7. If two brothers were married to two sisters that were minors and orphans, and the husband of one of them died, she is exempt [from levirate marriage] by virtue of being the sister of his wife;3 so, too, with two sisters that were deaf-mutes. If one was of age and the other a minor and the husband of the minor died, she is exempt [from levirate marriage] by virtue of being the sister of his wife. If the husband of her that was of age died, R. Eliezer says: The minor is instructed to exercise right of Refusal against her husband. Rabban Gamaliel says: If she does so the Refusal is valid; but if she does not, she may wait until she is of age, and then the other is exempt [from levirate marriage] by virtue of being the sister of his wife. R. Joshua says: Woe to him4 because of [the loss of] his wife and 1 Lev. 22l*. She still counts as in her father’s control.
2 She does not count as within her father’s control and he cannot give her in betrothal.
woe to him because of [the loss of] his brother’s wife! He must put away his wife by a bill of divorce, and from his brother’s wife he must submit to halitzah.
8. If a man was married to two orphans that were under age and he died, consummation or halitzah with the one exempts her co-wife. So, too, with two deceased brothers’ widows that were deaf-mutes.1 But if the one was a minor and the other a deaf-mute, consummation with the one does not exempt her co-wife. But if one was of sound senses and the other a deaf- mute, consummation with the first exempts the second; but consummation with the second does not exempt the first. If one was of age and the other a minor, consummation with the first exempts the second; but consumma¬ tion with the second does not exempt the first.
9. If a man was married to two orphans that were minors, and he died, if the deceased husband’s [eldest surviving] brother had connexion with the first and then again with the second, or if his brother had connexion with the second, this does not render the first ineligible [to continue the levirate marriage]. So, too, with two that were deaf-mutes. If one was a minor and the other a deaf-mute, and the deceased husband’s [eldest surviving] brother had connexion with the minor and then again with the deaf-mute, or if his brother had connexion with the deaf-mute, this does not render the minor ineligible [to continue the levirate marriage]. If the deceased husband’s brother had connexion with the deaf-mute and then again with the minor, or if his brother had connexion with the minor, this renders the deaf-mute ineligible [to continue the levirate marriage].
10. If one [of the deceased husband’s widows] was of sound senses and the other a deaf-mute, and the deceased husband’s brother had connexion with her of sound senses and then again with the deaf-mute, or if his brother had connexion with the deaf-mute, this does not render ineligible her of sound senses. But if the deceased husband’s brother had connexion with the deaf-mute and then again with her of sound senses, or if his brother had connexion with her of sound senses, this renders the deaf-mute ineligible.
11. If one was of age and the other a minor and the deceased husband’s brother had connexion with her that was of age and then again with her that was a minor, or if his brother had connexion with the minor, this does not render her that was of age ineligible. But if the deceased husband’s brother had connexion with the minor and then again with her that was of age, or if his brother had connexion with her that was of age, this renders the minor ineligible. R. Eliezer says: The minor is instructed to exercise against him her right of Refusal.
12. If a deceased husband’s brother that was a minor had connexion with his deceased brother’s wife that was a minor, they must wait together until they are of age; if he had connexion with his deceased brother’s wife that was of age, she must wait until he is of age. If during thirty days a deceased brother’s wife said [of the deceased husband’s brother], ‘I have not been granted consummation’, they compel him to submit to halitzah from her. If she said so after thirty days, they may only ask of him to submit to halitzah from her. But if he admitted her charge they compel him to submit to halitzah from her, even if it is after twelve months.
13. If in her husband’s lifetime a woman vowed to have no benefit from 1 Though halitzah cannot be valid with deaf-mutes.
240 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM her husband’s brother, they compel him to submit to halitzah from her. But if she had so vowed with this intent during her husband’s lifetime they may only ask of him to submit to halitzah from her.
