Mishnayos Yevamos Perek 9 Mishnah 3
Change text layout:
יבמות פרק ט׳ משנה ג׳
With regard to secondary relatives, who are forbidden by rabbinic law, if the woman is a secondary relative to the husband but not a secondary relative to the yavam, she is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam. Conversely, if she is a secondary relative to the yavam but not a secondary relative to the husband, she is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband. If she is a secondary relative both to this man and to that man, she is forbidden to this one and to that one. Furthermore, if a man marries a woman forbidden to him as a secondary relative, she does not have the right to receive payment for her marriage contract if divorced or widowed, nor is she entitled to payment from her husband for the produce of her property that he used, nor is she entitled to provisions for her sustenance from his estate, nor does she get back her worn clothes or other objects she brought with her to her marriage. And the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, and the court forces him to divorce her. In contrast, a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcée or a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] married to a common priest, a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite of unflawed lineage, and an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage married to a Gibeonite or to a mamzer all have the right to receive payment for their marriage contract, although it was prohibited for them to marry.
שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, שְׁנִיָּה לַבַּעַל וְלֹא שְׁנִיָּה לַיָּבָם, אֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַיָּבָם. שְׁנִיָּה לַיָּבָם וְלֹא שְׁנִיָּה לַבַּעַל, אֲסוּרָה לַיָּבָם וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַבָּעַל. שְׁנִיָּה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה, אֲסוּרָה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה. אֵין לָהּ לֹא כְתֻבָּה, וְלֹא פֵרוֹת, וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת, וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת, וְהַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר, וְכוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר, יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתֻבָּה:
Bartenura
שניה לבעל ולא שניה ליבם. אם אמו של בעל ולא של יבם, כגון אחים מן האב ולא מן האם:
אין לה כתובה. מנה ומאתים שהם עיקר כתובה הוא דלית לה לשניה, אבל תוספת יש לה:
ולא פירות. אין משלם לה פירות נכסי מלוג שאכל שלה, ואע״ג דפירות תקינו רבנן תחת פרקונה וזו אין חייב לפדותה דלא קרינן בה ואותבינך לי לאינתו ולפיכך היה ראוי שישלם לה מה שאכל מפירות נכסי מלוג שלה, אפילו הכי קנסוה רבנן דלא תגבי מיניה פירות שאכל בתנאי כתובה, כי היכי דקנסוה דלא תגבי מיניה עיקר כתובה, דתנאי כתובה ככתובה דמי:
ולא מזונות. אין צריך לומר שאינו חייב לזון אותה בעודה תחתיו, דהא בעמוד והוצא קאי, אלא אפילו הלך למדינת הים ולותה ואכלה לא משלם, דאילו באשה כשרה אם לותה ואכלה חייב הבעל לשלם, שהמלוה תובע אותה מה שהלוה לה והיא תובעת לבעלה, דדוקא במי שפרנסה שלא בדרך הלואה אמרינן בכתובות הלכה כחנן דאמר מי שהלך למדינת הים ועמד אחד ופרנס את אשתו הניח מעותיו על קרן הצבי דכיון שבשביל בעלה פרנסה ולא הלוה לה כלום למאן קא תבע, היא לא לותה והבעל לא ביקש ממנו שיפרנסה הלכך מצוה הוא דעבד, אבל אם הלוה לה, חייב הבעל לשלם אם היא כשרה, ואם היא מן השניות אינו חייב לשלם:
ולא בלאות. אם נשתמש הבעל בנכסי מלוג שלה עד שבלו אינו חייב לשלם, דסד״א הואיל ואין לה כתובה אם אכל הבעל נכסי מלוג שלה חייב לשלם מה שאבד ובלה מהם, קמ״ל דקנסוה רבנן שלא ישלם הבעל הבלאות. אבל מה שימצא מהן קיימים נוטלתן:
אלמנה לכהן גדול וכו׳ יש להן כתובה ופירות דמשלם להן הבעל פירות שאכל מנכסי מלוג שלהן. ומזונות יש להן שניזונות מנכסיו, ודוקא לאחר מיתה, אבל בחייו אין כופין אותו לזונן, דהא קיימי עליה בעמוד והוצא. ואם לותה אחת מהן למזונותיה בחיי בעלה, אין חייב הבעל לשלם למלוה. ובלאות נמי יש להן, שחייב להחזיר מה שבלה ואבד מנכסי מלוג שלהן. והני מילי כשהכיר בהן, אבל לא הכיר בהן אין להן לא כתובה ולא פירות ולא מזונות ולא בלאות, אבל יש להן תוספת ובלאות דאיתנהו בעינייהו. והאי דשניות אין להן כתובה ולא פירות ולא מזונות ולא בלאות ואלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט וכו׳ יש להן כתובה ופירות ומזונות ובלאות, לפי שהללו מדברי סופרים וצריכים חזוק, והללו מדברי תורה ואין צריכים חזוק. ובפרק אלו הן הלוקין מוכח דחלוצה לכהן גדול דאורייתא היא. ואע״ג דחלוצה לכהן הדיוט היא מדברי סופרים, עשאוה כשל תורה לדין זה:
שניה לבעל ולא שניה ליבם – if the husband’s mother and not of the levir, such as for example, brothers from the father bu not from the mother.
