Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) FINES WHEN HER HUSBAND RETURNS

(a) Question: This is obvious!
(b) Answer: We need to hear that a Bas Levi is disqualified from Ma'aser.
(c) Question: Is a Bas Levi really disqualified from Ma'aser because of forbidden relations?

1. (Beraisa): A Bas Levi that was taken captive, or had forbidden relations - she receives Ma'aser and may eat it.

(d) Answer (Rav Sheshes): This is a fine.
(e) (Mishnah): A Bas Kohen is disqualified from Terumah ...

1. Even from Terumah mid'Rabanan.

(f) (Mishnah): The heirs of either man do not inherit her Kesuvah ...
(g) Question: But the Mishnah already said, she has no Kesuvah!
(h) Answer (Rav Papa): Here it refers to Kesuvas Bnin Dichrim (that her sons should receive her dowry).
(i) Question: This is obvious!
(j) Answer: One might have thought, we only fine her, since she sinned, but not her children - we hear, this is not so.
(k) (Mishnah): If either man dies, his brothers do Chalitzah, not Yibum.

1. The brothers of the 1st man do Chalitzah mid'Oraisa; mid'Rabanan, they may not do Yibum; the brothers of the 2nd man do Chalitzah mid'Rabanan; they do not do Yibum mid'Oraisa nor mid'Rabanan.

(l) (Mishnah - R. Yosi): She receives her Kesuvah from the 1st husband ...
(m) (Rav Huna): The latter Tana'im agree to the laws of the earlier Tana'im, but the earlier Tana'im do not agree to the laws of the latter Tana'im.

1. R. Shimon admits to R. Eliezer - marital relations is the primary prohibition, and he does not fine her in this - all the more so, objects she finds and her earnings, which are monetary, are not fined.
2. R. Eliezer does not admit to R. Shimon - objects she finds and her earnings, which are monetary, are not fined; but relations, which is a prohibition, he does fine.
3. Both of them admit to R. Yosi - (found objects and earnings), which apply when she is with her husband, they do not fine - all the more so, Kesuvah, which she receives when she leaves.
4. R. Yosi argues on them - Kesuvah, which she receives when she leaves, is not fined; but these, which apply when she is with him, he does fine.

(n) (R. Yochanan): The earlier Tana'im agree to the laws of the latter Tana'im, but the latter Tana'im do not agree to the laws of the earlier Tana'im.

1. R. Yosi admits to R. Eliezer - the Kesuvah is given from him to her, and we did not fine this - all the more so, her found objects and earnings, which go from her to him!
2. R. Eliezer argues on R. Yosi - found objects and earnings, which go from her to him, we fined - but the Kesuvah, which is from him to her, we do not fine!
3. Both of them agree to R. Shimon - Kesuvah, her found objects and earnings, which apply during his lifetime, they do not fine - all the more so, Yibum, which is after his death!
4. R. Shimon argues on them - Yibum, which is after his death, he does not fine - but her found objects and earnings, which apply during his lifetime, they do fine!

(a) (Mishnah): If she got married without permission (but rather, according to 2 witnesses) ...
(b) (Rav Huna citing Rav): The law is as our Mishnah.
(c) Objection (Rav Nachman): Why speak deceptively (as if all agree to this)?! If you hold as R. Shimon, say, the law is as R. Shimon!

1. Suggestion: If you will answer, saying that the law is as R. Shimon connotes, even in the 1st law (when married according to 1 witness, Yibum or Chalitzah by brothers of the 1st husband exempts the Tzarah) - then say, the law is as R. Shimon in the 2nd law!
2. This is left difficult.

(d) Objection (Rav Sheshes): Rav must have been dozing when he said this - by saying, this is the law, he implies that others argue (and say she is forbidden to the 1st husband) - what did she do wrong (that she should be fined)?!

1. Also, a Beraisa proves that Chachamim agree to R. Shimon!
2. (Beraisa): All Arayos (that got married) do not require a Get, except for a married woman that was married according to Beis Din (i.e. 1 witness).

i. We infer, if married according to 2 witnesses, no Get is needed.

3. Suggestion: If you will say, the Beraisa is as R. Shimon - but he does not require a Get when she is married according to Beis Din!

i. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): Beis Din made their ruling as a man that intentionally (had relations) with a (married) woman (i.e., if she relied on the ruling and got married, and her husband returned, we consider her to have intentionally committed adultery, and she is forbidden to her husband);
ii. A woman that got married according to (lying) witnesses is as a man that unintentionally (had relations) with a woman (and she is permitted to her husband).