14. i. If a man that was a deaf-mute married a woman that was of sound senses, or if a man that was of sound senses married a woman that was a deaf-mute, if he will he may put her away, and if he will he may continue the marriage. Like as he married her by signs1 so he may put her away by signs. If a man of sound senses married a woman of sound senses and she became a deaf-mute, if he will he may put her away, and if he will he may continue the marriage. If she became imbecile he may not put her away. If he became a deaf-mute or imbecile he may never put her away. R. Johanan b. Xuri said: Why should it be that if the woman became a deaf- mute she may be put away, yet if the man became a deaf-mute he cannot put her away? They answered: The man that divorces is not like to the woman that is divorced; for a woman is put away with her consent or with¬ out it, but a husband can put away his wife only with his own consent.
2. R. Johanan2 b. Gudgada testified of a woman that was a deaf-mute and that was given in marriage by her father [while she was yet a minor], that she could be put away by a bill of divorce. The Sages said to him:3 In such case, too, the same rule applies.
3. If two deaf-mute brothers were married to two deaf-mute sisters, or to two sisters of sound senses, or to two sisters of whom one was a deaf- mute and the other of sound senses; or if two deaf-mute sisters were married to two brothers of sound senses, or to two deaf-mute brothers, or to two brothers of whom one was a deaf-mute and the other of sound senses — such women [if their husbands die childless] are exempt from halitzah and levirate marriage. But if [the women] were not near of kin they must be taken in marriage [by their brother-in-law and they may not perform halitzah ]; and if it is their wish to put them away they may put them away.
4. If two brothers, of whom one was a deaf-mute and the other of sound senses, were married to two sisters of sound senses, and the deaf-mute husband of the wife of sound senses died, what shall the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses do? [Nothing, because] the widow is exempt [from levirate marriage] by virtue of being the sister of his wife. If the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses died, what shall the deaf-mute husband with the wife of sound senses do? He must put away his wife by a bill of divorce, and his brother’s wife is for all time forbidden to him [in marriage].
5. If two brothers of sound senses were married to two sisters of whom one was a deaf-mute and the other of sound senses, and the husband of sound senses with the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses do? [Nothing, because] the widow is exempt [from levirate marriage] by virtue of being the sister of his wife. If the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses died, what shall the husband of sound senses with the deaf-mute wife do? He must put away his wife by a bill of divorce and submit to halitzah from his brother’s wife.
6. If two brothers of whom one was a deaf-mute and the other of sound * Cf. Gitt. 5’. 2 Gitt. 55; Eduy. 7’ (Nehunya). * Johanan b. Nuri.
senses were married to two sisters of whom one was a deaf-mute and the other of sound senses, and the deaf-mute husband with the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses do? [Nothing, because] the widow is exempt [from levirate marriage] by virtue of being the sister of his wife. If the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses died, what shall the deaf-mute husband with the deaf-mute wife do? He must put away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife is for all time forbidden to him.
7. If two brothers, of whom one was a deaf-mute and the other of sound senses, were married to two women not near of kin, of sound senses, and the deaf-mute husband with the wife of sound senses died, what shall the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses do? He may either submit to halitzah or contract levirate marriage. If the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses died, what shall the deaf-mute husband with the wife of sound senses do? He must take her in marriage and he may never put her away.
8. If two brothers of sound senses were married to two women not near of kin of whom one was of sound senses and the other a deaf-mute, and the husband of sound senses with the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses do? He must marry her, and if he would put her away he may. If the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses died, what shall the husband of sound senses with the deaf-mute wife do? He may either submit to halitzah or contract levirate marriage.
9. If two brothers, of whom one was a deaf-mute and the other of sound senses, were married to two women not near of kin of whom one was a deaf-mute and the other of sound senses, and the deaf-mute husband with the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses do? He must marry the widow and if he would put her away he may. If the husband of sound senses with the wife of sound senses died, what shall the deaf-mute husband with the deaf-mute wife do? He must marry the widow and he may never put her away.