אין לה כתובה – a Maneh (i.e., 100 Dinar or 25 shekels) and Two-Hundred, which are the essence of the Ketubah and she does not have [anything] from the secondary relationship (which are prohibited as incestuous by rabbinic decree), but she does have the supplement.
ולא פירות – he doesn’t pay her the usufruct of the wife’s estate of which the husband has the fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration that he consumed which are hers, [and even though] that the usufruct, the Rabbis instituted (see Talmud Ketubot 47b) [the duty of support as an equivalent for her handiwork], and that of redemption as an equivalent for the privilege of usufruct [of her property], but he is not liable to redeem her, for we do not call her ואותבינך לי לאינתו /and I will make you to be my wife, and therefore, it was appropriate that he would pay her what he had consumed from the usufruct of her estate, even so, the Rabbis fined her that she should not collect from him the usufruct that he consumed as conditions of the Ketubah. For just as they fined her that she should not collect from him the essence of the Ketubah, for the conditions of the Ketubah are like the Ketubah itself.
ולא מזונות – it is not necessary to state that he is not obligated to support her while she is still under him, for but surely, it is his duty to divorce her (literally: “he stands under the charge to get up and make her go out” – how, then, could he be expected to maintain her? ). But rather, even if he went abroad and he and he lent her and consumed from her [property], he does not pay, for if we were dealing with a fit woman, if he borrowed from her and consumed from her [property], the husband would be obligated to pay [her back]. For the loan claims her what he lent to her and she makes a claim to her husband. And especially for someone who supported her not through the matter of a loan, we state in Ketubot (see Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 13, Mishnah 2) that the Halakha is like Hanan, as he stated: He who went overseas and someone went and supported his wife, he left his money on the horn of a deer for since it was for her support from her husband, and he did not lend her anything – whom can he make a claim? She did not borrow and he husband did not request from him that he should support her, therefore, it was Mitzvah that he did, but if he lent her, the husband is liable to pay if she is fit, and if she is from one of the relationships of the second degree (i.e., of the second generation), he is not liable to pay.
ולא בלאות – if the husband used her usufruct until they wore out, he is not liable to pay for you might think I would say, for since she lacks a Ketubah, but the husband ate from her usufruct, he is liable to pay what was lost and worn out, it comes to tell us that the Rabbis fined her so that the husband would not pay for worn clothes (i.e.., and indemnity for clothes which have completely worn out), but what he finds from them existing, she takes them.
אלמנה לכהן גדול וכו' – they have a Ketubah and usufruct and the husband pays them (i.e., his wives) for the usufruct that he ate from his wive’s estates of which the husband has fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration and food that they have as they are supported from his property [and especially after] [his] death. But during his lifetime, we don’t force him to support/feed them for we uphold regarding him that it is his duty to divorce her (i.e., literally, he stands under (the charge) to get up and make her go out) and if one of them borrowed her support during the life of her husband, the husband is not liable to pay the lender. And worn out clothing also, there are those who state that he is liable to restore what was worn out and lost from their usufruct, and these words, are when he recognized them, but if he did not recognize them, they have neither a Ketubah, nor usufruct, nor support, nor worn-out clothing, but they do have the supplement and the worn-out clothing that they have in their sight. But second-degree relations do not have a Ketubah, nor usufruct, nor support nor worn-out clothing and a widow [married to] a High Priest, a divorcee and/or a woman who had Halitzah performed to a standard Kohen, ,etc., they have a Ketubah, and usufruct and support and worn out clothing, because these things are from the words of the Scribes and require strengthening. And in the [third chapter of Tractate Makkot}: “Who are they who are flogged?” it is proven that the prohibition of a woman who had undergone Halitzah [is prohibited] to a [High] Priest from the Torah, and even though that [the prohibition] of a woman who had undergone Halitzah [who is married] to a regular Kohen is from the worlds of the Scribes, they made it of Torah law for this law.