A. A Get is not required in either case.

4. Rather, the Beraisa is as Chachamim!

(e) Answer #1: Really, Chachamim argue on R. Shimon; the 1st Beraisa is as R. Shimon; the 2nd Beraisa (Beis Din made their ruling...) must be explained differently.

1. Explanation #1 (Beraisa - R. Shimon): Beis Din made their ruling as a man that intended to engage a (single) woman, and a Get is required;

i. A woman married according to (lying) witnesses is as a man that did not intend to engage a woman, and a Get is not required.

2. Explanation #2 (Rav Ashi): The Beraisa only teaches what is forbidden, and does not deal with the need for a Get.

i. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): Beis Din made their ruling as a man that intentionally (had relations) with a (married) woman and she is forbidden to her husband;
ii. A woman that got married according to (lying) witnesses is as a man that unintentionally (had relations) with a woman, and she is permitted to her husband.

3. Explanation #3 (Ravina): The Beraisa only teaches when a sacrifice is required.

i. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): Beis Din made their ruling as a man that intentionally (had relations) with a (married) woman and no sacrifice is required;
ii. A woman that got married according to (lying) witnesses is as a man that unintentionally (had relations) with a woman, and a sacrifice must be brought.

(f) Answer #2: Really, the 1st Beraisa is Chachamim, but it must be understood differently.

1. (Beraisa): Arayos do not require a Get, except for a married woman (that remarried according to 2 witnesses) or a (married) woman that remarried according to a ruling of Beis Din.

(a) Question (Ula): Do we really not fine when the woman is blameless?

1. (Mishnah): Any of the following invalidates a Get:

i. It was dated counting from the kingdom of Rome, Persia, Greece, the building or destruction of the Temple;
ii. It was written in the east (of the city), but it says that it was written in the west, or vice-versa;

2. A woman that married based on such a Get cannot remain married to either husband, and all the fines (of our Mishnah 87B) apply.
3. (Summation of question): We see, she is fined even when blameless!

(b) Answer: She is to blame - she should have read the Get!
(c) (Rav Simi Bar Ashi - Beraisa): A man did Yibum; the Tzarah got married, and we then learned that the widow that did Yibum is an Ailonis (and the Tzarah was forbidden to marry) - she cannot remain married to either husband, and all the fines apply.

1. We see, she is fined even when blameless!

(d) Rejection: No, she is to blame - she should have waited (to see if her Tzarah is an Ailonis).
(e) (Abaye): A Tzarah of an Ervah to the Yavam got married, and we then learned that the Ervah is an Ailonis (and the Tzarah was forbidden to marry) - she cannot remain married to either husband, and all the fines apply.

1. We see, she is fined even when blameless!

(f) Rejection: No, she is to blame - she should have waited!

1. (Rava): A scribe wrote a Get for a man, and a receipt (for payment of the Kesuvah) for his wife. By mistake, he gave her the Get and gave him the receipt. Each gave the document he/she received to the other; only after she got married, the mistake was realized (she has the receipt and her husband has the Get). She cannot remain married to either husband, and all the fines apply.
2. We see, she is fined even when blameless!

(g) Rejection: No, she is to blame - she should have read the Get!
(h) (Rav Ashi - Mishnah): If any of the following was changed on a Get, it is invalid: his or her name; the name of his or her city;

1. A woman that married based on such a Get cannot remain married to either husband, and all the fines apply.
2. We see, she is fined even when blameless!

(i) Rejection: No, she is to blame - she should have read the Get!
(j) (Ravina - Mishnah): If he gave her a Get Kore'ach (a special type of tied Get which Chachamim enacted, but it lacks the required number of witnesses) ... she cannot remain married to either husband ...

1. We see, she is fined even when blameless!

(k) Rejection: No, she is to blame - she should have read the Get!
(l) Rav Papa was about to permit a woman to return to her husband, because she was blameless.

1. Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua: But all these Beraisos and Mishnayos show that we fine her anyway!
2. Rav Papa: But we answered - in all of them, she was to blame!
3. Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua: Will we rely on these answers?!

(m) (Rav Ashi): We are not concerned for rumors.
(n) Question: What sort of rumors is he dealing with?

1. If rumors which come already taught this!