1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 15.12-15.18, 23.1-23.2, 24.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 15.12. כִּי־יִמָּכֵר לְךָ אָחִיךָ הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה וַעֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת תְּשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ׃ 15.13. וְכִי־תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ לֹא תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ רֵיקָם׃ 15.14. הַעֲנֵיק תַּעֲנִיק לוֹ מִצֹּאנְךָ וּמִגָּרְנְךָ וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ אֲשֶׁר בֵּרַכְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּתֶּן־לוֹ׃ 15.15. וְזָכַרְתָּ כִּי עֶבֶד הָיִיתָ בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וַיִּפְדְּךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ עַל־כֵּן אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה הַיּוֹם׃ 15.16. וְהָיָה כִּי־יֹאמַר אֵלֶיךָ לֹא אֵצֵא מֵעִמָּךְ כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ וְאֶת־בֵּיתֶךָ כִּי־טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ׃ 15.17. וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת־הַמַּרְצֵעַ וְנָתַתָּה בְאָזְנוֹ וּבַדֶּלֶת וְהָיָה לְךָ עֶבֶד עוֹלָם וְאַף לַאֲמָתְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה־כֵּן׃ 15.18. לֹא־יִקְשֶׁה בְעֵינֶךָ בְּשַׁלֵּחֲךָ אֹתוֹ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ כִּי מִשְׁנֶה שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר עֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים וּבֵרַכְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה׃ 23.1. לֹא־יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת־אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה כְּנַף אָבִיו׃ 23.1. כִּי־תֵצֵא מַחֲנֶה עַל־אֹיְבֶיךָ וְנִשְׁמַרְתָּ מִכֹּל דָּבָר רָע׃ 23.2. לֹא־תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף נֶשֶׁךְ אֹכֶל נֶשֶׁךְ כָּל־דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁךְ׃ 23.2. לֹא־יָבֹא פְצוּעַ־דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה בִּקְהַל יְהוָה׃ 24.1. כִּי־תַשֶּׁה בְרֵעֲךָ מַשַּׁאת מְאוּמָה לֹא־תָבֹא אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲבֹט עֲבֹטוֹ׃ 24.1. כִּי־יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא תִמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי־מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ׃ | 15.12. If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years; and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee." 15.13. And when thou lettest him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go empty;" 15.14. thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing-floor, and out of thy winepress; of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him." 15.15. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee; therefore I command thee this thing to-day." 15.16. And it shall be, if he say unto thee: ‘I will not go out from thee’; because he loveth thee and thy house, because he fareth well with thee;" 15.17. then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear and into the door, and he shall be thy bondman for ever. And also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise." 15.18. It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou lettest him go free from thee; for to the double of the hire of a hireling hath he served thee six years; and the LORD thy God will bless thee in all that thou doest." 23.1. A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt." 23.2. He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD." 24.1. When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house," |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 21.2-21.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 21.2. כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם׃ 21.2. וְכִי־יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת־אֲמָתוֹ בַּשֵּׁבֶט וּמֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ נָקֹם יִנָּקֵם׃ 21.3. אִם־כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יוּשַׁת עָלָיו׃ 21.3. אִם־בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא אִם־בַּעַל אִשָּׁה הוּא וְיָצְאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ׃ 21.4. אִם־אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן־לוֹ אִשָּׁה וְיָלְדָה־לוֹ בָנִים אוֹ בָנוֹת הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ וְהוּא יֵצֵא בְגַפּוֹ׃ 21.5. וְאִם־אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד אָהַבְתִּי אֶת־אֲדֹנִי אֶת־אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת־בָּנָי לֹא אֵצֵא חָפְשִׁי׃ 21.6. וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֲדֹנָיו אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֶל־הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ אֶל־הַמְּזוּזָה וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת־אָזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם׃ | 21.2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing." 21.3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him." 21.4. If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself." 21.5. But if the servant shall plainly say: I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free;" 21.6. then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever." |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Jonah, 3.