Monday, July 30, 2007

Rif Yevamot 28a {Yevamot 88b - 89a} Mistaken Death Reports -- What Should She Have Done?


דהויא לה אנוסה דאמרי' מאי הוה לה למעבד
וכן אמר רב לא שנו אלא שנשאת בעד אחד אבל נשאת בשני עדים לא תצא מהיתרה של בעל הראשון
ולית הלכתא הכין אלא לא שנא נשאת על פי בית דין ובעד אחד ולא שנא נשאת על פי שני עדים אם בא בעלה הראשון תצא מזה ומזה וכל הדרכים האלו בה
for she is like a raped woman, for we say "what should she have done?"
And so too Rav said: They only learnt this where she married on the word of a single witness, but if she was married on the word of two witnesses, she does not go out from her initial permittedness to the first husband.
And the halacha is not like this, but rather, it does not matter whether she married based on the say-so of Bet Din and with one witness, or whether she was married on the say-so of two witnesses -- if her first husband comes, she goes out from this one and that one, and all of these matters, in her.

דאמרינן לקמן רב פפא סבר למיעבד עובדא דמאי הוה לה למיעבד אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב פפא והא אנן תנן הני מתניתא א"ל ולא שנינהו א"ל ואנן אשינויא ניקום וניסמוך
דאלמא לית הלכתא כרב דאמר לא תצא מהיתרה של בעלה הראשון ולא כרבי שמעון דאמר נשאת שלא ברשות מותרת לחזור לו ואף על גב דאמר רב הכין הלכתא לא סמכינן עליה

For we say later on {Yevamot 91b}: Rav Pappa thought to practice in accordance with it, for "what should she have done?" Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said to Rav Pappa: But we learned all those braytot {with rulings in the opposite direction}! He said to him: But they were all explained {with specific reasons for those rulings and why we do not apply "what should she have done?"}. He said to him: Should we then rely on explanations?
Thus it is evident that the halacha is not like Rav who said that she does not go out of her initial permittedness to her first husband, and not like Rabbi Shimon who said shat if she was married not with permission, she is allowed to return to him. And although Rav said that such is the halacha, we do not rely upon him.

{Yevamot 88b}
וצריכה גט מזה ומזה:
בשלמא מראשון תיבעי גט אלא משני אמאי זנות בעלמא הוא
אמר רב הונא גזירה שמא יאמרו גירש זה ונשא זה ונמצאת אשת איש יוצאת בלא גט
אי הכי סיפא דקתני אמרו לה מת בעליך ונתקדשה ואח"כ בא בעלה מותרת לחזור לו ה"נ נימא גזירה שמא יאמרו גירש זה וקידש זה ונמצאת אשת איש יוצאת בלא גט
סיפא אמרי קידושי טעות הוו רישא נמי אמרי נישואי טעות הוו אלא רישא דעבדא איסורא קנסוה רבנן סיפא דלא עבדה איסורא לא קנסוה רבנן:
"And she needs a get from this one and from that one":
It is understandable that she requires a get from the first one, but from the second?? It was simply harlotry {and not marriage}!
Rav Huna said: It is a decree lest they say that this {first} one had divorced her and this {second} one had married her, and it appears that a married woman went out without a get.
If so, in the latter part which teaches "if they said to her 'your husband has died' and she is betrothed {to another}, and afterwards her husband comes, she is permitted to return to him," so too we should say that there is a decree lest they say that this one divorced and that one betrothed, such that a married woman has gone out without a get.
In the latter portion, they will say "it was a mistaken betrothal." In the former part, then, they will say "it was a mistaken nuptial!"
Rather, in the former portion, where she performed a prohibited act {consummation}, the Sages fined her, but in the latter case, where she did not perform a prohibited act, the Sages did not fine her.

{Yevamot 89a}
ואין לה כתובה
מ"ט תקינו רבנן כתובה כדי שלא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה הכא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה:
"And she receives no ketuba":
What is the reason? The Sages enacted the ketuba in order that she not be easy in his eyes to divorce. Here, she should be easy in his eyes to divorce.

ולא מזונות ולא פירות ולא בלאות
מ"ט תנאי כתובה ככתובה דמי וכיון דלית לה כתובה לית לה תנאי:

ולא פירות פירוש פירות שאכל הבעל מנכסי מלוג לאחר שנשאת לשני
ולא בלאות מה שבלה מנכסי צאן ברזל ואבד לגמרי אינו משלם לה תחתיו אבל בלאות שהן קיימין יש לה ונוטלתן כדגרסינן בכתובות בפרק אלמנה ניזונית היוצאת משום שם רע נוטלת מה שבפניה ויוצאה
"Nor provisions, nor fruits, nor worn clothes":
What is the reason? The conditions entered into with the ketuba are like the ketuba, and since she does not receive the ketuba she does not receive these stipulations either.

{Note: assets which are melog belong to the wife in terms of the capital, but the husband get and "fruits" of it. The husband has no responsibility for its loss, as discussed above.}

"Nor fruits" -- the explanation: "fruits" which the husband ate from the assets which are melog, after she married the second one.
"Nor worn clothing" -- what wore out from the assets which were iron sheep and entirely lost, he does not pay to her in their stead. But worn out things which are still intact, she has to her, and she takes them, as we learned in Ketubot, in perek almana nizonit, that one who is divorced because of a bad reputation takes what is before her and leaves.

מסייעא ליה לרב הונא דאמר זינתה לא הפסידה בלאותיה קיימין
This supports Rav Huna, who said that if she engaged in harlotry, she does not lose her worn clothing which is still intact.

No comments: