## Yevamot Daf 91a

###### Yevamot 91a:1
[Yevamot 91a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:1)

פְּשִׁיטָא! בַּת לֵוִי מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: It **is obvious** that she is disqualified, as she is a *zona*, a woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah and with whom she cannot establish a marital bond. The Gemara answers: Since it **was necessary for** the *tanna* to mention the disqualification of **a daughter of a Levite from** partaking of **the tithe,** he added that an Israelite woman is likewise disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.


###### Yevamot 91a:2
[Yevamot 91a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:2)

וּבַת לֵוִי מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר מִי מִיפַּסְלָא בִּזְנוּת? וְהָתַנְיָא: לְוִיָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית, אוֹ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בְּעִילַת זְנוּת — נוֹתְנִין לָהּ מַעֲשֵׂר וְאוֹכֶלֶת. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: קְנָסָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And a daughter of a Levite, is** she **disqualified from** partaking of **the tithe by licentiousness? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **a Levite woman who was captured,** who may have had intercourse with one of her captors, **or** even in a case **where** a Levite woman definitely **engaged in licentious sexual relations, we** nevertheless **give her** first **tithe and she may eat** it? This indicates that an act of fornication does not disqualify a woman from partaking of the tithe. **Rav Sheshet said:** The disqualification is **a penalty** imposed by the Sages on this particular woman for not taking sufficient care, as she married without witness testimony as to her first husband’s death.


###### Yevamot 91a:3
[Yevamot 91a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:3)

בַּת כֹּהֵן מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. אֲפִילּוּ בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further taught that the **daughter of a priest** in this situation is disqualified **from** partaking of ***teruma*.** The Gemara explains: This statement does not refer to *teruma* by Torah law, as it is obvious that she is prohibited to eat this produce. Rather, she is barred **even from *teruma*** that applies **by rabbinic** law.


###### Yevamot 91a:4
[Yevamot 91a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:4)

וְאֵין יוֹרְשָׁיו שֶׁל זֶה וְיוֹרְשָׁיו שֶׁל זֶה יוֹרְשִׁין כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְכוּ׳. כְּתוּבָּה מַאי עֲבִידְתַּהּ! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And** the mishna also taught: **Neither** the **heirs of this** one nor the **heirs of that** one **inherit her marriage contract.** The Gemara asks: **A marriage contract, what is its purpose;** why mention the inheritance of a marriage contract after the mishna has just said that she is not entitled to the payment of a marriage contract at all? The Gemara answers: **Rav Pappa said:** This is referring to **the marriage contract** payment **of the male sons.** One of the conditions of a marriage contract is that any male children born to this woman who inherit from their father will receive the sum of her marriage contract in addition to their share of the inheritance with their other paternal brothers.


###### Yevamot 91a:5
[Yevamot 91a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:5)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לְדִידַהּ דַּעֲבַדָא אִיסּוּרָא — קַנְסוּהָ רַבָּנַן, לְזַרְעַהּ לָא קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: This **is obvious.** Since she does not have a claim for the payment of her marriage contract, she is not entitled to the other conditions of a marriage contract either. The Gemara answers: It is necessary. **Lest you say** that **with regard to** the woman **herself, who committed a prohibition, the Sages penalized her,** but **with regard to her offspring the Sages did not penalize them,** as they did nothing wrong, the *tanna* therefore **teaches us** that the entire marriage contract is canceled, along with all its conditions.


###### Yevamot 91a:6
[Yevamot 91a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:6)

אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין. אָחִיו שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן חוֹלֵץ — מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְלָא מְיַיבֵּם — מִדְּרַבָּנַן. אָחִיו שֶׁל שֵׁנִי חוֹלֵץ — מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וְלָא מְיַיבֵּם — לָא מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא וְלָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further taught that **the brothers of this** one **and the brothers of that** one all **perform *ḥalitza*, and they do not consummate levirate marriage.** The Gemara explains: **The brother of the first one performs *ḥalitza* by Torah** law, as that woman is legally the wife of the first husband and therefore requires *ḥalitza*. **But he does not consummate levirate marriage by rabbinic** law, as the Sages penalized her and prohibited her from returning to the first husband. Conversely, **the brother of the second one performs *ḥalitza* by rabbinic** law, so that people do not say that a childless woman can leave her *yavam* without *ḥalitza*. **But he does not consummate levirate marriage, neither by Torah** law **nor by rabbinic** law, as her marriage to the second man was an error.