15. 1. If a woman and her husband went beyond the sea and there was peace between him and her and peace in the world, and she came back and said, ‘My husband is dead’, she may marry again. [If she said,] ‘My hus¬ band died [childless]’, she may contract levirate marriage. If there was peace between him and her but war in the world, or contention between him and her but peace in the world, and she came back and said, ‘My husband is dead’, she may not be believed. R. Judah says: She may never be believed unless she returns weeping and with garments rent. The Sages answered: It is all one [whether she does so or not]: she may not marry again.
2. The School of Hillel1 say: We have heard no such tradition save of a woman that returned from the harvest and within the same country, and of a case that happened in fact. The School of Shammai answered: It is all one whether she returned from the harvest or from the olive-picking or from the vintage, or whether she came from one country to another: the Sages spoke of the harvest only as of a thing that happened in fact. The * See Eduy. i1’ 242 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM School of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the School of Shammai.
3. The School of Shammai say: She may marry again and take her Ketubah.1 And the School of Hillel say: She may marry again but she may not take her Ketubah. The School of Shammai answered: Since ye have declared permissible the graver matter of forbidden intercourse,2 should ye not also declare permissible the less important matter of property? The School of Hillel answered: We find that brothers may not enter into an inheritance on her testimony.3 The School of Shammai answered: Do we not learn from her Ketubah-scroW that he thus prescribes for her: ‘If thou be married to another thou shalt take what is prescribed for thee’? And the School of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the School of Shammai.
4. All may be deemed trustworthy when they testify to a woman [that her husband is dead] excepting4 her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her co-wife, her husband’s brother’s wife, and her husband’s daughter. Wherein5 does [evidence of] divorce differ from [evidence of] death? The written document [in divorce] affords proof. If one witness said, ‘He is dead’, and the w'ife married again and another came and said, ‘He is not dead’, she need not be put away. If one witness said, ‘He is dead’, and [afterward] two witnesses said, ‘He is not dead’, even if she had married again [before the second testimony] she must be put away. If two witnesses said, ‘He is dead’, and one [afterward] said, ‘He is not dead’, even if she had not married again she may still do so.
5. If one woman said, ‘My husband is dead’, and the other [wife] said, ‘He is not dead’, she that said, ‘He is dead’, may marry again and take her Ketubah-, and she that said, ‘He is not dead’, may not marry again or take her Ketubah. If one said, ‘He is dead’, and the other said, ‘He has been killed’, R. Meir says: Since they contradict one another neither may marry again. R. Judah and R. Simeon say: Since both admit that he is not alive they may both marry again. If one man testified and said, ‘He is dead’, and another man testified and said, ‘He is not dead’, and one woman said, ‘He is dead’, and another woman said, ‘He is not dead’, she may not marry again.
6. If a woman and her husband went beyond the sea and she came back and said, ‘My husband is dead’, she may marry again and take her Ketubah, but her co-wife is forbidden [to marry]. If the co-wife was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest she may eat of Heave-offering. So R. Tarfon. R. Akiba says: This is not the way to put her beyond the reach of trans¬ gression: but, rather, she should be forbidden to marry again and forbidden to eat of Heave-offering.
7. If she said, ‘My husband died and then my father-in-law died’, she may marry again and take her Ketubah; but her mother-in-law' is forbidden [to marry again]. If she was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest she may eat of Heave-offering. So R. Tarfon. R. Akiba says: This is not the way to put her beyond the reach of transgression: but, rather, she should be forbidden to marry again and forbidden to eat of Heave-offering. If a man betrothed one of five women and he does not know which of them * App. I. 16. * Despite the danger of transgressing Lev. 18**.
3 But require two witnesses of the death. Tne evidence of one witness suffices to permit her to remarry only. See below, 167. * Cf. Gitt. a’. s Gitt. z’.
he betrothed, and each said, ‘He betrothed me’, he should give a bill of divorce to each one of them and leave the amount of the Ketubah among them, and- go away. So R. Tarfon. R. Akiba says: This is not the way to put him beyond the reach of transgression: but, rather, he should give a bill of divorce and the [full] amount of the Ketubah to each one of them. If a man robbed one of five people and he does not know which of them he robbed, and each says, ‘He robbed me’, he must leave the amount of the robbery between them and go away. So R. Tarfon. R. Akiba says: This is not the way to put him beyond the reach of transgression: but, rather, he should pay to each one the [full] amount of the robbery.
