Talmud sobre Yevamot 10:10

MISHNAH: If somebody makes a vow that his wife should not have any usufruct from him¹Then he cannot fulfill his obligation to feed, clothe, and house his wife., up to thirty days²This can be read to mean that the wife cannot sue for divorce if the husband limits his vow to thirty days. But if his vow is unlimited, the wife can demand an immediate divorce. It might also mean that in no case can the wife sue unless the husband did not provide for her for at least 30 days. he shall appoint a provider³Who provides for her from his own money and only later is repaid by the husband., more than that he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel⁴Who can remarry his divorcee if he found an Elder who dissolves his vow., for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah; in the case of the wife of a Cohen⁵He is given more time to find a way to dissolve his vow since he never could remarry his divorcee, Lev. 21:7. for two months he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah.

“He is not trustworthy” if he did not eat the years of legal claim³⁵If a person can prove three years of undisturbed possession of real estate and claims legal acquisition (by sale, inheritance, or gift), the court has to confirm him in possession since documents have to be kept only for three years. from it. But if he ate the years of legal claim from it, he is trustworthy if [the second person’s] father did not die in possession. But if [the second person’s] father died in possession, he is [not] trustworthy³⁶The three years of undisturbed possession count only if the person from whom he acquired it was alive during these years since the heirs might not be knowledgeable enough of the details of the deceased’s property to exercise their duty to object to the squatter’s occupation.. ³⁷Except for the last sentence, the following is Halakhah Baba Batra 3:4 in a different editing. As the following: Reuben ate from a field³⁸Undisturbed for 3 years. claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands the title to Simeon. Reuben came back and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob³⁹He should be called Rav Naḥman ben Jacob, in the Babli simply called Rav Naḥman, chief judge and highest authority in money matters in Babylonia. said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to Reuben⁴⁰If there are two against two witnesses and all four testimonies hold up under cross examination, there is no testimony and Simeon has no claim. The identical statement appears in the Babli, Baba Batra 31b.. That is what the rabbis here think. The rabbis there say, from the time it was removed, by clear testimony it was removed⁴¹Since (Deut. 19:15) “by the testimony of two or three witnesses the case shall be confirmed”, Reuben’s witnesses cannot be accepted unless they prove that Simeon’s witnesses were lying.
It is difficult to see who “the rabbis from there” are since Rab Naḥman was the authority in Babylonia and the Babli (loc. cit.) decides explicitly that later claims are admissible in money matters.. So the rabbis here say, from the time she married, by clear testimony she married⁴²This really belongs to the next paragraph, about a woman whose husband has disappeared and she remarried on the testimony of two witnesses that her husband had died; when two witnesses come and say he is alive, they are not listened to.. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis there agree that if during the first proceedings two [witnesses] say that his father died in possession and two say, he did not die in possession, Reuben’s claim is upheld⁴³If during court proceedings there are contradictory statements, none of which can be shown to be false, there is no proof and the claim of legal possession cannot be denied..

Rebbi Jacob bar Abin stated before Rebbi Jonathan: “‘If you deviated from under your husband.’¹²⁷Num. 5:20. The baraita is not quoted elsewhere. The other sources point out that the raped wife is expressly excluded by v. 13: “And she was not kidnapped” (Sifry Num. 7). This excludes rape.” How do you understand this? He said to him: Just as she is “under your husband” by her consent, so also in this case by her consent.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject; if they said, the menstruating woman is not mentioned in the Torah, Sabbath is not mentioned in the Torah, idolatry is not mentioned in the Torah, they are not liable⁹⁸Since anything written in the Torah is public knowledge and nobody would listen to them.. If they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part, they are liable. How is that? If they said, the menstruating woman is mentioned in the Torah but one who copulates with one who is watching a day to the next day is not liable⁹⁹In rabbinic medical theory, the minimum time which must elapse between one menstrual period and the next is the seven days of the niddah(Lev.15:19) followed by another 11 days. If a woman has a discharge on one of these 11 days, she is not classified as niddah but as zavah, whose rules are spelled out in Lev.15:25–30. Since the verse speaks of a discharge of many days, it is concluded that the full rules of zavah only apply after 3 days. For the first and second discharges in that 11 day period, the woman is called “watching one day to the next day”. For a day she is under the rules of niddah(Lev. 15:25) and therefore forbidden to her husband. But since the verse uses the expression all the days of the flow of her impurity shall be like the days of her menstruation, one could think that she is impure only during the day and not during the following night, or that a discharge during the night does not make her impure. This is clearly a matter of rabbinic interpretation.; Sabbath is mentioned in the Torah but one who brings from a private domain to a public domain is not liable¹⁰⁰The pentateuchal root of the prohibition to carry from a private to the public domain is Ex. 16:29, nobody should go out from his place, which is explained in Jer. 17:22 by do not move a load from your houses. Since as a matter of principle prophetic utterances should not be used as legal texts, the ruling of the Court could not be dismissed out of hand.; idolatry is mentioned in the Torah but one who prostrates himself is not liable¹⁰¹This is more difficult to understand since Deut. 17:3 clearly defines prostrating oneself in idolatry as a capital crime. Therefore, one has to agree with Maimonides’s Commentary that the Court changed the definition of “prostration”, e. g., ruling that kneeling down, bowing the head to the ground, is not punishable as long as one does not lie on the ground with outstretched hands and feet.; these are liable for it is said¹⁰²Lev. 4:13. Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Parašah4(7–8). something was hidden, something but not an entire subject.

HALAKHAH: “If he wrote a bill to divorce his wife and then changed his mind,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: There is no problem because of the purity of the priestly line and the court will not denigrate her⁸⁶If a woman became a widow who had been given a bill of divorce but who was not divorced because the condition attached to the divorce was not fulfilled, the court will not intervene if she marries a Cohen.. There came a case before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he acted following the House of Hillel. Rav asked him, why did you bring yourself into this great doubt? He answered, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose⁸⁷The greatest authority of his time. was with me. He quoted about them: “Two are better than one.⁸⁸Eccl. 4:9.”