Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A WIFE IS NOT BELIEVED REGARDING HER TZARAH

(a) (Gemara): We infer, the reason the Tzarah is forbidden is because she said that he did not die - had she kept quiet, she would be permitted!

1. Objection: But a wife is not believed regarding her Tzarah!

(b) Rejection: The inference is wrong - the case where the Tzarah says that he did not die was picked to teach something else.

1. One might have thought, he really died - the Tzarah only lies to (try to) prevent the 1st woman from marrying; she is willing to afflict herself in order to afflict her Tzarah - we hear, this is not so.

(c) (Mishnah): 1 wife says that he died ...
(d) Question: Why doesn't R. Meir argue in the 1st case also?
(e) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): He does!
(f) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): The 1st case can even be as R. Meir - 1 person that says that a man did not die is not considered contradictory testimony.
(g) (Mishnah): 1 witness says that he died, 1 says that he did not die; a woman says that he died, a woman (even a Tzarah) says that he did not die - she may not marry.

1. This fits well according to R. Elazar - the Stam Mishnah is as R. Meir.
2. This is difficult according to R. Yochanan - this is unlike all the Tana'im!

i. This is left difficult.

(h) (Mishnah): A woman went overseas with her husband; she returned and said that her husband died - she may get married and receives her Kesuvah, and her Tzarah is forbidden;

1. R. Tarfon says, if the Tzarah is a Bas Yisrael, and the husband was a Kohen, she continues to eat Terumah; R. Akiva says, to prevent her from sin, she is forbidden to marry and forbidden to eat Terumah;

(i) A woman says, my husband died, and then my father-in-law - she may get married and receives her Kesuvah, but her mother-in-law may not get married;

1. R. Tarfon says, if the mother-in-law is a Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen, she continues to eat Terumah; R. Akiva says, to prevent her from sin, she is forbidden to marry and forbidden to eat Terumah.

(j) (Gemara): It is necessary to teach both cases.

1. If only the 1st case was taught - we would think, there R. Tarfon says that her testimony does not affect the Tzarah at all, because the Tzarah causes her bodily pain (less frequent relations); but her mother-in-law only causes her pain of words, we would be stringent on the mother-in-law, lest the daughter-in-law is telling the truth;
2. If only the 2nd case was taught - we would think, there R. Akiva says that we are stringent on the mother-in-law, lest the daughter-in-law is telling the truth; but a Tzarah causes her bodily pain, R. Akiva would admit to R. Tarfon.

(k) (Rav Yehudah): The law is as R. Tarfon.
(l) (Abaye): A Stam Mishnah is as R. Tarfon, supporting the above ruling.

1. (Mishnah): 'I had a son overseas; my son died, and then my husband' - she is believed; 'My husband died, and then my son' - she is not believed, and we are stringent according to her words - she does Chalitzah, not Yibum.

i. We are stringent according to her words, but not her Tzarah's words.

2) ONE UNSURE WHO HE OWES

(a) (Mishnah - R. Tarfon): A man engaged 1 of 5 women, he is unsure which; each says 'You engaged me'; he gives a Get to each one, and hands over money for 1 Kesuvah, and withdraws;
(b) R. Akiva says, to clear himself from sin, he must pay a Kesuvah to each one.
(c) A man stole from 1 of 5 men, he is unsure which; each says 'You stole from me'; he hands over the amount stolen, and withdraws;
(d) R. Akiva says, to clear himself from sin, he must pay the amount stolen to each one.
(e) (Gemara): The Mishnah teaches a case of engagement, not relations; it teaches a case of theft, not buying.
(f) Question: The Mishnah is not as R. Shimon Ben Elazar, nor the Tana he argues on!

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon Ben Elazar): R. Tarfon and R. Akiva agree, if he engaged 1 of 5 women, he hands over 1 Kesuvah and withdraws; they argued when he had relations with one;

i. R. Tarfon says, he pays 1 Kesuvah; R. Akiva says, he pays a Kesuvah to each.

2. They agree, if he bought from 1 of 5 men (and did not pay), he hands over the purchase price and withdraws; they argued when he stole;

i. R. Tarfon says, he pays once; R. Akiva says, he pays to each.

(g) Since R. Shimon Ben Elazar says that they do not argue by the cases of engagement and buying - we infer, there is a prior Tana in the Beraisa who says that they argue in these cases!

1. If our Tana is as that Tana - he should teach the cases of engagement and buying!
2. If out Tana is R. Shimon Ben Elazar - he should teach the cases of relations and stealing!

(h) Answer: Our Tana is R. Shimon Ben Elazar - the case is, he engaged 1 of the women through relations.

1. He teaches the case of engagement (through relations) to show how extreme is R. Akiva's opinion - even though this is only forbidden mid'Rabanan, he must pay each woman!
2. He teaches the case of stealing to show how extreme is R. Tarfon's opinion - even though this forbidden mid'Oraisa, he pays only once!

(a) (Mishnah): A woman went with her husband and son overseas. She returned and said, 'My husband died, and then my son' - she is believed; 'My son died, and then my husband' - she is not believed, and we are stringent according to her words - she does Chalitzah, not Yibum;
(b) (If she left without children, and returns and says) 'I had a son overseas. My son died, and then my husband' - she is believed; 'My husband died, and then my son' - she is not believed, and we are stringent according to her words - she does Chalitzah, not Yibum;
(c) (If she left without a Yavam, and returns and says) 'A brother was born to my husband. My husband died, and then my Yavam'; or, 'My Yavam died, and then my husband' - she is believed;
(d) If she left with her husband and her Yavam, and returns and says 'My husband died, and then my Yavam'; or, 'My Yavam died, and then my husband' - she is not believed,

1. This is because a woman is not believed to say that her Yavam died, to marry a stranger; nor to say that her sister died, to marry her sister's husband;
2. A man is not believed to say that his brother died, to do Yibum; nor to say 'My wife died', to marry her sister.

(e) (Gemara - Question - Rava): Reuven asks Shimon to receive a Get on behalf of Reuven's wife in a situation where she will fall to Yibum if not for the Get. Does the acquisition work?

1. Since she hates the Yavam, it benefits her to receive the Get, and one may benefit a person when the person is not around.
2. Or, sometimes she likes the Yavam, and the Get is detrimental - one does not harm a person when the person is not here.

(f) Answer (Rav Nachman): The Mishnah teaches this - we are stringent according to her words - she does Chalitzah, not Yibum (we suspect she is lying because she wants to do Yibum).
(g) Question (Ravina): Reuven has been quarreling with his wife. He asks Shimon to receive a Get on behalf of her - does the acquisition work?

1. Since they are quarreling, it benefits her to receive the Get.
2. Or, perhaps she prefers being married, in spite of the quarrels.

(h) Answer: She prefers being married.

1. (Reish Lakish): A woman says, 'It is better to live as 2 (i.e. married) than to live as a widow.'
2. (Abaye): A woman married to an ant (i.e. even a midget) puts her chair among the important women.
3. (Rav Papa): Even if her husband cleans wool (a scorned profession), she goes out on the porch to greet him (and is not ashamed).
4. (Rav Ashi): Even if he is from a bad family, she will not even request lentils (it suffices to her that she is married).
5. (Beraisa): All women married to such men have extramarital relations, and attribute the child to their husbands.