If somebody returns from overseas and his wife requests support²⁶His wife took out a loan under the supervision of the court and now the wife requests him to repay the loan. but he says, let her earnings cover her sustenance, one listens to him²⁷He can request her to repay the loan from her own earnings. In the interpretation of R. Nissim Gerondi (Alfasi # 389), the husband has to pay the wife’s debt beforehand and then can recover from her earnings.. But if the court had allotted, what they allotted, they have allotted²⁸If the court had empowered her to sell of the husband’s property, he cannot require her to buy it back..” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if her earnings are not enough for her support²⁹He explains the Tosephta in case that the earnings of the wife were not sufficient to cover her expenses; therefore the court was justified in giving her permission to sell and their order has to stand.. In this case, does one listen to him³⁰In this case, why should the husband be able to refuse to pay for his wife’s borrowing.? Following him who says, there is no support for the wife in biblical law, as we have stated: “The court will not determine food for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.”³¹Ma‘serot 3:1, Notes 11–12. The marriage contract explicitly notes that the husband will “work for, honor, feed, and provide for” his bride “in the manner of Jewish husbands.” The language seems to imply that this is a contract following rabbinic guidelines; this is the position of Nachmanides and R. Asher ben Ieḥiel (Rosh Ketubot Chap. 13, Sec. 6.) Maimonides holds that nevertheless the obligation is biblical, Hilkhot Iššut 12:2.
The wife may not sell Sabbatical produce for her needs since Sabbatical produce may not be used to pay debts of any kind. But if the husband is present, she may eat of his Sabbatical fruits; since his obligation to feed his wife is only rabbinical, this is not considered paying his debts with Sabbatical produce. Rebbi Yose says, if her earnings are sufficient for her support³²He explains that the Tosephta is applicable even if the wife earns enough and does not have to go hungry in her husband’s absence. Since by the ketubah contract the wife is entitled to live as well in her husband’s absence as in his presence, the court is entitled to grant her money to make up the difference.. In that case, why what they allotted, they have allotted? Explain it, if they allotted excess.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

HALAKHAH: “If somebody went overseas,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If somebody pays off somebody else’s debt without the latter’s knowledge, is that the disagreement of Ḥanan and the High Priests’ sons²¹Since Mishnah Yebamot 15:1 states that in this case the widow may remarry without proof of the husband’s death, she certainly must be believed regarding the monetary implications of her husband’s death.? Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the High Priest’s sons is that he would not expect his wife to starve. But here, [the debtor could say:] “I could negotiate with him and he would forgive some.” Think of it, if [the loan] was on a pledge! “I could negotiate with him and he would return my pledge.” So far about a creditor who does not push [for repayment]. Even for a creditor who pushes, we can hear from the following: “He may give his šeqel.” If somebody does not pay his šeqel, does one not take a pledge from him? This says, even for a creditor who pushes. You should know that this is so, as we have stated: “He can bring for him nests for males or females suffering from genital discharges, nests for childbirth, purification and reparation offerings” since nothing of these comes to [the other person’s] hand. And here also, that nothing should come into his hand.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar²⁹In ms. A and the Tosephta which parallels the Mishnah (14:3), the name everywhere is R. Eliezer. The abbreviation ר״א used by several medieval authors in quotes of the Mishnah usually refers to R. Eliezer.? Is it because she is not suspected to cause trouble [to herself in order later to cause trouble to her co-wife or because she is not suspected to cause any trouble] to her co-wife? Let us hear from the following: ³⁰Mishnah 15:7.“If a woman went overseas with her husband and returns and says ‘my husband died’, she can remarry and collect her ketubah, but her co-wife remains forbidden.” We explain it, saying that she is suspected to cause trouble to herself in order to cause trouble to her co-wife, and Rebbi Eleazar does not disagree³¹Halakhah 15:7.. It is impossible that the reason be that she is not suspected to cause any trouble to her co-wife. We could suspect that perhaps her husband sent her a bill of divorce from overseas³²If she remarriesas a divorcee, she has not sinned even though in reality she is a divorcee. But if her co-wife remarries on her testimony, the co-wife’s children will be bastards born in adultery.. Think of it, what if her [next] husband was a Cohen³³As a divorcee, it is sinful for her to marry a Cohen and her children will be desecrated from priesthood, but the marriage is valid. The Babli, 120a, dismisses the thought that a woman would willingly desecrate her children.? Rebbi Abba bar Rebbi Zemina said, she is suspected to produce several desecrated children in order to make bastards of her co-wife’s children.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Available for Premium members only

Full Chapter