Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Yevamot 9:4 ירושלמי יבמות ט׳:ד׳
Part of: Chapter 9
Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side
משנה: שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שְׁנִיָיה לַבַּעַל וְלֹא שְׁנִיָיה לַיָּבָם אֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל וּמוּתֶּרֶת לַיָּבָם שְׁנִיָיה לַיָּבָם וְלֹא שְׁנִיָיה לַבַּעַל אֲסוּרָה לַיָּבָם וּמוּתֶּרֶת לַבַּעַל. שְׁנִיָיה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה אֲסוּרָה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה. אֵין לָהּ לֹא כְתוּבָּה וְלֹא פֵירוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת וְהַוְולָד כָּשֵׁר וְכוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה.
MISHNAH: Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim21Cf. Mishnah 2:4.. If she is secondarily prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir22Since the first marriage was legitimate by biblical standards the levirate also will be legitimate by biblical standards.. Secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband. Secondarily prohibited to both of them, she is forbidden to both of them. She may claim neither Ketubah23Cf. Chapter 4, Note 84. nor usufruct24She cannot reclaim the usufruct the husband had from her dowry during the marriage. nor upkeep nor wear25If part of the dowry was in the form of vessels or clothing, she cannot claim the diminution in value caused by wear during the marriage. but the child is qualified26Since the marriage is completely legitimate by biblical standards, the child is qualified even for the office of High Priest. and one forces him to divorce her27The rabbinic court if it has the power to do so. All these rules are made to dissuade women to consent to such a marriage which otherwise they would have no incentive to refuse since the children are qualified.. A widow married to the High Priest, a divorcee of one that performed ḥalîṣah married to a simple priest, a female bastard or a Gibeoness married to an Israel, and Israel woman married to a Gibeonite or a bastard have a claim of Ketubah28Since in this case the children are disqualified, the woman has every incentive not to agree to such a marriage..
MISHNAH: Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim21Cf. Mishnah 2:4.. If she is secondarily prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir22Since the first marriage was legitimate by biblical standards the levirate also will be legitimate by biblical standards.. Secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband. Secondarily prohibited to both of them, she is forbidden to both of them. She may claim neither Ketubah23Cf. Chapter 4, Note 84. nor usufruct24She cannot reclaim the usufruct the husband had from her dowry during the marriage. nor upkeep nor wear25If part of the dowry was in the form of vessels or clothing, she cannot claim the diminution in value caused by wear during the marriage. but the child is qualified26Since the marriage is completely legitimate by biblical standards, the child is qualified even for the office of High Priest. and one forces him to divorce her27The rabbinic court if it has the power to do so. All these rules are made to dissuade women to consent to such a marriage which otherwise they would have no incentive to refuse since the children are qualified.. A widow married to the High Priest, a divorcee of one that performed ḥalîṣah married to a simple priest, a female bastard or a Gibeoness married to an Israel, and Israel woman married to a Gibeonite or a bastard have a claim of Ketubah28Since in this case the children are disqualified, the woman has every incentive not to agree to such a marriage..
הלכה: שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כול׳. הַשְּׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שְׁנִיָיה לַבַּעַל וְלֹא שְׁנִיָיה לַיָּבָם אֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל וּמוּתֶּרֶת לַיָּבָם. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה אֶצֶל הַיָּבָם. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת לוֹ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁכְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִיכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה.
HALAKHAH: “Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim,” etc. “If she is secondarily, rabbinically, prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is permitted to him, she has Ketubah, or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was forbidden to him, does she have no Ketubah29The question is not answered; in the absence of a rule, no claim of the woman married in levirate can be enforced in court. The Babli, 85a, decides that she has no Ketubah; in this case, the court will actively prohibit a claim of Ketubah.?
HALAKHAH: “Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim,” etc. “If she is secondarily, rabbinically, prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is permitted to him, she has Ketubah, or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was forbidden to him, does she have no Ketubah29The question is not answered; in the absence of a rule, no claim of the woman married in levirate can be enforced in court. The Babli, 85a, decides that she has no Ketubah; in this case, the court will actively prohibit a claim of Ketubah.?
שְׁנִיָיה לַיָּבָם וְלֹא שְׁנִיָיה לַבַּעַל אֲסוּרָה לַיָּבָם וּמוּתֶּרֶת לַבַּעַל. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה אֶצֶל הַיָּבָם. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁכְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִיכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת לוֹ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה.
“If she is secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is forbidden to him, she does not have Ketubah, or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was permitted to him, does she have Ketubah30The question is not treated in the Babli. Her claim of Ketubah is not enforceable in court.?
“If she is secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is forbidden to him, she does not have Ketubah, or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was permitted to him, does she have Ketubah30The question is not treated in the Babli. Her claim of Ketubah is not enforceable in court.?
