## Yevamot Daf 91b

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

רָבִינָא אָמַר, לְעִנְיַן קׇרְבָּן קָתָנֵי: עָשׂוּ בֵּית דִּין בְּהוֹרָאָתָן — כִּזְדוֹן אִישׁ בָּאִשָּׁה, וְלָא מַתְיָא קׇרְבָּן. עַל פִּי עֵדִים — כְּשִׁגְגַת אִישׁ בְּאִשָּׁה, וּמַתְיָא קׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said** that this *baraita* **is taught with regard to an offering,** and it should be explained as follows: 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** therefore **does not bring an offering,** as an individual who followed the ruling of the court is exempt from bringing an offering (see *Horayot* 2a–b). If she married **based on** testimony of **witnesses,** it is considered **as though** this was **an unwitting** act **of a man with a woman, and** therefore **she brings an offering.**


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא קַמַּיְיתָא — רַבָּנַן הִיא, וְתָרֵיץ הָכִי: חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְשֶׁנִּיסֵּת עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** and refute Rav Sheshet’s difficulty in the following manner: **This first** *baraita*, which exempts forbidden women from a bill of divorce, **is** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who prohibit a woman in this situation to her husband, even if she had married another based on witnesses. And you should **answer** the difficulty by reading the relevant clause of the *baraita* **as follows: Apart from a married woman** who married on the basis of witness testimony, **and** this includes one **who married by** permission of **the court,** as she too requires a bill of divorce.


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

מֵתִיב עוּלָּא: מִי אָמְרִינַן מַאי הֲוָה לַהּ לְמִיעְבַּד? וְהָתְנַן: כָּתַב לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת, לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת מָדַי, לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת יָוָן, לְבִנְיַן הַבַּיִת, לְחוּרְבַּן הַבַּיִת, הָיָה בַּמִּזְרָח וְכָתַב בַּמַּעֲרָב, בַּמַּעֲרָב וְכָתַב בַּמִּזְרָח —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Ulla raised an objection** against Rav Sheshet’s reasoning: **Do we say** this justification: **What could she have done?** Is a woman considered to have acted under duress when she had no way to avoid sin? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Gittin* 79b): If a man **wrote** a bill of divorce and dated it according **to a kingdom that is not suitable [*hogenet*],** i.e., one that does not reign over their place of residence; or according **to the kingdom of Media** or according **to the kingdom of Greece,** which are no longer in existence; or if he dated it according **to the building of the Temple** or according **to the destruction of the Temple;** and similarly if the bill of divorce **was** given **in the east and he wrote** in it a place **in the west,** or **in the west and he wrote** a place **in the east,** this bill of divorce is invalid.


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

תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכׇל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָּהּ. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא: מַאי הֲוָה לַהּ לְמִיעְבַּד! אִיבְּעִי לַהּ לְאַקְרוֹיֵי לְגִיטָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, if she married another man **she must leave this one and that one,** both the one who gave her the bill of divorce and the new husband. **And all these matters** mentioned in the mishna here, the penalties imposed on a married woman who remarried unlawfully, apply **to her.** The Gemara asks: **But why? Let us say: What could she have done.** She acted under duress, as she married again only because she thought the bill of divorce was valid. The Gemara answers: This woman did not act under duress, as **she should have had the bill of divorce read** by a scholar, who would have told her that it was invalid.


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

אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ וְהָלְכָה צָרָתָהּ וְנִשֵּׂאת, וְנִמְצֵאת זוֹ אַיְלוֹנִית — תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכׇל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָּהּ. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: מַאי הֲוָה לַהּ לְמִיעְבַּד? אִיבְּעִי לַהּ לְאַמְתּוֹנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Come** and **hear** a different proof. With regard to **one who married his *yevama*, and the rival wife** of the *yevama* **went and married** someone else, **and this** *yevama* **was** later **discovered** to be **a sexually underdeveloped woman,** which means that she was never eligible for levirate marriage and therefore her act of intercourse did not exempt her rival wife from levirate marriage, the rival wife must **leave this one and that one,** i.e., her husband must give her a bill of divorce and she may not marry the *yavam*, **and all these matters** apply **to her. But why?** Again, **let us say: What could she have done.** The Gemara answers: This is no proof, as **she should have waited** until it was clearly established that the other wife was not a sexually underdeveloped woman.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תָּא שְׁמַע: כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן, הָלְכוּ צָרוֹת וְנִישְּׂאוּ וְנִמְצְאוּ אֵלּוּ אַיְלוֹנִיּוֹת — תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכׇל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָּהּ. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: מַאי הֲוָה לַהּ לְמִיעְבַּד? אִיבְּעִי לַהּ לְאַמְתּוֹנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Come** and **hear:** With regard to **all those with whom relations are forbidden, with regard to** whom the Sages **said** that **they exempt their rival wives,** if these **rival wives went and married, and** one of **these** forbidden women was **discovered** to be **a sexually underdeveloped woman,** which means that the obligation of levirate marriage did not apply to her at all, and it was the rival wives who should have performed levirate marriage, the rival wife must **leave** both **this and that, and all these matters** apply **to her. But why? Let us say: What could she have done.** The Gemara answers as before: **She should have waited.**


