Mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 9:3

שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, שְׁנִיָּה לַבַּעַל וְלֹא שְׁנִיָּה לַיָּבָם, אֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַיָּבָם. שְׁנִיָּה לַיָּבָם וְלֹא שְׁנִיָּה לַבַּעַל, אֲסוּרָה לַיָּבָם וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַבָּעַל. שְׁנִיָּה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה, אֲסוּרָה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה. אֵין לָהּ לֹא כְתֻבָּה, וְלֹא פֵרוֹת, וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת, וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת, וְהַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר, וְכוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר, יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתֻבָּה:

The sheniyoth interdicted by the soferim (see 2:4): "If she were shniyah to the husband and not to the yavam [e.g., the mother of her husband's mother, but not of the yavam's mother, as when they were brothers from the father but not from the mother], she is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam. If she were shniyah to the yavam and not to the husband, she is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband. If she were shniyah to both, she is forbidden to both. She has no kethubah [It is the hundred and two hundred, which is the principal of the kethubah, which she does not have, but she does have the addition], and she does not have fruit [He does not pay her for the fruit of her nichsei melog. And even though the rabbis granted him fruit for his obligation to redeem her, and he has no obligation to redeem this one, in that she does not satisfy: "And I shall cause you to dwell with me as a wife" — so that it would seem that he should reimburse her for what he ate of her nichsei melog — still, the rabbis penalized her to have no claim on the fruit that he ate as a condition of the kethubah, just as they penalized her to have no claim on the principal of the kethubah. For a condition of the kethubah is likened to the kethubah itself.], and she does not have sustenance [It goes without saying that he does not have to feed her while she is still with him, for he is obliged to send her away. But even if he went abroad and she borrowed and ate, he need not pay. For with a kasher wife, if she borrowed and ate, the husband is obliged to pay. For the lender claims what he lent her and she claims it of her husband. For it is only when one fed her not by way of loan that we say in Kethuvoth that the halachah is according to Chanan, who said that if one went abroad and another fed his wife, he (the latter) has placed his money "on a deer's horn." For since he fed her for the sake of her husband, and he lent her nothing, from whom can he claim payment? She did not borrow anything, and her husband did not ask him to feed her. Therefore, he has performed a mitzvah (but he can make no claim). If he lent her, and she is kasher, her husband must repay him, but if she is one of the shniyoth, he is not obliged to pay.], and she does not receive belaoth [If the husband used her nichsei melog until they were "worn out" (balu), he need not reimburse her. For we might think that since she has no kethubah, if the husband ate her nichsei melog, he must reimburse her for what was "worn away"; we are, therefore, apprised that the rabbis penalized her, that her husband not pay belaoth, but whatever she finds remaining (of the nichsei melog) she takes], and the child (of the union) is kasher, and we force him to send her away. A widow to a high-priest, a divorcée and a chalutzah to a regular priest, a mamzereth and a Nethinah to an Israelite, the daughter of an Israelite to a Nathin or to a mamzer have a kethubah. [They have a kethubah and fruit, the husband paying them for the fruit he ate of their nichsei melog. And they have sustenance, being fed from his property (but only after his death. While he is alive, he is not forced to feed her, for he is obliged to send her away. And if someone lent her food in her husband's lifetime, he need not repay the loan.) They also have belaoth, the husband being obliged to return what he "wore away" of their nichsei melog. And this is only when he knew them (to be a widow, etc.), but if he did not know them to be so, they have neither kethubah, fruit, sustenance, nor belaoth. But they do have the addition and the belaoth which remain. As to the shniyoth not having kethubah, fruit, sustenance, or belaoth, and a widow to a high-priest, and a divorcée or a chalutzah to a regular priest having them — this is because the former are interdicted (only) by the scribes and require reinforcement (of the interdict), whereas the latter are interdicted by the Torah and do not require reinforcement. In the chapter "These receive stripes," it is shown that a chalutzah to a high-priest is interdicted by the Torah. And even though a chalutzah to a regular priest is interdicted by the scribes, it was likened to Torah-interdicted in this regard.]

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 9:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.