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 3.4. וַיָּחֶל יוֹנָה לָבוֹא בָעִיר מַהֲלַךְ יוֹם אֶחָד וַיִּקְרָא וַיֹּאמַר עוֹד אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְנִינְוֵה נֶהְפָּכֶת׃ | 3.4. And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he proclaimed, and said: ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.’ |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 25.39-25.46 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 25.39. וְכִי־יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ וְנִמְכַּר־לָךְ לֹא־תַעֲבֹד בּוֹ עֲבֹדַת עָבֶד׃ 25.41. וְיָצָא מֵעִמָּךְ הוּא וּבָנָיו עִמּוֹ וְשָׁב אֶל־מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְאֶל־אֲחֻזַּת אֲבֹתָיו יָשׁוּב׃ 25.42. כִּי־עֲבָדַי הֵם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵאתִי אֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם לֹא יִמָּכְרוּ מִמְכֶּרֶת עָבֶד׃ 25.43. לֹא־תִרְדֶּה בוֹ בְּפָרֶךְ וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ׃ 25.44. וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ־לָךְ מֵאֵת הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ עֶבֶד וְאָמָה׃ 25.45. וְגַם מִבְּנֵי הַתּוֹשָׁבִים הַגָּרִים עִמָּכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם אֲשֶׁר עִמָּכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹלִידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לַאֲחֻזָּה׃ 25.46. וְהִתְנַחֲלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ וּבְאַחֵיכֶם בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו לֹא־תִרְדֶּה בוֹ בְּפָרֶךְ׃ | 25.39. And if thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and sell himself unto thee, thou shalt not make him to serve as a bondservant." 25.40. As a hired servant, and as a settler, he shall be with thee; he shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee." 25.41. Then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return." 25.42. For they are My servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bondmen." 25.43. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God." 25.44. And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou mayest have: of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids." 25.45. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession." 25.46. And ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession: of them may ye take your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour." |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, 2 Samuel, 19.1 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 19.1. וַיִּרְגַּז הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיַּעַל עַל־עֲלִיַּת הַשַּׁעַר וַיֵּבְךְּ וְכֹה אָמַר בְּלֶכְתּוֹ בְּנִי אַבְשָׁלוֹם בְּנִי בְנִי אַבְשָׁלוֹם מִי־יִתֵּן מוּתִי אֲנִי תַחְתֶּיךָ אַבְשָׁלוֹם בְּנִי בְנִי׃ 19.1. וַיְהִי כָל־הָעָם נָדוֹן בְּכָל־שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר הַמֶּלֶךְ הִצִּילָנוּ מִכַּף אֹיְבֵינוּ וְהוּא מִלְּטָנוּ מִכַּף פְּלִשְׁתִּים וְעַתָּה בָּרַח מִן־הָאָרֶץ מֵעַל אַבְשָׁלוֹם׃ | 19.1. And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept: and as he went, thus he said, O my son Avshalom, my son, my son Avshalom! would I had died instead of thee, O Avshalom, my son, my son!" |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Joshua, 2.5, 2.9-2.10 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 2.5. וַיְהִי הַשַּׁעַר לִסְגּוֹר בַּחֹשֶׁךְ וְהָאֲנָשִׁים יָצָאוּ לֹא יָדַעְתִּי אָנָה הָלְכוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים רִדְפוּ מַהֵר אַחֲרֵיהֶם כִּי תַשִּׂיגוּם׃ 2.9. וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָאֲנָשִׁים יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־נָתַן יְהוָה לָכֶם אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וְכִי־נָפְלָה אֵימַתְכֶם עָלֵינוּ וְכִי נָמֹגוּ כָּל־יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵיכֶם׃ | 2.5. and it came to pass about the time of the shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out; whither the men went I know not; pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them.’" 2.9. and she said unto the men: ‘I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you." 2.10. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea before you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were beyond the Jordan, unto Sihon and to Og, whom ye utterly destroyed." |
|
7. Septuagint, Judith, 7.1, 9.1, 9.4, 9.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 0th cent. CE)
