Komentarz do Edujot 1:12

אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁחָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאָה מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאָמְרָה מֵת בַּעְלִי, תִּנָּשֵׂא. מֵת בַּעְלִי, תִּתְיַבֵּם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ אֶלָּא בְּבָאָה מִן הַקָּצִיר בִּלְבָד. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, אַחַת הַבָּאָה מִן הַקָּצִיר וְאַחַת הַבָּאָה מִן הַזֵּיתִים וְאַחַת הַבָּאָה מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, לֹא דִבְּרוּ בַקָּצִיר אֶלָּא בַהֹוֶה. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּבֵית שַׁמָּאי. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, תִּנָּשֵׂא וְתִטֹּל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, תִּנָּשֵׂא וְלֹא תִטֹּל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, הִתַּרְתֶּם אֶת הָעֶרְוָה הַחֲמוּרָה, לֹא תַתִּירוּ אֶת הַמָּמוֹן הַקָּל. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, מָצִינוּ שֶׁאֵין הָאַחִים נִכְנָסִין לַנַּחֲלָה עַל פִּיהָ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וַהֲלֹא מִסֵּפֶר כְּתֻבָּתָהּ נִלְמֹד, שֶׁהוּא כוֹתֵב לָהּ, שֶׁאִם תִּנָּשְׂאִי לְאַחֵר, תִּטְּלִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לִיךְ. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי:

Oto przypadki, w których Beth Hillel odwróciła się (ich orzeczenie), aby nauczać zgodnie z Beth Shammai: jeśli kobieta przybyła z zagranicy i powiedziała: „Mój mąż umarł”, może ponownie wyjść za mąż; „mój mąż umarł”, może zawrzeć małżeństwo lewiratu. A Beth Hillel powiedziała: "Nie słyszeliśmy (że wolno jej ponownie wyjść za mąż), chyba że przyszła z żniwa pszenicy) [jak w przypadku, który miał miejsce, kiedy ludzie poszli zbierać pszenicę, a wąż ugryzł i zabił jednego z nich a jego żona przyszła i powiadomiła o tym bet-din, po czym wysłali i stwierdzili, że jej konto jest poprawne. I pozwolili na to tylko w podobnych okolicznościach; ale nie uwierzono jej (aby świadczyła) o tym, co się wydarzyło za granicą.] (Na to) Beth Shammai powiedziała do nich: (Może ponownie wyjść za mąż), czy przyszła z żniwa pszenicy, czy z oliwek iz zagranicy. Mędrcy stwierdzili „zbiory pszenicy” tylko w takim przypadku, [ale to samo dotyczy wszystkich miejsc]—po czym Beth Hillel wycofała się (ich orzeczenie), by rządzić zgodnie z Beth Shammai. Beth Shammai mówi: Ona wychodzi za mąż i bierze kethubę (zapłatę). Beth Hillel mówi: Ona wychodzi za mąż, ale nie przyjmuje swojej kethuba—po czym Beth Shammai powiedziała do nich: Pozwoliliście na ervah (tj. ponowne zawarcie małżeństwa), które jest bardziej rygorystyczne, i nie pozwoliliście na pieniądze, które są mniej rygorystyczne! Beth Hillel odpowiedziała: „Dowiedzieliśmy się, że jej bracia nie wchodzą w dziedzictwo [jej męża] na podstawie jej świadectwa [jest napisane (Księga Powtórzonego Prawa 19:15):„ Słowem dwóch świadków itd. ”, Ale vis-à - widząc jej małżeństwo, rabini byli wyrozumiali, aby nie pozostała agunah.] Beth Shammai odpowiedziała: Ale czy nie powinniśmy się dowiedzieć (orzeczenia) ze zwoju jej kethuba [tj. z formuły czynu kethubah], gdzie pisze do niej: „Jeśli poślubisz innego, weź to, co jest napisane do ciebie” [a ona wyszła ponownie za mąż, dlatego powinna wziąć kethubę (zapłatę)!]— po czym Beth Hillel wycofała się (ich orzeczenie), by rządzić zgodnie z Beth Shammai.

Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot

אלא בבאה מן הקציר – like the event that took place that some people went to harvest wheat and a snake bit one of them and he died, and she came and announced in the Jewish court, and they sent out and found that it was according to her words. But they did not permit it (i.e., for her to re-marry), other than it was an example that the matter be something that is close by, but [if she is coming] from abroad, she is not believed.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot

Introduction Mishnah twelve begins a series of mishnayoth in which Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai initially disagree, until Beth Hillel changes their minds and teaches according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. Aside from the specific content of these mishnayoth, Beth Hillel’s willingness to admit that their rivals, Beth Shammai were correct, and even to subsequently teach their opinions, teaches a lesson of humility for all generations. Beth Hillel did not allow their personal glory to supersede their search for truth; when they recognized their own mistakes, they admitted them and changed their opinions accordingly.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot

אלא בהווה – it was an event that took place such as it was, and the same law applies to the rest of the places.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot

Our mishnah discusses a woman who returns from overseas and claims that her husband has died. The woman cannot bring any documentation to her husband’s death, and therefore the issue arises, is she to be believed? If she is believed, then there are four consequences to her statement discussed by our mishnah: 1) she may remarry, as a widow; 2) if the husband did not have children, she must be married to the husband’s brother (levirate marriage) or have him perform halitzah, the release from levirate marriage; 3) she may collect her kethubah, her marriage document which is paid upon death of the husband or divorce; 4) the husband’s brothers or other inheritors would divide his estate.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot

שאין האחים נכנסין – to the inheritance of her husband, for the All-Merciful said (Deuteronomy 19:15): “A case can be valid only on the testimony of two witnesses or more,” and concerning her marriage they (i.e. the Rabbis) were lenient because of her disability to remarry (see Yevamot 88a – as regards testimony to her husband’s death to prevent the eventuality of “widowhood in life.”).

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot

These are subjects concerning which Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai:
A woman who came from overseas and said: “My husband died” may be married again; “My husband died [without children]” she must be married by her husband’s brother (the. But Beth Hillel says: “We have heard so only in the case of one who came from the harvesting.” Beth Shammai said to them: “It is the same thing in the case of one who came from the harvesting or who came from the olive-picking or who came from overseas; they mentioned harvesting only because that is how it happened.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to Beth Shammai. According to Beth Shammai she is believed and may remarry. If the husband had no children she must either undergo levirate marriage or halitzah. Beth Hillel responds that the precedent for this law was a case where a woman had gone harvesting with her husband and she returned claiming that he had died. In such a case we don’t suspect that the woman would lie, for if she did her husband would return and contradict her. Since “harvesting” is close to the city, if the husband was alive he would return. However, if she was returning from abroad, she is not believed, for the husband may still be alive and she might lie assuming that he will not turn up. Beth Shammai responds that she is always believed, no matter where she had been. The case of “harvesting” was how the event really happened, but the Rabbis would have allowed her to remarry under any circumstance. In other words, from where she was returning is immaterial. Beth Hillel accepted Beth Shammai’s opinion and taught according to them.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot

מפני כתובתה – from the formulation that they established to write in the document of the marriage contract/Ketubah.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot

Beth Shammai says: “She may be married again and take her kethubah payment.” Beth Shammai further stated that this woman may not only remarry but may collect her marriage payment from her husband’s estate. Beth Hillel responded to Beth Shammai that although she may remarry, we do not allow her to collect the money, lest the husband is still alive. Beth Shammai then raised a difficulty with Beth Hillel’s opinion: generally speaking the law is more strict with regards to issues of personal status than with issues of money. If you are going to allow her to remarry, as we have already done, for which there are serious consequences (if it turned out that her husband had not died), all the more so should she collect the kethubah payment, for which there are not such serious consequences (at worst she will have to pay it back). Beth Hillel responded that with regards to monetary results of the alleged death, the brothers do not share in his inheritance. In other words, Beth Hillel brings proof from another area of law that with regards to monetary issues, this man’s death is not considered confirmed. To this Beth Shammai responds that we can learn that she collects her kethubah payment from the language written in the kethubah itself. The kethubah states that if she remarries, she may collect her kethubah payment. From this wording Beth Shammai concludes that any time she is allowed to remarry, she may collect her kethubah. Beth Hillel thereby accepted Beth Shammai’s point and taught according to them.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot

כשתנשאי לאחר – for behold she is married and afterwards can take [the monies] of her Ketubah.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot

Questions for Further Thought:
• What does Beth Shammai hold with regards to the division of the allegedly dead husband’s estate: do the brothers divide the inheritance? If they do not inherit, why not? Why would Beth Shammai on the one hand believe the woman enough to allow her to remarry, but not in order to allow the dead husband’s brothers to inherit?
• In all of these cases why do you think Beth Hillel changed their minds?

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Poprzedni werset Cały rozdział Następny werset