Yerushalmi Yevamot 2:12 ירושלמי יבמות ב׳:י״ב

MISHNAH: A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow²⁰⁰A woman made a vow that she will have no usufruct from her husband. This is a vow the husband cannot dissolve since it is not a “vow of deprivation” (Num. 30:2–17). She can go to a competent rabbi who may find a way to relieve her from her vow if she sincerely repents. If he did not find a way to repeal the vow, the husband will divorce her (obviously, he need not pay her anything.) Since the refusal of the rabbi to annul the vow forces the divorce, he cannot profit from his act or people will suspect him of bending the law for his own profit. cannot marry her. If she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court²⁰¹In this case, he does not act alone since a repudiation needs 3 and ḥalîṣah 5 judges. In the other cases of the Mishnah, the availability of the woman for marriage depends on unforseeable circumstances.. And all who had wives who [subsequently] died may marry them²⁰²The rabbi who forces the divorce or the witnesses who testified that she was a widow. If they were married at the time of the action, they may marry the woman after the death of their wives since death is an unpredictable event. In this case, it is presumed that the marriage contract of the rabbi or any member of the court forbade the husband to take an additional wife without the first wife’s consent. Then the members of the court are truly disinterested parties. Ketubot of this kind are known from the Cairo Genizah.. And to all who were married to others and were divorced or widowed, they can be married. All are permitted to their sons or brothers²⁰³Nobody sins for the profit of others; see the Halakhah..

HALAKHAH: “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow”, etc. “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow cannot marry her.” I would say, that was his intention from the start. “If she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court”, because two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third. There²⁰⁵Baba Meṣi‘a, Mishnah 3:7., we have stated: “If somebody deposits fruit with another person, that one should not touch it even if it spoils. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he shall sell it under the supervision of a court because one is obliged to return a find to its owners.” Rebbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel²⁰⁶Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 39b (R. Abba ben R. Jacob in the name of R. Joḥanan). In the Babli, the circumstances of this ruling are very much in dispute.. What does one do with the money? Rav Jehudah said, the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ṭarphon²⁰⁷Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 2:7. If somebody finds perishables (with characteristics that might allow the indentification of the lawful owner), he sells them under the supervision of a court. R. Tarphon holds that he uses the money in his own business; therefore he is totally responsible for it. R. Aqiba says, he may not touch the money; therefore, he is not responsible if it is stolen.. It is a condition that the members of the court cannot buy. Rebbi Aqiba²⁰⁰A woman made a vow that she will have no usufruct from her husband. This is a vow the husband cannot dissolve since it is not a “vow of deprivation” (Num. 30:2–17). She can go to a competent rabbi who may find a way to relieve her from her vow if she sincerely repents. If he did not find a way to repeal the vow, the husband will divorce her (obviously, he need not pay her anything.) Since the refusal of the rabbi to annul the vow forces the divorce, he cannot profit from his act or people will suspect him of bending the law for his own profit. said, Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Sabbatai²⁰⁸An otherwise unknown Amora. asked: Here, you say, “if she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court,” and here, you say so²⁰⁹Why are the members of the court forbidden to buy the produce to be sold under their supervision?? Rebbi Yose said, there, the buy could be in thirds²¹⁰Every judge could profit from the transaction., but here, two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third.

“ “And all who had wives who [subsequently] died may marry them.” It only says “who died”; therefore, not if they were divorced. “And to all who were married to others and were divorced or widowed, they can be married”, since usually nobody sins for an uncertain future. “All are permitted to their sons or brothers,” since usually nobody sins for the benefit of either his son ot his brother.