8. If a woman and her husband and her son went beyond the sea and she came back and said, ‘My husband died and then my son died’, she may be believed. [If she said], ‘My son died and then my husband died’, she may not be believed; yet they have regard to her words, and she must perform halitzah and she may not contract levirate marriage.
9. [If she said,] ‘A son was born to me while I was beyond the sea’, and she then said, ‘My son died and then my husband died’, she may not be believed, yet they have regard to her words, and she must perform halitzah and she may not contract levirate marriage.
10. [If she said,] ‘A brother-in-law was born to me while I was beyond the sea’, and then said, ‘My husband died and then my brother-in-law died’, or ‘My brother-in-law died and then my husband died’, she may be believed. If she and her husband and her brother-in-law went beyond the sea and she said, ‘My husband died and then my brother-in-law died’, or ‘My brother-in-law died and then my husband died’, she may not be believed; for a woman may not be believed if she says, ‘My brother-in-law is dead’ — so that she may marry again; nor [if she says,] ‘My sister is dead’ — so that she may enter his house; nor may a man be believed when he says, ‘My brother is dead’, so that he may contract levirate marriage with his wife, nor [when he says,] ‘My wife is dead’ — so that he may marry her sister.
16. 1. If a woman’s husband and her co-wife went beyond the sea and it was told her, ‘Thy husband is dead’, she may not marry again or contract levirate marriage until she knows whether her co-wife is with child.* If she has a mother-in-law she need not have regard to her,2 but if she went away while with child she must have regard to her. R. Joshua says: She need not have regard to her.
2. If there were two sisters-in-law [wives of two brothers,] and each said, ‘My husband is dead’, each is forbidden [to remarry] because of the other’s husband.3 If one had witnesses and the other had no witnesses, she that had witnesses is forbidden4 but she that had no witnesses is per¬ mitted [to remarry]. If the one had children but the other had none, she that had children is permitted [to remarry] and she that had none is for¬ bidden [to remarry]. If they had contracted levirate marriage with the brothers-in-law, and these brothers-in-law died, the widows are forbidden to remarry. R. Eliezer says: Since they were permitted to marry their brothers-in-law they are allowed to marry any one.
* Releasing her from the levirate tie.
2 i.e. fear lest she bear a male child who would bind her to the levirate obligation.
3 Who may yet be living and under levirate obligation towards his brother’s widow.
4 Lest the first husbands be yet alive.
244 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM 3. Evidence may not be given [of the identity of a corpse] save from [proof afforded by] the face together with the nose, even though there were [other] marks [of identity] on its body or its clothing. Evidence [of a man’s death] may be given only after his soul is gone forth, even though he was seen mortally wounded or crucified or being devoured by a wild beast. Evidence [of the identity of a corpse] may be given only during the first three days [after death]; but R. Judah b. Baba says: [Decay in corpses is] not alike in all men, in all places, and at all times.
4. If a man had fallen into the water, whether or not within sight of shore, his wife is forbidden [to marry another], R. Meir said: Once a man fell into a large well and came up again after three days. But R. Jose said: Once a blind man went down into a cave to immerse himself and his guide went down with him; and thev waited time enough for life to become extinct and then permitted their wives to marry again. Again it once happened in Asya that a man was let down by a rope into the sea and they drew up again naught save his leg. The Sages said: If [the part of the leg recovered] included the part above the knee his wife may marry again; but if only the part below the knee she may not marry again.
5. Even if a man [only] heard women saying, ‘Such-a-one is dead’, that suffices.1 R. Judah says: Even if he [only] heard children saying, ‘We are going to bewail and bury such-a-one’, that suffices, whether or not he had an intention [to give evidence thereof]. R. Judah b. Baba says: If it was an Israelite, even though he had the intention [to give evidence, his evi¬ dence would be valid]; but if it was a gentile and he had the intention [to give evidence], his evidence would not be valid.