| 7.1. The next day Holofernes ordered his whole army, and all the allies who had joined him, to break camp and move against Bethulia, and to seize the passes up into the hill country and make war on the Israelites. 9.1. Then Judith fell upon her face, and put ashes on her head, and uncovered the sackcloth she was wearing; and at the very time when that evening's incense was being offered in the house of God in Jerusalem, Judith cried out to the Lord with a loud voice, and said 9.4. and thou gavest their wives for a prey and their daughters to captivity, and all their booty to be divided among thy beloved sons, who were zealous for thee, and abhorred the pollution of their blood, and called on thee for help -- O God, my God, hear me also, a widow. 9.9. Behold their pride, and send thy wrath upon their heads; give to me, a widow, the strength to do what I plan. |
|
8. Mishnah, Gittin, 9.8, 9.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 9.8. A get which was written in Hebrew and whose signatures are in Greek, or was written in Greek and whose signatures are in Hebrew, or which has one Hebrew signature and one Greek signature, or which was written by a scribe and signed by one witness, is valid. [If a man signs], “So-and-so, witness,” it is valid. [If he signs,] “Son of so-and-so, witness, it is valid. [If he signs,] “So-and-so son of so-and-so” and he didn’t write “witness”, it is valid. If he wrote his own family name and hers, the get is valid. And this is how the scrupulous in Jerusalem would do. A get given imposed by court: in the case of a Jewish court is valid, and in the case of a Gentile court is invalid. And with regard to Gentiles, if they beat him and say to him, “Do what the Israelites say to you,” (and it is valid)." 9.10. Bet Shammai says: a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct, as it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Bet Hillel says [that he may divorce her] even if she has merely burnt his dish, since it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Rabbi Akiva says, [he may divorce her] even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is, as it says, “it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes." |
|
9. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 7.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 7.10. These are the ones who are forced to divorce [their wives]: one who is afflicted with boils, one who has a polypus, a gatherer [of dog feces for the treatment of hides], a coppersmith or a tanner whether they were [in such a condition] before they married or whether they arose after they had married. And concerning all these Rabbi Meir said: although the man made a condition with her [that she accept him despite these defects] she may nevertheless say, “I thought I could accept him, but now I cannot accept him.” The Sages say: she must accept [such a person] against her will, the only exception being a man afflicted with boils, because she [by her intercourse] will enervate him. It once happened at Sidon that a tanner died, and he had a brother who was also a tanner. The Sages said: she may say, “I was able to accept your brother but I cannot accept you.”" |
|
10. Mishnah, Yevamot, 6.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 6.1. One who has intercourse with his yevamah, whether in error or with presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will, even if he acted in error and she in presumption, or he in presumption and she in error, or he under compulsion and she not under compulsion, or she under compulsion and he not under compulsion, whether he only began to have intercourse or he completed having intercourse, he has acquired her as a wife. The laws do not make a distinction between different types of intercourse." |
|
11. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 1.4. [The Hebrew slave] acquires himself with [loss of] major limbs (see Shemot 21:26). He acquires himself with money via others and a contract via himself, [and he can't acquire with his own money] because he is like one who gives from the left hand to his right [i.e. whatever is his is his master's, so the money needs to come from elsewhere]—words of Rabbi Meir. But Hakhamim say: [Even] money via himself or a contract via others, as long as the money belongs to others and he says to him [when he gives him the money], \"[This is] with the understanding that you can only redeem [yourself] with this money\". Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Meir: Even a contract via others, but not one via himself." |
|