וְלֹא פֵירוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת בִּלְבַד. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי צַיְידָנִיָיה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וּפַלִּיג עַל רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וְזַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. מַהוּ וְלֹא פֵירוֹת. שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת שֶׁאָכַל.
31From here to the end of the Halakhah, this is Halakhah Ketubot 11:7.“No usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, that he has from her only the usufruct32This is the only right he has as a husband; he has no right to what she finds or earns, nor may he dissolve any of her vows.. Rebbi Yose the Sidonian33An Amora of the fourth generation; he appears in the Babli as Rav Yosef Ṣidonî. stated before Rebbi Jeremiah, in disgreement with Rebbi Jeremiah34The Tosephta, 2:4, states the opposite: “He has no right to what she finds and earns, and no right to dissolve her vows.”: “He has the right to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows.” What means “no usufruct”? That she cannot reclaim from him the usufruct he had [from her property].
31From here to the end of the Halakhah, this is Halakhah Ketubot 11:7.“No usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, that he has from her only the usufruct32This is the only right he has as a husband; he has no right to what she finds or earns, nor may he dissolve any of her vows.. Rebbi Yose the Sidonian33An Amora of the fourth generation; he appears in the Babli as Rav Yosef Ṣidonî. stated before Rebbi Jeremiah, in disgreement with Rebbi Jeremiah34The Tosephta, 2:4, states the opposite: “He has no right to what she finds and earns, and no right to dissolve her vows.”: “He has the right to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows.” What means “no usufruct”? That she cannot reclaim from him the usufruct he had [from her property].
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. כָּל שָׁעָה הַוְיָא רִבִּי הִילָא אָמַר לִי. תְּנֵי מַתְנִיתָךְ. יוֹרְשָׁהּ וּמִיטַמֵּא לָהּ. וְתַנִּי כֵן. מְטַמֵּא הוּא אָדָם בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ הַכְּשֵׁירָה. וְאִינוֹ מִיטַמֵּא בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ פְסוּלָה.
Rebbi Yose said: All the time Rebbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her35Tosephta 2:4.. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife36A Cohen is required to become impure for the burial of his close relatives (Lev. 21:1–3). The secondarily prohibited is a qualified wife by biblical standards; he must bury her. A divorcee for a Cohen is disqualified; he may not become impure for her..
Rebbi Yose said: All the time Rebbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her35Tosephta 2:4.. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife36A Cohen is required to become impure for the burial of his close relatives (Lev. 21:1–3). The secondarily prohibited is a qualified wife by biblical standards; he must bury her. A divorcee for a Cohen is disqualified; he may not become impure for her..
רִבִּי אָבוּן בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. עַבְדֵי שְׁנִיּוֹת מַהוּ שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שְׁתוֹק וְיָפֶה לָךְ. הִיא אוֹכֶלֶת וַעֲבָדֶיהָ אֵינָן אוֹכְלִין.
Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden [wife]37The mortmain slaves of the wife of a Cohen. eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats38Her marriage is legitimate by biblical standards. but her slaves do not eat39Since the husband has no obligation to feed her and her slaves, the acquisition is not complete and the slaves cannot eat from what the Cohen does not have to give them (Maimonides, Hilkhot Terumah 6:20, commentary of Radbaz.).
Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden [wife]37The mortmain slaves of the wife of a Cohen. eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats38Her marriage is legitimate by biblical standards. but her slaves do not eat39Since the husband has no obligation to feed her and her slaves, the acquisition is not complete and the slaves cannot eat from what the Cohen does not have to give them (Maimonides, Hilkhot Terumah 6:20, commentary of Radbaz.).
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. גֶּט מְעוּשֶּׂה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּשֵׁר וּבַגּוֹיִם פָּסוּל. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל לִכְהוּנָה. וָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. אַכְרְזוֹן בְּקִרְוֵיכוֹן. פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל לִכְהוּנָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֵין מְעַשִּׂין אֶלָּא פוֹסְלִין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֵין מְעַשִּׂין אֶלָּא כְגוֹן אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. וְהָא תַנִּינָן שְׁנִיּוֹת. לָא בְגִין אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הַמַדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלֵּיהֲנוֹת לוֹ. עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם יַעֲמִיד פַּרְנָס. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא. שָׁמַעְנוּ כוֹפִין.
There, we have stated40Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:8.: “A forced bill of divorce is valid in Israel41If a rabbinic court forces the husband to divorce his wife, the divorce is valid.; it is invalid from Gentiles.42If the wife appeals to the Gentile court or ruler to force a divorce from her husband, the divorce document is invalid (except, as stated in the Mishnah, if the Gentile court or ruler forces the husband to obey the directives of the rabbinic court.)” Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood43The woman who uses the instruments of the Gentile government to force a divorce is not divorced but disqualified for the priesthood.. And Samuel said, publicize in your towns: It is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify44In the absence of parallel sources, it is difficult to ascertain the exact text and its meaning.. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah for a simple priest. But did we not state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Did he not say “for example”45He approves of judicial intervention in the case of any sinful marriage, whether by biblical or rabbinic standards.? But did we not state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him, up to 30 days he shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay Ketubah”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him46In this case, only moral pressure is acceptable; one may not jail the recalcitrant husband until he agrees to a divorce.?