###### Yevamot 91a:7
[Yevamot 91a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:7)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בָּתְרָאֵי מוֹדוּ לְקַמָּאֵי, קַמָּאֵי לָא מוֹדוּ לְבָתְרָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught: **Rabbi Yosei says** that the obligation of **her marriage contract is upon the property of her** first **husband. Rav Huna said: The last** Sages in the mishna, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, **concede to the first** ones, and merely add to their statement. However, **the first** ones **do not concede to the last** Sages. In other words, the second set of Sages extend the rulings of the first Sages beyond the cases to which they specifically referred.


###### Yevamot 91a:8
[Yevamot 91a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:8)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דְּמָה בִּיאָה דְּעִיקַּר אִיסּוּרָא — לָא קָנֵיס, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן מְצִיאָתָהּ וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ — דְּמָמוֹנָא הוּא. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מְצִיאָתָהּ וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ דְּמָמוֹנָא הוּא — לָא קָנֵיס, אֲבָל בִּיאָה דְּאִיסּוּרָא הוּא — קָנֵיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies this statement: **Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Elazar.** How so? **For if** with regard to **sexual relations, which is the main prohibition,** Rabbi Shimon **did not penalize** her, as he claims that the intercourse of the *yavam*, her first husband’s brother, acquires her and exempts her rival wife, **all the more so** her first husband should be entitled to **her found** objects **and her earnings, which** are merely **money. And** yet **Rabbi Elazar does not concede to Rabbi Shimon,** as he claims that in the case of **her found** objects **and her earnings, which** are only **money,** the Sages did **not penalize** her, **but** with regard to **sexual intercourse, which is a prohibition,** they did **penalize** her.


###### Yevamot 91a:9
[Yevamot 91a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:9)

וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: הָנֵי דְּיָתְבָא תּוּתֵיהּ לָא קָנֵיס, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן כְּתוּבָּה דִּלְמִשְׁקַל וּמִיפַּק קָאֵי. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לָא מוֹדֵי לְהוּ, כְּתוּבָּה דִּלְמִשְׁקַל וּמִיפַּק — הוּא דְּלָא קָנֵיס, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּיָתְבָא תּוּתֵיהּ — קָנֵיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Elazar **both concede to Rabbi Yosei** with regard to a marriage contract. If in the case of **these** matters discussed above, **which** are relevant **when she is living under** her husband’s authority and is treated as a married woman, the Sages did **not penalize** her, but allowed him to retain her found articles and earnings as though she were a full-fledged wife, **all the more so** they did not make her forfeit the **marriage contract, which** is designed **for** her **to take and** then **leave** the marriage. **And** by contrast, **Rabbi Yosei does not concede to them.** He maintains that in the case of **a marriage contract, which** is **for** her **to take and leave,** the Sages did **not penalize** her, **but** with regard to **these** other conditions, which take effect **when she is** still **living under his** authority, they did **penalize** her.


###### Yevamot 91a:10
[Yevamot 91a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:10)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קַמָּאֵי מוֹדוּ לְבָתְרָאֵי, בָּתְרָאֵי לָא מוֹדוּ לְקַמָּאֵי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כְּתוּבָּה, דְּמִדִּידֵיהּ לְדִידַהּ — לָא קָנֵיס, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן מְצִיאָתָהּ וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, דְּמִדִּידַהּ לְדִידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In contrast to Rav Huna, **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The first** Sages **concede to the last ones,** but **the last ones do not concede to the first** Sages. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the statements of the first Sages are more inclusive, whereas the second Sages restrict and limit the previous rulings. How so? **Rabbi Yosei concedes to Rabbi Elazar,** as he reasons as follows: If with regard to **a marriage contract, which** is given **from him to her,** the Sages did **not penalize** her, as Rabbi Yosei maintains that since she did not sin willfully she is entitled to her marriage contract, **all the more so** they did not enforce a penalty with regard to **her found** objects **and her earnings, which** are **from her to him.** The Sages certainly did not cause him to forfeit something he has the right to claim from her.