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

אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: כָּתַב סוֹפֵר גֵּט לָאִישׁ וְשׁוֹבָר לָאִשָּׁה, וְטָעָה וְנָתַן גֵּט לָאִשָּׁה וְשׁוֹבָר לָאִישׁ, וְנָתְנוּ זֶה לָזֶה וְזֶה לָזֶה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Come** and **hear: A scribe wrote a bill of divorce for the man and a receipt for the woman,** so that the man should give the bill of divorce to his wife and she should give him the receipt upon his delivery of the marriage contract. **And** the scribe **erred and gave** the **bill of divorce to the woman and** the **receipt to the man,** leaving them with the mistaken impression that he had the bill of divorce and she the receipt, **and they gave** each other the documents, **this one to that one and that one to this one.**


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

וּלְאַחַר זְמַן הֲרֵי הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הָאִישׁ, וְשׁוֹבָר מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הָאִשָּׁה — תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכׇל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָּהּ. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: מַאי הֲוָה לַהּ לְמֶיעְבַּד! אִיבְּעִי לַהּ לְאַקְרוֹיֵי לְגִיטָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And after a while** it became clear **that the bill of divorce is in the man’s possession and the receipt in the woman’s possession,** and no act of divorce had been performed at all. If the woman had married someone else in the meantime she must **leave** both **this one and that one, and all these matters** apply **to her. But why? Let us say: What could she have done.** The Gemara answers: Here too, **she should have had the bill of divorce read** by an expert.


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: שִׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ — תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכׇל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָּהּ. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: מַאי הֲוָה לַהּ לְמִיעְבַּד! אִיבְּעִי לַהּ לְאַקְרוֹיֵי לְגִיטָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Come** and **hear:** If a man **changed his name, or** his wife’s **name,** or **the name of his city, or the name of her city,** and she remarried, she must **leave** both **this one and that one, and all these matters** apply **to her. But why? Let us say: What could she have done.** The Gemara answers: Once again, **she should have had the bill of divorce read** by a scholar.


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

אָמַר רָבִינָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: כְּנָסָהּ בְּגֵט קֵרֵחַ תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה כּוּ׳ — אִיבְּעִי לַהּ לְאַקְרוֹיֵי לְגִיטָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Come** and **hear:** A man **married** a woman **on** the basis that she was divorced. However, she had actually received **a bare bill of divorce,** i.e., missing a signature. This is referring to a special type of bill of divorce, one that was folded and sewn up. It requires as many witnesses as the number of lines it contains. If a bill of divorce of this kind does not have enough witnesses, it is invalid. In the case of the *baraita*, if this woman married another man after receiving this bill of divorce, she must **leave** both **this one and this one,** and all these penalties apply to her. Again, the question is: What could she have done? The Gemara answers, as before: **She should have had the bill of divorce read** by someone who could have told her it was invalid.


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

רַב פָּפָּא סָבַר לְמִיעְבַּד עוֹבָדָא בְּמַאי הֲוָה לַהּ לְמִיעְבַּד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְהָתַנְיָא כׇּל הָנֵי מַתְנְיָיתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Pappa thought to take action** and permit a woman to return to her husband based on the rationale: **What could she have done.** In a case where she had no means of clarifying the matter, he ruled that she should be considered to have acted under duress. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: But isn’t it taught** repeatedly **in all these *mishnayot*** that this argument is not accepted?


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָאו שַׁנִּינְהוּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאַשִּׁינּוּיֵי לֵיקוּ וְלִיסְמוֹךְ! (וּפְסַק).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa **said to** Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: **And** did **we not resolve** these *mishnayot*, by explaining that in those particular cases she did have the option of clarifying the matter? **He said to him: And shall we stand and rely on answers?** Admittedly, we found some way of resolving these questions, but the accumulation of difficulties indicates that the rationale: What could she have done, is unacceptable. **And** indeed, Rav Pappa **ceased** to follow his original intention and did not issue a lenient ruling.


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, וּלְקָלָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן. הֵי קָלָא? אִילֵּימָא קָלָא דְּבָתַר נִשּׂוּאִין — הָא אַמְרַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי חֲדָא זִימְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses the case of the mishna from another perspective. **Rav Ashi said: And we are not concerned about a rumor.** In other words, if there was an unsubstantiated rumor that the husband was alive, the court takes no notice of it. The Gemara asks: **Which** kind of **rumor** does he mean? **If we say** that this is referring to **a rumor that** spread **after** the **marriage** of this woman to another man, **Rav Ashi has** already **said this once, as Rav Ashi said:**