12. Tosefta, Qiddushin, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 1.4. [The Hebrew slave] acquires himself with [loss of] major limbs (see Shemot 21:26). He acquires himself with money via others and a contract via himself, [and he can't acquire with his own money] because he is like one who gives from the left hand to his right [i.e. whatever is his is his master's, so the money needs to come from elsewhere]—words of Rabbi Meir. But Hakhamim say: [Even] money via himself or a contract via others, as long as the money belongs to others and he says to him [when he gives him the money], \"[This is] with the understanding that you can only redeem [yourself] with this money\". Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Meir: Even a contract via others, but not one via himself." |
|
13. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 41a. לא עלתה בידו אלא רגזנותא ולאדם טוב מטעימים אותו מפרי מעשיו וכל שאינו לא במקרא ולא במשנה ולא בדרך ארץ דור הנאה ממנו שנאמר (תהלים א, א) ובמושב לצים לא ישב מושבו מושב לצים, br br big strongהדרן עלך האשה נקנית /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongהאיש /strong /big מקדש בו ובשלוחו האשה מתקדשת בה ובשלוחה האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה בו ובשלוחו, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big השתא בשלוחו מקדש בו מיבעיא אמר רב יוסף מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו כי הא דרב ספרא מחריך רישא רבא מלח שיבוטא,איכא דאמרי בהא איסורא נמי אית בה כדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסור לאדם שיקדש את האשה עד שיראנה שמא יראה בה דבר מגונה ותתגנה עליו ורחמנא אמר (ויקרא יט, יח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך,וכי איתמר דרב יוסף אסיפא איתמר האשה מתקדשת בה ובשלוחה השתא בשלוחה מיקדשא בה מיבעיא אמר רב יוסף מצוה בה יותר מבשלוחה כי הא דרב ספרא מחריך רישא רבא מלח שיבוטא,אבל בהא איסורא לית בה כדר"ל דאמר ר"ל טב למיתב טן דו מלמיתב ארמלו,האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה כשהיא נערה אין כשהיא קטנה לא מסייע ליה לרב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואיתימא רבי אלעזר אסור לאדם שיקדש את בתו כשהיא קטנה עד שתגדל ותאמר בפלוני אני רוצה,שליחות מנלן דתניא (דברים כד, א) ושלח מלמד שהוא עושה שליח,ושלחה מלמד שהיא עושה שליח ושלח ושלחה מלמד שהשליח עושה שליח,אשכחן בגירושין בקידושין מנלן וכ"ת דיליף מגירושין מה לגירושין שכן ישנן בעל כרחה אמר קרא (דברים כד, ב) ויצאה והיתה מקיש הויה ליציאה מה יציאה משוי שליח אף הויה נמי משוי שליח,ואלא הא דתנן האומר לשלוחו צא תרום תורם כדעת בעל הבית ואם אינו יודע דעת בעל הבית תורם בבינונית אחד מחמשים | 41a. bhas managedto acquire bonly anger [ iragzanuta /i],i.e., nothing beneficial comes through anger; in the end he is left with nothing but the anger itself. bAnd a good person is given the fruit of his actions to taste. Andwith regard to banyperson bwho does not engage inthe study of bBible, northe study of bMishna, northe bdesired mode of behavior,one should bvow to notderive bbenefit from him,and one should have no contact with him, bas it is stated: “Nor sat in the seat of the scornful”(Psalms 1:1). The bseatof this person is certainly the bseat of the scornful,as he is engaged in nothing but idle matters.,, strongMISHNA: /strong bA man can betrotha woman bby himself or bymeans of bhis agent.Similarly, ba woman can become betrothed by herself or bymeans of bher agent. A man can betroth his daughterto a man bwhen she is a young woman,either bby himself or bymeans of bhis agent. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara starts by questioning the need for the seemingly extraneous ihalakhastated in the mishna: bNowthat the mishna stated that bone can betrotha woman bbymeans of bhis agent, isit bnecessaryto state that a man can betroth a woman bby himself? Rav Yosef says:The mishna writes both ihalakhotto teach that although the betrothal is valid either way, it is bmorefitting that the bmitzvabe performed bbythe man bhimself than bymeans of bhis agent.This is blike thatstory bof Rav Safra,who bwouldhimself bsinge the headof an animal on Shabbat eve to prepare it to be eaten on Shabbat, and bRava,who bwould salt a turbot fishhimself, to fulfill the mitzva to prepare for Shabbat, although this could have been done by others., bThere arethose bwho say: With regard to thisparticular mitzva of betrothal, bit also involves a prohibition, in accordance with thatwhich bRav Yehuda saysthat bRav says, as Rav Yehuda saysthat bRav says: It is forbidden for a man to betroth a woman until he sees her, lest he see something repulsive in herafter the betrothal, band she will become repugt to him,which will cause him to hate her. bAndto prevent this violation of what bthe Merciful One statesin the Torah: b“And you shall love your neighbor as yourself”(Leviticus 19:18), the Sages ruled that a man must betroth a woman in person, to ensure that he approves of her., bAndif there is a prohibition against a man betrothing a women by means of an agent, then bwhenthe statement of bRav Yosef was stated,that it is merely preferable that the betrothal be performed without an agent, bit was stated with