There, we have stated40Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:8.: “A forced bill of divorce is valid in Israel41If a rabbinic court forces the husband to divorce his wife, the divorce is valid.; it is invalid from Gentiles.42If the wife appeals to the Gentile court or ruler to force a divorce from her husband, the divorce document is invalid (except, as stated in the Mishnah, if the Gentile court or ruler forces the husband to obey the directives of the rabbinic court.)” Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood43The woman who uses the instruments of the Gentile government to force a divorce is not divorced but disqualified for the priesthood.. And Samuel said, publicize in your towns: It is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify44In the absence of parallel sources, it is difficult to ascertain the exact text and its meaning.. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah for a simple priest. But did we not state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Did he not say “for example”45He approves of judicial intervention in the case of any sinful marriage, whether by biblical or rabbinic standards.? But did we not state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him, up to 30 days he shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay Ketubah”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him46In this case, only moral pressure is acceptable; one may not jail the recalcitrant husband until he agrees to a divorce.?
מַה בֵין אֵילּוּ לָאֵילּוּ. אֵלֶּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וְאֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. וְאֵילּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִין וְדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִין צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. אֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקְּנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד וְלֹא קָנְסוּ בָהֶן דָּבָר אַחֵר לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. וְאֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵין קְנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד וְקָנְסוּ בָהֶן דָּבָר אַחֵר לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. מַה נְפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. הַמַּחֲזִיר אֶת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵילּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהוּא דְבַר תּוֹרָה לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. אֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקְּנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד. וְזֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵין קְנָסָהּ בְּיָדוֹ וּבְיַד הַוְולָד לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה.
What is the difference between these and those47Between the disqualified women married to priests who receive Ketubah at the time of divorce and the secondarily prohibited who do not.? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah do not need support, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have Ketubah. Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have Ketubah48A more detailed discussion is in Tosephta 2:4/Babli 85b. Both these sources stress that a disqualified woman has no reason to seek out a Cohen since her child will be desecrated whereas a secondarily forbidden (who might be permitted to him by another sect) might want to be married by a relative. What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried49This case is not discussed in the parallel sources.. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has Ketubah. For those who want to say since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no Ketubah.
What is the difference between these and those47Between the disqualified women married to priests who receive Ketubah at the time of divorce and the secondarily prohibited who do not.? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah do not need support, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have Ketubah. Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have Ketubah48A more detailed discussion is in Tosephta 2:4/Babli 85b. Both these sources stress that a disqualified woman has no reason to seek out a Cohen since her child will be desecrated whereas a secondarily forbidden (who might be permitted to him by another sect) might want to be married by a relative. What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried49This case is not discussed in the parallel sources.. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has Ketubah. For those who want to say since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no Ketubah.
רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. רִבִּי זְעִירָה וְרִבִּי הִילָא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. בִּמְזוֹנוֹת פְּלִיגִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אוֹמְרִים לָהּ. הוֹצִיא. וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. הֲווֹן בָּעִיָין מֵימַר כֵּן. בִּתְנַיֵי כְּתוּבָּה פְלִיגִין. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. בְּיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ קָנְסוּ לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בָּהּ. וּמָאן דָּמַר. בִּמְזוֹנוֹת פְּלִיגִין. הָא בִּתְנַיֵי כְּתוּבָּה לא. לָמָּה. בָּהּ קָנְסוּ וְלֹא קָנְסוּ בְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ.
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila say that they differ about upkeep50In the case of an irregular marriage of a Cohen.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may demand upkeep51From her husband.. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, one says to [him]52Reading לה in the ms. and the ediio princeps as לו., divorce her! And you say so? They wanted to say so, they differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah53The general framework of the obligations of a husband towards his wife and her heirs which can be enforced even if not written in the document (Mishnah Ketubot Chapter 4).. Everybody agrees that she cannot claim support since they even punished her heirs, so much more herself. But for him who says that they differ about upkeep it follows that they do not differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah. They fined her but not her heirs.
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila say that they differ about upkeep50In the case of an irregular marriage of a Cohen.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may demand upkeep51From her husband.. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, one says to [him]52Reading לה in the ms. and the ediio princeps as לו., divorce her! And you say so? They wanted to say so, they differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah53The general framework of the obligations of a husband towards his wife and her heirs which can be enforced even if not written in the document (Mishnah Ketubot Chapter 4).. Everybody agrees that she cannot claim support since they even punished her heirs, so much more herself. But for him who says that they differ about upkeep it follows that they do not differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah. They fined her but not her heirs.