6. They may give evidence [of identity, if they have but seen the corpse] by the light of a lamp or by the light of the moon, and they may suffer a woman to marry again [solely on evidence afforded] by an echo. Once a man stood on the top of a hill and called out, ‘Such-a-one, the son of such- a-one, from such-a-place is dead’; and although when they went they found no man there, they suffered his wife to marry again. Moreover it once happened at Zalmon that a man called out, ‘A serpent has bitten me, such- a-one, the son of such-a-one, and I am dying’, and although when they went [to him] they did not recognize him they suffered his wife to marry again.
7. R. Akiba said: When I went down to Nehardea to ordain a leap-year there met me Nehemiah of Beth Deli, and he said to me, ‘I have heard that in the Land of Israel the Sages, excepting R. Judah b. Baba,2 do not suffer a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness’. I answered, ‘It is so’. He said to me, ‘Tell them in my name (ye know that this country is in confusion by reason of ravaging troops) I received a tradition from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder that they may suffer a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness’. And when I came and recounted the matter before Rabban Gamaliel3 he rejoiced at my words and said, ‘We have now found a fellow [disciple]4 for R. Judah b. Baba. Whereupon Rabban Gamaliel remembered that certain men were killed at Tel Arza and Rabban Gamaliel the Elder suffered their wives to marry again on the evidence of one witness.5 And the rule was established to suffer a woman 1 To justify him in giving evidence of death or in marrying the widow.
3 Cf. Eduy. 6*. 3 Grandson of Gamaliel the Elder. * Cf. Erub. 2*.
5 Some texts add: ‘And the rule was established to suffer a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness’.
to marry again on the evidence of one witness [who testifies what he has heard] from [another] witness, or from a slave or from a woman or from a bondwoman. R. Eliezer and R. Joshua say: They may not suffer a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness. R. Akiba says: Nor on the evidence of a woman1 or of them that are near of kin. The Sages answered: Once certain levites went to Zoar,2 the City of Palms, and one of them fell sick by the way, and they brought him to an inn. When they returned thither, they asked the mistress of the inn, ‘Where is our companion?’ She answered, ‘He is dead and I buried him’. And they suffered his wife to marry again. The Sages said to R. Akiba, ‘And should not a priest’s wife be [deemed as trustworthy] as the mistress of an inn?’ He answered, ‘Only when the mistress of an inn could be deemed trustworthy! [For in this case] the mistress of the inn brought out to them his staff3 and his bag and the scroll of the Law that had belonged to him’.
1. 1. A virgin should be married on a Wednesday and a widow on a Thursday, for in towns the court sits twice in the wreek, on Mondays and on Thursdays;4 so that if the husband would lodge a virginity suit5 * he may forthwith go in the morning to the court.
2. The Ketubah 6 of a virgin is 200 [ denars ],7 * and of a w'idow one mina} The Ketubah of a virgin who after betrothal [only] became a widow or was divorced or performed halitzah 9 is 200 denars, and a virginity suit may be lodged against her. The Ketubah of a female proselyte, captive, or slave who was redeemed, proselytized, or freed under the age of three years and a day is 200 denars, and a virginity suit may be lodged against her.
3. If he that was of age had connexion with her that was a minor,10 or if he that was a minor" had connexion with her that was of age or, through accident,12 not virgo intacta, her Ketubah is 200 denars. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: The Ketubah of her that through accident is not virgo intacta is one mina.
4. The Ketubah of a virgin who after wedlock became a widow or was divorced or performed halitzah is one mina, and no virginity suit may be lodged against her. The Ketubah of a female proselyte, captive, or slave who was redeemed, proselytized, or freed after the age of three years and a day is one mina, and no virginity suit may be lodged against her.
5. If in Judea13 a man ate in the house of his father-in-law and had no witnesses he may not lodge a virginity suit against her, since he had [already] remained alone with her. It is all one whether a woman is the widow of an Israelite or the widow of a priest, her Ketubah is one mina. The court of the Priests14 used to levy 400 zuzn [as Ketubah ] for a virgin, and the Sages did not reprove them.
