If a woman's husband went abroad, and they came and said to her [i.e., if one witness said to her]: Your husband died, and she remarried [on the testimony of one witness], and then her husband returned, she leaves the one and the other [as per the halachah of a married woman who committed adultery, who is forbidden to both her husband and to the adulterer, not having been forced. And though the rabbis accepted one witness to prevent agunah (perpetual inability to remarry), that is because a woman is expected to thoroughly search out the matter before she remarries, and because she did not do so in this instance, she is penalized. But if she remarried on the testimony of two witnesses who said: Your husband died, it is stated at the end: "If she remarried without a ruling of beth-din (i.e., if the permission of beth-din were not required, two witnesses having testified), she is permitted to return to her first husband," being considered "forced," for what was she to have done? But in the gemara it is shown that this is not the halachah, that it makes no difference whether she remarried by the ruling of beth-din on the testimony of one witness, or on the testimony of two witnesses — if her first husband returns, she leaves both, and all of the other provisions apply to her], and she requires a get from the one and from the other. [The reason she requires a get from the second is that when the second is seen alive, people think that she received a get from the first, on the basis of which she married the second, so that she is his bona fide wife; and if he sends her away without a get, it is found (i.e., the impression is given) that a married woman is sent away without a get.] And she has neither kethubah, nor fruit, nor sustenance, nor belaoth, [which were lost; but she does not forfeit those which remain] — neither from the one nor from the other. If she had taken from the one or from the other, she must return it, and the child is a mamzer from the one or from the other [If she had a child by the second, it is a confirmed mamzer, and if the first took her back and she had a child, it is a mamzer by rabbinic ordinance.], neither of them (if they were Cohanim) may become unclean to her (if she died), neither acquires the lost objects that she finds [For why did the rabbis ordain that a husband acquires such objects? To prevent his hating her. But here, let him hate her by all means!], nor the work of her hands [For why did the rabbis ordain that a husband acquires this? Because he feeds her. But in this instance, since her sustenance is not incumbent upon him, he does not acquire the work of her hands.], nor (the power) to absolve her vows. [For why does a husband have such power? So that she not become demeaning to him. But here, let her become demeaning by all means!] If she were the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes unfit for (eating) terumah, [having the status of a "zonah"], and if she were the daughter of a Levite (she becomes unfit for eating) ma'aser [This is a (rabbinic) penalty, for (by Torah ordinance), the daughter of a Levite who became a zonah does not become unfit for eating ma'aser], and the daughter of a Cohein (becomes unfit for eating) terumah [even that which is terumah by rabbinic ordinance], and the heirs of both do not inherit her kethubah [a kethubath b'nin dichrin (see Kethuboth 4:10)]. And if they died, the brothers of the one and the brothers of the other give chalitzah and do not take her in yibum. [The brothers of the first give chalitzah by Torah ordinance, and the rabbis decreed that yibum not be performed; and the brothers of the second give chalitzah by rabbinic ordinance, just as she requires a get from the second by rabbinic ordinance.] R. Yossi says: Her kethubah is attached to the property of her first husband. R. Elazar says: Her first husband has rights in what she finds, the work of her hands, and the absolution of her vows. R. Shimon says: Cohabitation with or chalitzah from the brothers of the first exempt her tzarah. [He disagrees with what precedes, viz.: "They give chalitzah and do not take her in yibum], and the child is not a mamzer [if her first husband took her back. And the halachah is in accordance with neither R. Yossi, nor R. Elazar, nor R. Shimon.] And if she married without the permission [of beth-din, as when two witnesses said to her: Your husband died, in which instance the permission of beth-din is not required], she is permitted to return to him.
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
האשה. ואמרו לה מת בעליך – that one witness said to her: “your husband has died,” and she married upon the testimony of one witnesses, and therefore, she should leave from this one and that one according to the law of a married woman who has been unchaste who is forbidden to her husband and forbidden to the person who initiated sexual intercourse with her for she is not an outraged woman and even though the Rabbis believe one witness regarding a woman because of being a chained woman. What is the reason? Because she herself is evidence by implication and she marries and this which is not evidence by implication, we fine her but she is married by [the testimony] of two witnesses who said to her that your husband died, but we say at the end, that she marries according to the testimony of the Jewish court, meaning to say, that she didn’t need the permission of the Jewish court since there were two witnesses testifying in the matter. She is permitted to return to her first husband for she is an outraged woman for what could she do? In the Gemara (Talmud Yevamot 88b) it proves that the Halakha is not this, but rather there is no difference whether she married according to the Jewish court with one witness and whether she married through [the testimony] of two witnesses, if her first husband comes, she should leave from this marriage (i.e., the second marriage) and that one (i.e., with the other husband) and all of these paths are concerning her.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
Introduction
This mishnah, and several mishnayoth which follow deal with the unfortunate situation where a woman thinks her husband has died, she gets remarried, has kids, and then her husband reappears. The mishnah lists the consequences of her now having unwittingly committed adultery.
The usual interpretation of this mishnah is that the marriage to the second husband was not valid, since a married woman cannot marry again. The penalties which she receives in this mishnah are because she didn’t check well enough to make sure her first husband is dead. As we shall see, this interpretation has certain difficulties.
A teacher of mine, Professor Shamma Friedman, suggested an alternative explanation of the mishnah, an explanation that was based on a comparison of the mishnaic law with other laws found in ancient near eastern law codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi. He proposed that the mishnah actually means that she is married to both men at the same time. The problem with this is that it is forbidden to be married to two men at the same time. Since each marriage is valid but forbidden, she cannot stay married to either and doesn’t get the benefits of either marriage. In other words, both marriages are biblically valid, but each husband makes the other husband’s marriage illegitimate. According to this interpretation, the woman is not penalized for not having checked. Rather the problems she encounters are the result of her being married to two men at the same time.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
וצריכא גט מזה ומזה – the reason that she requires a Jewish bill of divorce from the second [husband] for when they see that the first [husband] is alive, they would think that he divorced her, and as a result of this, she married the second [husband] and she is completely his (i.e., the second husband’s) wife, but if he removes her without a Jewish bill of divorce, she is found to be a married woman who leaves without a Jewish bill of divorce.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
A woman whose husband had gone to a country beyond the sea and they came and told her, “Your husband died”, married, and then her husband returned: She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. This section lists all of the results of her having married another man while her first husband is still alive. I will go through each one by one: She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one: She must be divorced from each of them, for she is forbidden to each. She also needs a get from each of them. According to the talmudic interpretation, the get from the second husband is only of rabbinic origin, for according to biblical law, she is not married to the second man. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one: She does not receive any of the financial benefits that she would have accrued from her husband. This clause was explained above in 9:3. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it: If she had taken any of these things to which she is not entitled, she must return them. Some times, in cases of doubt, possession is enough for a person not to have to return something. However, in this case, her possession is considered truly illegal and she must return what she took. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer: The child from the second husband is a mamzer because she gave birth to him while married to the first husband. Should she return to the first husband, the subsequent child will also be a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her: A priest is allowed to impurify himself to bury his wife. In this case, if either husband is a priest and she dies, they may not impurify themselves for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows: These are all rights given to a husband during marriage. Since the marriage is now invalid, he loses all these rights. Invalidating vows is discussed in Numbers 30. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah: The illicit marriage to the second husband disqualifies her from all rights that might be accrued from either kohanic or levitical status. The result is that she could no longer marry a priest nor eat tithe if her father was a Levite, nor eat terumah if her father was a priest. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah: According to a ketubah clause which we will see in chapter four of tractate Ketuboth, a woman’s male children inherit her ketubah. However, in this case they too are penalized and lose their inheritance. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum: Since both marriages were invalid, the brothers cannot perform yibbum. Note that according to the talmudic interpretation, the halitzah of the brother of the second husband is only of rabbinic origin, since according to Torah law the second marriage was not valid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
ולא בלאות – that were lost but her right to claim compensation for the wear and tear or ruin of the things which she brought along on her property that exist she did not lose.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
Rabbi Yose said: her ketubah remains a charge upon the estate of her first husband. The mishnah now brings up opinions that do not agree with the long list seen in section. Rabbi Yose holds that she does receive her ketubah from her first husband, since she only committed adultery unintentionally.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
והולד ממזר מזה ומזה – if she gave birth from the second [husband] he is a complete Mamzer/illegitimate child, and if the first [husband] took her back and she gave birth, he is a Mamzer from Rabbinic law.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
Rabbi Elazar said: the first husband is entitled to whatever she may find, and what she makes with her hands, and also has the right to invalidate her vows. Rabbi Elazar adds that the first husband continues to receive the economic benefits from his wife.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
לא זה ולא זה זכאין במציאתה – that the reason - why did the Rabbis state that what his wife finds belongs to her husband? It is because of enmity; here it should be enmity and hostility.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
Rabbi Shimon said: intercourse or halitzah with the brother of the first husband exempts her rival, and the child from him is not a bastard. Rabbi Shimon holds that the brother of the first husband may have yibbum with her, and that by performing yibbum or halitzah, the rival wife is exempted from yibbum or halitzah. Assumedly he also holds that she does not need halitzah from the second husband’s brother. Finally, should she go back to her first husband, the child from such a relationship is not a mamzer.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
ולא במעשה ידיה – that the reason – why did the Rabbis states that her handiwork belongs to her husband? It is because of sustenance and here, where she doesn’t have sustenance, her handiwork is not his.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
If she married without an authorization, she may return to him. This section really belongs to the following mishnah. It teaches that if she married without the permission of the court, she is allowed to return to her first husband, because in this case the second marriage was totally accidental. However, if she married with the permission of the court, the second marriage is valid and all of the above listed results occur.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
ובהפר נדריה – that the reason of why the husband annuls his wife’s vows, just as she should not make herself reprehensible to her husband, here, she would make herself look ever so repulsive (Talmud Yevamot 90b).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
נפסלה מן הכהונה – because she is a harlot.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
מן המעשר – it is fine, for the daughter [of a Levite] who ran about as a prostitute is not disqualified from the first tithe.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
מן התרומה – even the priest’s due of the Rabbis.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
יורשים כתובתה – the Ketubah of male issue.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
חולצין ולא מיבמין – the brothers of the first [husband] perform the act of Halitzah according to the Torah, but the Rabbis decreed that he should not engage in a levirate marriage, and the brothers of the second [husband] perform the act of Halitzah according to the Rabbis, just as she requires a Jewish bill of divorce from the second [husband] according to the Rabbis.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
ביאתה או חליצתה – he disputes with the first part of the Mishnah as it is taught they don’t perform levirate marriage.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
ואין הולד ממנו ממזר – if the first [husband] took her back but the Halakha is neither according to Rabbi Yosi, nor according to Rabbi Eliezer nor according to Rabbi Shimon.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
נשאת שלא ברשות – of the Jewish court, such as the example when two witnesses said to her: “your husband died,” that she doesn’t need the legal permission of the Jewish court.