###### Yevamot 91a:11
[Yevamot 91a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:11)

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ: מְצִיאָתָהּ וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ הוּא דְּמִדִּידַהּ לְדִידֵיהּ — לָא קָנֵיס, אֲבָל כְּתוּבָה דְּמִדִּידֵיהּ לְדִידַהּ — קָנֵיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Elazar does not agree with** Rabbi Yosei with regard to a marriage contract. He claims that **it is** concerning **her found** objects **and her earnings, which** are **from her to him,** that the Sages did **not penalize** her. **However,** as pertains to the **marriage contract, which** is **from him to her,** the Sages did **penalize** her, as a punishment.


###### Yevamot 91a:12
[Yevamot 91a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:12)

וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וּמָה הָנֵי, דְּמֵחַיִּים — לָא קָנְסִי, בִּיאָה דִּלְאַחַר מִיתָה — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא מוֹדֵי לְהוּ: בִּיאָה הוּא דִּלְאַחַר מִיתָה לָא קָנֵיס, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּמֵחַיִּים — קָנֵיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Elazar **both concede to Rabbi Shimon,** for the following reason: **And if** with regard to **these,** i.e., her found objects and earnings or her marriage contract, **which** are given **in his lifetime,** the Sages did **not penalize** her, then with regard to the **sexual relations** of the *yavam*, **which** occur **after the death** of the husband, is it **not all the more so** that they should not penalize her, and she should remain permitted? **And Rabbi Shimon does not concede to them,** as **it** is only in the case of **sexual relations, which** occur **after** his **death,** that the Sages did **not penalize** her. **However,** with regard to **these** other matters, which apply **during** the husband’s **lifetime,** the Sages did **penalize** her by depriving her of them.


###### Yevamot 91a:13
[Yevamot 91a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:13)

נִשֵּׂאת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אֲמַר רַב: הָכִי הִלְכְתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: גַּנָּבָא גַּנּוֹבֵי לְמָה לָךְ? אִי סְבִירָא לָךְ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֵימָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דִּשְׁמַעְתָּיךְ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָאָזְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that if **she married without** the **consent** of the court she is permitted to return to her first husband. **Rav Huna said** that **Rav said: This is the *halakha*. Rav Naḥman said to him: Why do you steal** in, i.e., why do you state your opinion in a sneaky manner? **If you maintain in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** then you should explicitly **say:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, as your *halakha* follows** the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Yevamot 91a:14
[Yevamot 91a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:14)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: אִי אָמֵינָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — מַשְׁמַע אֲפִילּוּ בְּקַמַּיְיתָא, אֵימָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And lest you say: If I** were to **say** that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** that would erroneously **indicate** that I agree with him **even with regard to the first** case, that of a married woman who married another on the basis of one witness. If so, you should **say** the following: **The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon with regard to the last** case. The Gemara comments: Indeed, the question of why Rav Huna did not state his ruling in this manner is **difficult.**


###### Yevamot 91a:15
[Yevamot 91a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:15)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָמֵינָא, כִּי נָיֵים וְשָׁכֵיב רַב אַמְרַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתְּתָא. הֲלָכָה מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגִי, מַאי הֲוָה לַהּ לְמִיעְבַּד — מֵיאנָס אֲנִיסָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Sheshet said: I say** that **when Rav dozed and was falling asleep he said this *halakha*.** In other words, Rav did not examine the matter carefully, as this ruling is unnecessary. Rav Sheshet explains: **From the fact** that Rav declared a ruling of ***halakha*,** it may be inferred **that** others **disagree** with this opinion. However, there is actually no dispute here, as **what could she have done?** It is as though **he raped her.** Since she received the testimony of witnesses that her husband was dead, she had no reason to refrain from remarrying. Her actions cannot be considered willing, as why should she refrain from marrying after receiving the testimony of witnesses that her husband was dead? Her lack of knowledge in this matter renders this case analogous to a rape. And as is well known, a woman who was raped is permitted to return to her husband.


