Yevamos - Daf 91
- Who agrees with whom regarding the three lenient positions?
In the Mishnah on Daf 87b listing the penalties for a woman who remarried based on the testimony of a single witness whose original husband then appeared, there were three lenient opinions. Rebbe Yose said her first husband must pay his kesubah. Rebbe Elazar said הראשון זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה – The first husband is zocheh to what she finds, her earnings, and is able to annul her vows. Rebbe Shimon said: Yibum or chalitzah by the brother of her first husband exempts her tzarah from yibum and chalitzah, and her child by the first husband is not a mamzer. On this Daf Rav, Huna said: בתראי מודו לקמאי קמאי לא מודו לבתראי – The latter Tannaim agree with the former Tannaim, but the former Tannaim do not agree with the latter Tannaim. Rebbe Shimon agrees with Rebbe Elazar, for if the Rabbanon did not penalize even relations with the yavam, דעיקר איסורא – which is a primary prohibition, all the more so they would not penalize monetary issues, such as her findings and earnings. But Rebbe Elazar would not agree with Rebbe Shimon, for he holds only monetary issues were not penalized, but relations with a yavam was penalized. They both agree with Rebbe Yose, for if the Rabbanon did not penalize rights which are only operative during marriage, all the more so they did not penalize the kesubah, which is only collected on the way out of the marriage. But Rebbe Yose does not agree with them, for he holds only her kesubah was not penalized. These, which are more stringent, were certainly penalized. Rebbe Yochanan has an opposite view.
- מה הויה לה למיעבד
The Mishnah had stated that Rebbe Shimon rules that if a woman remarried on the basis of two witnesses, she is permitted to return to her first husband. When Rav Sheishess heard that Rav ruled that the halachah is like Rebbe Shimon, he could not believe it, for it implies that the Rabbanon disagree with Rebbe Shimon and hold that this woman would be penalized and would not be permitted to return to her first husband. מאי הויה לה למיעבד מיאנס אנסה – What could this woman have done to prevent adultery? She was a victim of an אונס. She had no reason not to rely on the testimony of two witnesses. The Gemara brings numerous challenges to this premise of “What could she have done?” and in each case the Gemara answers that there is something she should have done. For example, Rav Shimi bar Ashi brought the Mishnah where one married his yevamah, and her tzarah went and married someone, ונמצאת זו אילונית – and the yevamah turns out to be an aylonis, the tzarah must leave her new husband and her yavam, and she is penalized like the adulteress. Why is she penalized? Let us say, “What should she have done?” The Gemara answers, איבעי לה לאמתוני – She should have waited before remarrying, until she knew with certainty that the yevamah was not an aylonis.
- ולקלא לא חיישינן
Rav Ashi said regarding a woman who remarried on the basis of a single witness, ולקלא לא חיישינין – but for a mere rumor that the first husband is alive, we are not concerned. The Gemara asks what type of rumor he is referring to. If it is one that began after her marriage to her second husband, he already taught this, כל קלא דבתר נשואין לא חיישינן – We are not concerned with any rumor about a woman’s forbidden status which begins after her marriage. The Gemara answers that since the woman came to Beis Din for permission to remarry and we granted her permission, כקלא נשואין דמי – it is considered like a rumor that began before her marriage to her second husband, since coming to court for a special dispensation means they consider the possibility that her first husband is still alive, and the rumor after the marriage is merely substantiating that earlier concern. Rav Ashi is coming to teach that this is not so.