1 Some texts add: ’or of a bondman or of a bondwoman’.
* See Neub., p. 256. * Some texts add: ’and his shoes’.
4 Cf. Meg. i*. s Against die alleged virgin. See Deut. zju.
8 100 denars. Also used as a weight; see Ket. 5*. 9 App. I. 12.
10 Less than three years and a day. " Less than nine years and a day.
17 Lit. ’hurt by a piece of wood’. » Cf. Yeb. 4“.
14 Cf. Ket. 13, Ohol. 17s, ‘Sons of the High Priests'. The reference is probably to a Sanhedrin dominated by Sadducaic or high-priestly influence, as opposed to the Pharisaic school of thought represented by Hillel. Cf. R. Sh. 1'. ** Or denars.
THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM 6. If a man married a woman and found not in her the tokens of virginity,l and she said, ‘After thou didst betroth me I was forced and thy field was laid waste’, and he said, ‘Not so, but [it befell] before I betrothed thee, and my bargain was a bargain made in error’, Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer say: She may be believed. But R. Joshua says: We may not rely on her word; but she must be presumed to have suffered intercourse before she was betrothed and to have deceived her husband unless she can bring proof for her words.
7. If she said, ‘It was through accident’, and he said, ‘Not so, but thou hast been trampled of man’, Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer say: She may be believed. But R. Joshua says: We may not rely on her word, but she must be presumed to have been trampled of man unless she can bring proof for her words.
8. If they saw her speaking with some man in the street and said to her, ‘What manner of man is this?’ [and she answered], ‘His name is NN. and he is a priest’, Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer say: She may be believed. But R. Joshua says: We may not rely on her word, but she must be pre¬ sumed to have suffered intercourse with a Nothin2 or a bastard3 unless she can bring proof for her words.
9. If she was found with child and they said to her, ‘What manner of unborn child is this?’ [and she answered,] ‘It is by one named NN. and he is a priest’, Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer say: She may be believed. But R. Joshua says: We may not rely on her word, but she must be pre¬ sumed to be with child by a Nothin or a bastard unless she can bring proof for her words.
10. R. Jose said: A young maid once went down to draw water from the spring and she was forced. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: If most of the men of the town were eligible to give [their daughters] in marriage to the priestly stock4 she too may be married into the priestly stock.
2. 1. If a woman was left a widow or was divorced and said [to the heirs or to the husband], ‘I was married as a virgin’,5 and [the husband]6 said, ‘No, but I married thee when thou wast already a widow’, if there are wit¬ nesses that she went forth [to the marriage] in a litter7 and with hair un¬ bound, her Ketubah shall be 200 denars. R. Johanan b. Baroka says: The sharing out of roast corn likewise affords proof.8 2. But R. Joshua agrees9 that if a man said to his fellow, ‘This field belonged to thy father and I bought it from him’, he may be believed, since the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted;10 but if there are witnesses [to say] that it belonged to that man’s father and he says, ‘I bought it from him’, he may not be believed.
3. If witnesses said, ‘This is indeed our handwriting, but we acted under constraint’, or ‘we were minors’, or ‘we were not eligible to bear witness’, they may be believed; but if there are witnesses [to say] that it is their * Claiming 200 denars as her Ketubah. 6 Who divorced her.
7 Or *a veil’. Heb. kinuma may = vpjvaios, the ‘bridal-song’ customary at a virgin’s marriage.
8 That at her marriage she was deemed a virgin. * As against his attitude in i*- ’• *.
10 Cf. Dem. 6U; Eduy. 3*. According to Gem. 17b the case here cited is that of one who held land by usucaption (see B.B. 31), and claimed to possess it by purchase; he thus partially and voluntarily admits the counter-claim of the original owner’s son, and in this his statement can be accepted; but if that statement is in any event provable by others, his statement affords no proof of his credibility.
handwriting or if it is manifestly their handwriting from [its likeness to their handwriting] elsewhere, they may not be believed.