###### Yevamot 91a:16
[Yevamot 91a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:16)

וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין צְרִיכוֹת הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט, חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁנִּיסֵּת עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין. עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין הוּא דְּבָעֲיָא גִּיטָּא, עַל פִּי עֵדִים לָא בָּעֲיָא גִּיטָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it was further taught** in a *baraita*: **Any of those with whom relations are forbidden by Torah** law **do not require a bill of divorce** to dissolve a union, **except for a married woman who remarried by** permission of **the court.** The Gemara infers: **It is** only a woman who married **by** permission of **the court who requires a bill of divorce,** but if she married **based on** testimony of **witnesses she does not require a bill of divorce.**


###### Yevamot 91a:17
[Yevamot 91a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:17)

מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין מִי בָּעֲיָא גֵּט? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עָשׂוּ בֵּית דִּין בְּהוֹרָאָתָן — כִּזְדוֹן אִישׁ בְּאִשָּׁה. עַל פִּי עֵדִים — כְּשִׁגְגַת אִישׁ בְּאִשָּׁה. אִידֵּי וְאִידִי לָא בָּעֲיָא גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further inquires: **Who is** the author of this *baraita*? **If we say** it is **Rabbi Shimon,** in his opinion **does** a woman who married **by** permission of **the court require a bill of divorce** from the second man? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says:** If **the court acted** merely in accordance **with their** own **instruction** when they permitted a woman to remarry and her husband later arrived, it is as though this remarriage were **a willful** act of **a man with a woman,** and she is penalized like an intentional adulteress. Conversely, if she married **based on** testimony of **witnesses,** it is considered **like an unwitting** act of **a man with a woman.** Either way, **neither** in **this** case **nor** in **that** one, i.e., whether the marriage was in accordance with a decision of the court or based on witness testimony, does she **require a bill of divorce,** as a woman who committed adultery, whether unwittingly or intentionally, does not require a bill of divorce from the adulterer.


###### Yevamot 91a:18
[Yevamot 91a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:18)

אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** the case that this *baraita*, which states that a woman who engaged in forbidden relations, including one who married based on witnesses, does not require a bill of divorce, is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis?** But if so, there was no need to issue a ruling to this effect, as everyone agrees that the *halakha* follows the majority opinion.


###### Yevamot 91a:19
[Yevamot 91a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:19)

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, וְתָרֵיץ הָכִי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עָשׂוּ בֵּית דִּין בְּהוֹרָאָתָן — כְּכַוּוֹנַת אִישׁ בְּאִשָּׁה [וּבָעֲיָא גֵּט], עַל פִּי עֵדִים — כְּשֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוּוֹנַת אִישׁ בְּאִשָּׁה [וְלֹא בָּעֲיָא גֵּט].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this suggestion: **Actually,** the *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** and you should **answer** the difficulty **as follows: Rabbi Shimon says** that if **the court acted** in accordance **with their** own **instruction,** it is **as though** there was **the intention of a man with a woman,** i.e., as though the man had relations with the woman for the purpose of marriage, **and** therefore **she requires a bill of divorce** from him. Conversely, if she married **based on** testimony of **witnesses** they considered it **as though** there was **no intention of a man with a woman,** as he had relations with her without the intention of marriage, **and** in that case **she does not require a bill of divorce.**


###### Yevamot 91a:20
[Yevamot 91a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/91a:20)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, לְעִנְיַן אִיסּוּרָא קָתָנֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: עָשׂוּ בֵּית דִּין בְּהוֹרָאָתָן — כִּזְדוֹן אִישׁ בְּאִשָּׁה, וּמִיתַּסְרָא עַל בַּעְלַהּ. עַל פִּי עֵדִים — כְּשִׁגְגַת אִישׁ בְּאִשָּׁה, וְלָא מִיתַּסְרָא עַל בַּעְלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** that there is no difficulty here at all, as Rabbi Shimon’s statement should be explained differently. In fact, Rabbi Shimon **taught** his ruling **with regard to** the **prohibition** involved, not the issue of a bill of divorce, **and this is what he said:** If **the court acted** in accordance **with their** own **instruction,** it is **as though** this was **a willful** act **of a man with a woman, and she is** therefore **forbidden to her husband** like a woman who intentionally engaged in relations with another man. However, if she married **based on** testimony of **witnesses,** they considered it **as though** it was **an unwitting** act **of a man with a woman, and she is not forbidden to her husband.**