Friday, June 01, 2007

Rif Yevamot 8b {Yevamot 30a continues; 31b}

{Yevamot 30a continues}
Gemara
:

טעמא דגירש אחד מבעלי אחיות את אשתו ואחר כך מת הנשוי נכרית הוא שהנכרית מותרת
אבל מת הנשוי נכרית ואח"כ גירש אחד מבעלי אחיות את אשתו ומת נכרית מיחלץ חלצה יבומי לא מיבמה דהויא לה נכרית צרת אחות אשה בזיקה ואע"ג דגירש לה לאחות אשה לא משתריא לה נכרית דגזרינן משום זיקה דעלמא

The reason is that one of the husbands of the sisters divorced his wife and afterwards the one who married a stranger died -- that is the instance in which the stranger is permitted. However, if the one who married a stranger died and afterwards one of the husbands of the sisters divorced his wife and then died, the stranger undergoes chalitza but not yibbum. For the stranger is the rival of the sister of the wife by levirate bond {to perform yibbum}, and even though he divorced the one causing the problem of his wife's sister, the stranger is not permitted, for we decree because of the general case of levirate bond.

ואי קשיא לך צרת ערוה מן הנישואין דהא כיון דגירש לערוה או שמתה ואח"כ מת משתריא צרתה ולא גזרינן משום הך דלא נתגרשה התם כיון דערוה היא מיגמר גמרי לה אינשי וקלא אית לה הכא זיקה דרבנן היא
And if it is difficult for you the case of the rival of the Biblically forbidden relation {of erva} from marriage {that is, she is Biblically forbidden to the potential yavam, not to her present husband}, for there, once he divorced the Biblically forbidden relation or she died, and afterwards he died, her rival is permitted, and we do not decree because of the case where she did not divorce -- there, since she is a Biblically forbidden relation, people will draw the correct conclusions about the case, and there is public knowledge about this, but here, this a Rabbinic levirate bond {which does not have such a "voice"}.

אי נמי התם גבי ערוה כיון דגרשה מיקמי דנפלה לה קמי יבם מהני בה גירושין דכי נפלה לה צרה גבי יבם בהתירה נפלה קמיה אבל הכא גבי נכרית כיון דבשעת נפילה באיסור זיקה נפלה קמיה לא מהני בה גירושין ולא מידי והאי טעמא טפי עדיף ומסתברא מההוא קמא
Alternatively, there, by a Biblically forbidden relation {of erva}, since he {the first husband} divorced here before she fell before the yavam, the divorce benefits her, for when the rival fell before the yavam, she fell before him in a permitted state {since the divorce of the erva had already occurred}, but here, by the stranger, since at the time of falling, she fell while with the prohibition of the levirate bond {since the divorce had not yet happened}, the divorce does not benefit her at all. And this reason is better, and it is more logical than the first one.

Mishna:
וכולן שהיו בהם ספק קידושין או ספק גירושין הרי אלו חולצות ולא מתיבמות
כיצד ספק קידושין זרק לה קידושין ספק קרוב לה ספק קרוב לו זהו ספק קידושין
כיצד ספק גירושין כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים יש עליו עדים ואין בו זמן יש בו זמן ואין בו אלא עד אחד זהו ספק גירושין
And all of them {the initial 15 who exempt their rivals and their rivals' rivals etc.} where they had a doubtful betrothal or a doubtful divorce, they {the rivals are not entirely exempt even from chalitza but rather} undergo chalitza and not yibbum.

How so doubtful betrothal? If he tosses to her the {item by which he will effect} betrothal {say, a ring}, and it is doubtful whether is is closer to him or closer to her, this is doubtful betrothal.

How so doubtful divorce? If he writes it in his handwriting but there are no witnesses upon it; witnesses upon it but no date; a date but there is only one witness -- this is doubtful divorce.

Gemara:
וכן אם היתה עומד ברה"ר וזרק לה גיטא ספק קרוב לה ספק קרוב לו ספק גירושין הוא וחולצת ולא מתיבמת כדאיתא בקידושין דאמר רבא כל שיש בקידושין יש בגירושין ויש בגירושין מה שאין בקידושין וזהו בגירושין דקתני במתני' לאו דווקא הוא אלא משום דתנא זהו בקידושין תנא נמי זהו בגירושין וזהו דקידושין למעוטי מאי למעוטי זמן דליכא בקידושין
And so too if he stood in the public domain and tossed her a bill of divorce, and it was doubtful whether it was closer to him or closer to her, it is doubtful divorce and she undergoes chalitza and not yibbum.
{Yevamot 31b}
As it is in kiddushin, that Rava said: whatever there is in betrothal there is in divorce, but there is in divorce that which is not in betrothal.
And this that it stated in the Mishna is not exact, but rather since it stated "this is what it is in betrothal," it stated also "this is what it {doubtful case} is in divorce."
And "this is what is in divorce" is to exclude what? To exclude {the requirement for} date, which does not exist for betrothal.

ומפני מה לא תקנו רבנן זמן בקידושין בשלמא
And why did the Sages not enact the requirement for a date by betrothal? It is understandable

1 comment:

Eugene said...

Hi. My name is Eugene Gershin. I'd like to welcome you to Obadiah Shoher's blog, Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict.

Obadiah is a pen name of a politician. He writes extremely controversial articles about Israel, the Middle East politics, and terrorism.

Obadiah advocates political rationalism instead of moralizing. He is economic liberal and political conservative.

Google refused advertising our site and Amazon deleted reviews of Obadiah's book. Nevertheless, Obadiah’s is the largest Jewish personal blog, read by more than 100,000 people monthly. 210,000 people from 81 countries downloaded Obadiah’s book. The blog was voted the best overall in People’s Choice: Jewish and Israeli blogs Awards, received Webby Honoree and other awards.

Please help us spread Obadiah's message, and mention the blog in one of your posts, or link to us. We would greatly appreciate your comments at www.samsonblinded.org/blog



Best wishes,

Eugene Gershin

Jewrusalem.net – Israeli Uncensored News