regard to the latter clauseof the mishna: bA woman can become betrothed by herself or bymeans of bher agent. Nowthat the mishna stated that bshe can become betrothed bymeans of bher agent, isit bnecessaryto state that she can become betrothed bby herself?It was in response to this that bRav Yosef says:It is bmorefitting that the bmitzvabe performed bbythe woman bherself than bymeans of bher agent.This is blike thatstory bof Rav Safra,who bwouldhimself bsinge the headof an animal on Shabbat eve to prepare it to be eaten on Shabbat, and bRava,who bwouldhimself bsalt a turbot fish. /b, bBut in thiscase of a woman who appoints an agent, bthere is no prohibition, as thatwhich bReish Lakishsaid. bAs Reish Lakish said:Women have a saying: bIt is better to sitas btwo bodies,i.e., be married, bthan to sitlonely like ba widow.Once a woman has decided to marry, she will accept any husband whose betrothal her agent accepts on her behalf, and there is no concern that she will find her betrothed repulsive and violate the mitzva of loving one’s neighbor like oneself.,The mishna teaches: bA man can betroth his daughterto a man bwhen she is a young woman.The Gemara infers: bWhen she is a young woman, yes,he can betroth her; bwhen she is a minor, no,he cannot betroth her. This statement bsupportsthe opinion of bRav, as Rav Yehuda saysthat bRav says, and some sayit was said by bRabbi Elazar: It is prohibited for a person to betroth his daughterto a man bwhen she is a minor, untilsuch time bthat she grows up and says: I wantto marry bso-and-so.If a father betroths his daughter when she is a minor and incapable of forming an opinion of the husband, she may later find herself married to someone she does not like.,§ The mishna states that an agent has the power to effect betrothal. The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive that there is halakhic bagency?The Gemara answers: bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: The Torah states with regard to one who divorces his wife: “That he writes her a bill of divorce, and gives it in her hand, and sends her [ iveshilleḥah /i] out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:1). The verse employs the verb: bAnd he sends [ iveshillaḥ /i].The fact that the verse employs the term iveshillaḥ /i, as opposed to another verb denoting divorce, ivegereshah /i, bteaches that he can appoint an agent [ ishaliaḥ /i],as both words share the root ishin /i, ilamed /i, iḥet /i. The husband does not have to personally give his wife the bill of divorce.,Additionally, the fact that the term b“and he sends her [ iveshilleḥah /i]”can also be read as: And she sends [ iveshalleḥa /i], bteaches that shetoo bcan appoint an agentto accept her bill of divorce. Furthermore, in this same passage the verb is repeated in the phrases b“and he sends,” “and he sends her”(Deuteronomy 24:1–3), which serves to bteach that an agent can appoint another agent. /b,The Gemara asks: bWe founda source for agency bwith regard to divorce; from where do wederive that there is agency bwith regard to betrothal? And if you would say thatit bis derived from divorce,i.e., just as a wife can be divorced from her husband by means of an agent, she can become betrothed to him in the same way, the two cases are not similar: bWhatis unique babout divorce is that itcan be effected bagainst her will,while betrothal cannot. Therefore, a means of effecting divorce cannot necessarily be used to effect betrothal. The Gemara answers: bThe verse states: “And she departsout of his house, and goes band becomesanother man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2). Because the verse bjuxtaposes becomingmarried bto leavinga marriage, bjust asa husband can bappoint an agentfor the purpose of bleavinga marriage, bso too hecan bappoint an agentfor the purpose of bbecomingmarried.,The Gemara objects: bButthere is bthat which we learnedin a mishna ( iTerumot4:4): In the case of bone who says to his agent: Go outand bseparate iteruma /ifrom my field’s produce for me, the agent bmust separate iteruma bin accordance with the mindset of the owner.He must separate the amount that he assumes the owner would want to give, as there is no fixed measure for the amount that one must set aside as iteruma /i. A generous person would give as much as one-fortieth of the produce as iteruma /i, while a stingy person would give one-sixtieth. bAnd if he does not know the mindset of the owner, he separates an intermediatemeasure, which is bone-fiftiethof the produce. |
|
14. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 54a. ישן לא קנה ביבמתו אלא בנתקע והא אמר רבה נפל מן הגג ונתקע חייב בארבעה דברים וביבמתו לא קנה,אלא כגון שנתכוון לאשתו ותקפתו יבמתו ובא עליה שניהם אנוסים דבי רבי חייא היכי דמי כגון שנתכוון לאשתו ותקפוהו עובדי כוכבים ודבקום זה בזה ובא עליה,מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (דברים כה, ה) יבמה יבא עליה מצוה דבר אחר יבמה יבא עליה בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון,והא אפיקתיה למצוה למצוה (דברים כה, ז) מואם לא יחפוץ האיש נפקא הא חפץ יבם וכי אתא קרא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון,תניא אידך יבמה יבא עליה כדרכה ולקחה שלא כדרכה ויבם ביאה גומרת בה ואין כסף ושטר גומרין בה ויבמה בעל כרחה ד"א יבמה יבא עליה בין בשוגג כו',והא אפיקתי' לכדרכה ההוא (דברים כה, ז) מלהקים לאחיו שם נפקא במקום שמקים שם וכי אתא קרא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון,גופא אמר רב יהודה ישן לא קנה ביבמתו דאמר קרא יבמה יבא עליה עד דמכוין לה לשם ביאה והתניא בין ער [בין ישן אימא בין ערה בין ישנה,והתניא בין ער] הוא בין ישן הוא בין ערה היא בין ישנה היא הכא במאי עסקינן במתנמנם ה"ד מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר כגון דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מדכר,גופא אמר רבה נפל מן הגג ונתקע חייב בארבעה דברים וביבמתו לא קנה בנזק בצער בשבת ברפוי אבל בושת לא מיחייב דאמר מר אין חייב על הבושת עד שיתכוון,אמר רבא נתכוון להטיח בכותל והטיח ביבמתו לא קנה להטיח בבהמה והטיח ביבמה קנה דהא קמכוין לשם ביאה בעולם:,אחד המערה: אמר עולא מנין להעראה מן התורה שנאמר (ויקרא כ, יח) ואיש אשר ישכב את אשה דוה וגלה את ערותה את מקורה הערה מכאן להעראה מן התורה,אשכחן נדה שאר עריות מנין וכ"ת נילף מנדה מה לנדה שכן מטמאה את בועלה,אלא אתיא מאשת אח דכתיב (ויקרא כ, כא) ואיש אשר יקח את אשת אחיו נדה היא וכי אשת אחיו [לעולם] נדה היא אלא כנדה מה נדה בהעראה אף אשת אח בהעראה,מה לאשת אח שכן בידו לרבות דאי בעי מקדש ואזיל כי אלפא,אלא אתיא מאחות אב ואחות אם דכתיב (ויקרא כ, יט) וערות אחות אמך ואחות אביך לא תגלה כי את שארו הערה איכא למיפרך מה לאחות אב ואחות אם שכן איסור הבא מאליו,מחדא לא אתיא תיתי [חדא] מתרתי מהי תיתי תיתי מאשת אח ואחות אב ואחות אם מה להנך שכן אסורין משום שאר,אלא תיתי מנדה ואחות אב ואחות אם מה להנך שכן איסור הבא מאליו אלא תיתי מנדה ואשת אח דמאי פרכת,מתקיף לה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא מה לנדה ואשת אח שכן אין להם היתר בחיי אוסרן תאמר באשת איש שכן יש לה היתר בחיי אוסרה,אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא אטו נדה ואשת אח בחיי אוסרן הוא דאין להם היתר אבל לאחר מכאן יש להם היתר נדה | 54a. ba sleepingman bhas not acquired his iyevama /i,as he did not intend to perform the act of intercourse at all? bRather,the mishna was referring bto one who was insertedinto his iyevamaby accident. But bdidn’t Rabba say:One who bfell from a roof and was insertedinto a woman due to the force of his fall bis liableto pay bfourof the five btypes of indemnitythat must be paid by one who damaged another: Injury, pain, medical costs, and loss of livelihood. However, he is not liable to pay for the shame he caused her, as he did not intend to perform the act, band ifshe is bhis iyevama /i, he has not acquiredher in this manner., bRather,it is a case bwhere he intendedto have intercourse with bhis wifeand became erect, band his iyevama /iforcefully bgrabbed hold of him and he had intercourse with her.The Gemara further asks: If so, bwhat are the circumstancesof the case when bboth of them were coercedthat was mentioned by bthe school of Rabbi Ḥiyya?The Gemara answers: It is a case bwhere he intendedto have intercourse with bhis wife, and gentiles grabbed hold of him and pressedhim and his iyevama bagainst each other, and hethereby bhad intercourse with her. /b,§ The Gemara inquires as to the source of these ihalakhot /i: bFrom where are these mattersderived? bAs the Sages taughtwith regard to the verse b“Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her”(Deuteronomy 25:5), that this indicates that the act of intercourse in this circumstance is ba mitzva,i.e., it is preferable to the alternative, which is iḥalitza /i. bAlternatively,the verse b“Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her,”indicates that it does not matter how he had intercourse with her, bwhether unwittingly or intentionally, whetherdue to bcoercion or willingly. /b,The Gemara asks: bDidn’t you derivefrom this phrase that the act of intercourse in this case is a bmitzva?How can the same phrase also indicate that it does not matter what the intentions of the two parties were during the act of intercourse? The Gemara answers: The fact that it is ba mitzva is derived fromthe verse: b“And if the man does not wishto take his iyevama /i” (Deuteronomy 25:7), which indicates that if he bwishes, he performs levirate marriage,which is preferable to iḥalitza /i. Therefore, bwhenthe bversecited above bcame,it indicated that levirate marriage has occurred bwhetherthe parties acted bunwittingly or intentionally, whetherdue to bcoercion or willingly. /b, bIt is taughtin banother ibaraitathat the phrase: b“Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her”indicates that levirate marriage has been performed if they engage in btypicalsexual intercourse. The next phrase, b“and take her,”includes even batypical,i.e., anal, sexual intercourse. The concluding phrase of the verse, b“and consummate the levirate marriage,”indicates that bsexual intercourse completes heracquisition, bbut money and amarriage bdocument do not complete heracquisition to him as his fully betrothed wife, in contrast to the regular ihalakhotof marriage. By emphasizing b“and consummate the levirate marriage with her,”the verse teaches that he acquires her even if he acted bagainst her will. Alternatively: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her”indicates that levirate marriage has occurred bwhetherthe parties acted bunwittinglyor intentionally, whether due to coercion or willingly.,The Gemara asks: bDidn’t you derivefrom this phrase that levirate marriage has been performed if they engage in btypicalsexual intercourse? How can it also indicate that it does not matter what the intentions of the two parties were during the act of intercourse? The Gemara answers: bThat ihalakha bis derived froma different verse: b“To establish a name for his brother”(Deuteronomy 25:7), which indicates that intercourse must occur bin the place where he establishes a name,i.e., where it can lead to childbirth. Therefore, bwhenthe bversecited above bcame,it indicated that levirate marriage has occurred bwhetherthe parties acted bunwittingly or intentionally, whetherdue to bcoercion or willingly. /b,§ The Gemara addresses bthematter bitselfcited in the previous discussion. bRav Yehuda said: A sleepingman bhas not acquired his iyevama /i, as the verse states: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her”(Deuteronomy 25:5), which indicates that he does not acquire her bunless he intendsto act bfor the sake of sexual intercourse.Since a sleeping man does not intend to engage in sexual intercourse, he does not acquire his iyevama /i. The Gemara asks: bIsn’t it taughtin a ibaraitathat one acquires his iyevamathrough sexual intercourse regardless of bwhether hewas bawake or asleep?The Gemara answers: bSaythe ibaraitain the following emended form: bWhether shewas bawake or asleep.The woman’s awareness is not a necessary component in order to perform levirate marriage.,The Gemara asks further: bWasn’t it taughtin another ibaraitathat one acquires his iyevamathrough sexual intercourse regardless of bwhether he was awake or he was asleepand regardless of bwhether she was awake or she was asleep?The Gemara answers: bWith what are we dealing herewhen the ibaraitasays that a sleeping man acquires his iyevama /i? It is referring to a man bwho is dozing.The Gemara asks: bWhat are the circumstancesof bdozing? Rav Ashi said:One is basleep but not asleep, awake but not awake, when,if bthey call him, hewill banswer, but he is unable to provide a reasonableanswer. bAnd when theylater binform himof what happened, bhe remembersit.,The Gemara returns to the statement of Rabba cited earlier in order to discuss bthematter bitselfthat Rabba addressed. bRabba said:One who bfell from a roof and was insertedinto a woman due to the force of his fall bis liableto pay bfourof the five btypes of indemnitythat must be paid by one who damaged another, band ifshe is bhis iyevamahe has not acquiredher in this manner. He is liable to pay for binjury, pain, loss of livelihood,and bmedical costs. However, he is not liableto pay for the bshamehe caused her, bas the Master said: One is not liableto pay bfor shame unless he intendsto humiliate his victim. Consequently, one who fell from a roof accidentally is not liable to pay for the shame he caused the woman., bRava said:If bhe intended to presshis sexual organ binto a wall, and heaccidentally bpressedit binto his iyevama /i, he has not acquiredher, as he did not intend to engage in an act of sexual intercourse. However, if he intended bto presshis sexual organ binto an animal, and he pressedit binto his iyevama /i, he has acquiredher, bas heat least bintendedto act bfor the purpose of sexual intercourse in general,i.e., for some form of sexual intercourse.,§ We learned in the mishna that bboth one whomerely bbegins the act of intercourseand one who completes it has acquired the iyevamathrough this act. bUlla said: From whereis it derived that bthe initial stage of intercourseis considered an act of sexual intercourse bby Torah law? As it is stated: “And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness and shall uncover her nakedness, he has made naked [ ihe’era /i] her fountain”(Leviticus 20:18). The verse is referring to the first stage of intercourse, and bfrom hereit is derived that bthe initial stage of intercourse [ iha’ara’a /i]is considered sexual intercourse bby Torah law. /b,The Gemara asks: bWe have founda source for this ihalakhain the case of ba menstruating woman,the subject of the verse cited above. bFrom whereis it derived that the initial stage of intercourse is considered sexual intercourse with regard to bthe rest of those with whom relations are forbidden? And if you say we should derive it fromthe ihalakhawith regard to ba menstruating woman, whatcomparison can be made bto a menstruating woman,concerning whom the ihalakhais more stringent than others with whom relations are forbidden, bin that she causes one who has intercourse with her to become ritually impure? /b, bRather,the ihalakhain other cases bcomes froma verse about ba brother’s wife, as it is written: “And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is impurity [ inidda /i]”(Leviticus 20:21). The word iniddagenerally refers to a menstruating woman, and so the Gemara asks: bIs his brother’s wife always menstruating? Rather,it means that the ihalakhawith regard to her is blikethat of ba menstruating woman: Just asone is liable to receive punishment for violating the prohibition against engaging in sexual intercourse with ba menstruating woman through the initial stage of intercourse, so too,one is liable to receive punishment for violating the prohibition against engaging in sexual intercourse with ba brother’s wife through the initial stage of intercourse. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhatcomparison can be made between ba brother’s wifeand other women with whom relations are forbidden? The prohibition with regard to a brother’s bwife ismore stringent in that bit is within his power to increasethe number of women forbidden by this prohibition, bas, if he wishes, he can go on betrothing a thousandwomen, all of whom would be forbidden to his brother. Consequently, the prohibition with regard to a brother’s wife cannot serve as a model for other prohibitions., bRather,the ihalakhain other cases bcomes froma verse with regard to ba father’s sister and a mother’s sister, as it is written: “And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister nor of your father’s sister; for he has made naked [ ihe’era /i] his kin”(Leviticus 20:19). The Gemara asks: bIt ispossible bto refutethis source as follows: bWhatcomparison can be made between other women with whom relations are forbidden and ba father’s sister and a mother’s sister, which areunique in that they are prohibited due to ba prohibition that comes on its own?The prohibition with regard to a father’s sister and a mother’s sister does not stem from marriage, but from the biological fact that she is his father’s or mother’s sister. It is therefore dissimilar to prohibitions that result from marriage.,The Gemara states: The principle that the initial stage of intercourse is considered sexual intercourse bdoes not come fromany boneof the sources cited above. bLet it comeby deriving the ihalakhain any boneother case bfromthe common denominator of btwoof the sources mentioned above. The Gemara asks: bFrom whichtwo sources could this principle bcometo be derived? If you say it can bcomesto be derived bfromthe combination of the source with regard to ba brother’s wife andthe source with regard to ba father’s sister and a mother’s sister, whatcomparison may be drawn from these cases, bwhich areunique in that they are bprohibited becausethey are bkin? /b, bRather, let it come fromthe prohibition proscribing ba menstruating woman andthe prohibition with regard to ba father’s sister and a mother’s sister,as a menstruating woman is not prohibited as a family relative. The Gemara raises a difficulty: bWhatcomparison may be drawn from these cases, bwhich areeach a bprohibition that comes of its ownaccord, as neither one is created through marriage? bRather, let it come fromthe prohibition proscribing ba menstruating woman andthe prohibition proscribing ba brother’s wife. As, whatcan you say to brefutethis teaching? These two cases do not share any unique features that might be cause for stringency., bRav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, strongly objects to this: Whatcomparison may be drawn based upon the precedent of ba menstruating woman and a brother’s wife, which arestringent in that bthey cannot be permittedto others for the duration of bthe existence of thefactor bthat renders them prohibited?A menstruating woman is forbidden as long as she experiences a flow of menstrual blood, while a brother’s wife is forbidden for the duration of the brother’s lifetime. Can byou saythe same bwith regard to a married woman, who can become permitted during the lifetime of the one who renders her prohibited,i.e., if her husband divorces her?, bRav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Is that to saythat bit isonly during bthe existence of thefactor bthat renders them prohibited that a menstruating woman and a brother’s wife cannot be permittedto others, bbut afterward,when the prohibiting factor has been resolved, bthey can be permitted?In the case of ba menstruating woman, /b |
|
