לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא לִגְרִיעוּתָא מָה בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק אַף הַאי אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק With regard to what halakha was that word written in the Torah? This is in order to limit the inheritance. Just as a firstborn does not take in inheritance property due as he does property possessed, but instead receives a double inheritance only from that property already in actual possession of their father, so too, this one who enters levirate marriage, whether firstborn or younger, does not take in inheritance property due as he does property possessed.
מַתְנִי׳ הַנִּטְעָן עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה אוֹ עַל הַגּוֹיָה וְנִתְגַּיְּירָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִכְנוֹס וְאִם כָּנַס אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ הַנִּטְעָן עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּנַס יוֹצִיא MISHNA: One suspected by others of engaging in sexual relations with a Canaanite maidservant and she was later set free, or one suspected of relations with a gentile woman and she subsequently converted, may not marry that woman, since this will strengthen the suspicions against him. But if he did marry her, they, the judges of the court, do not remove her from him, i.e., they do not require him to divorce her. With regard to one who is suspected of illicit relations with a married woman and they, the judges of the court, removed her from her husband, i.e., required them to divorce due to this, even if the man suspected of the illicit relations subsequently married her, he must divorce her.
גְּמָ׳ הָא גִּיּוֹרֶת מִיהָא הָוְיָא וּרְמִינְהִי אֶחָד אִישׁ שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר לְשׁוּם אִשָּׁה וְאֶחָד אִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירָה לְשׁוּם אִישׁ וְכֵן מִי שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר לְשׁוּם שׁוּלְחַן מְלָכִים לְשׁוּם עַבְדֵי שְׁלֹמֹה אֵינָן גֵּרִים דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who is suspected of relations with a gentile woman who later converted may never marry her. This implies that she is, however, a convert, although it appears that she converted only in order that he might marry her. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: Both a man who converted for the sake of a woman and a woman who converted for the sake of a man, and similarly, one who converted for the sake of the king’s table, so that he could serve in a prestigious capacity, or for the sake of Solomon’s servants, who were also considered prestigious, in all of these cases they are not converts; this is the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya.
שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר אֶחָד גֵּירֵי אֲרָיוֹת וְאֶחָד גֵּירֵי חֲלוֹמוֹת וְאֶחָד גֵּירֵי מׇרְדֳּכַי וְאֶסְתֵּר אֵינָן גֵּרִים עַד שֶׁיִּתְגַּיְּירוּ בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה As Rabbi Neḥemya would say: With regard to converts by lions, i.e., forced converts such as the Samaritans [Kutim] described in II Kings (17:24–25); and converts who convert based on their dreams; and converts of the time of Mordecai and Esther described in the verse, “And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them” (Esther 8:17); all of these are not converts until they are converted at this present time.
בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אֶלָּא אֵימָא כְּבַזְּמַן הַזֶּה The Gemara clarifies the meaning of the words: Could it enter your mind to say only at this present time? Since he mentioned the converts of Mordecai and Esther, who were deceased before Rabbi Neḥemya made this statement, he therefore cannot possibly mean this phrase literally. Rather, say: Like at this present time, when the Jewish people are in exile and there is no material benefit to conversion.
הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר כּוּלָּם גֵּרִים הֵם Returning to the question above: How could a woman who converted for the sake of a man be considered a true convert? The Gemara answers: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that baraita that Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that they are all converts.
אִי הָכִי לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי הָסֵר מִמְּךָ עִקְּשׁוּת פֶּה וּלְזוּת שְׂפָתַיִם וְגוֹ׳ The Gemara asks: If so, why is one suspected of relations with such a woman not permitted to enter into marriage with her ab initio as well? The Gemara answers: The reason for the prohibition is due to the following statement of Rav Asi. As Rav Asi said with regard to such cases: “Put away from yourself a twisted mouth, and perverse lips put far from you” (Proverbs 4:24). If they were to marry, they would give substance to the prior suspicions.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן אֵין מְקַבְּלִין גֵּרִים לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ לֹא קִבְּלוּ גֵּרִים לֹא בִּימֵי דָוִד וְלֹא בִּימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַאי קְרָא הֵן גּוֹר יָגוּר אֶפֶס מֵאוֹתִי מִי גָר אִתָּךְ עָלַיִךְ יִפּוֹל אֲבָל אִידַּךְ לָא The Sages taught: Converts are not accepted in the days of the Messiah. Similarly, they did not accept converts in the days of King David or in the days of King Solomon. Rabbi Eliezer said: What is the verse that hints at this halakha? “Behold, they may gather together [gor yagur], but without Me; whosoever shall gather together [gar] with you shall fall on yours” (Isaiah 54:15). The word gor implies that only a convert [ger] who becomes part of the Jewish people when the Jews are living in exile, at a time when God is not clearly revealed, i.e., “without Me,” are considered part of the Jewish people. But another who wishes to convert in a time when God is clearly revealed shall not be accepted.
הַנִּטְעָן עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְכוּ׳ אָמַר רַב וּבְעֵדִים § The mishna states that one who was suspected of relations with a married woman may not marry her even after she divorces her husband. Even if they marry without permission, they must divorce. Rav said: This is only in a case when there were witnesses to her infidelity, and because of their testimony the court required her first husband divorce her. However, if her first husband divorced her due to suspicion and rumors but without witnesses, her second husband would not be obligated to divorce her.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמֵינָא כִּי נָיֵים וְשָׁכֵיב רַב אָמַר לְהַאי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא דְּתַנְיָא הַנִּטְעָן עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ עַל יָדוֹ וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר אִם כָּנַס לֹא יוֹצִיא Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav was dozing or sleeping he said that halakha, and it is mistaken. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who was suspected of adultery with a married woman and as a result the court requires her husband to divorce her, and later she married someone else and was then divorced by this other, if the one who had been suspected of illicit relations with her then married her, he need not divorce her.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי אִי דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים כִּי אֲתָא אַחֵר וְאַפְסְקֵיהּ לְקָלָא מַאי הָוֵי אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים וְטַעְמָא דַּאֲתָא אַחֵר וְאַפְסְקֵיהּ לְקָלָא הָא לָאו הָכִי מַפְּקִינַן The Gemara clarifies this: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is referring to a case where there are witnesses to their adultery, when another came and put an end to the rumor of her misconduct by marrying her, what of it? If there were witnesses, the adulterers may never marry each other. Rather, is it not referring to a case where there were no witnesses to the adultery, and the reason she does not have to be divorced from her third husband, with whom she committed adultery while married to her first husband, is specifically because another came and, by marrying her, put an end to the rumor? This implies that were it not so, i.e., had she not married someone else before marrying the man suspected of committing adultery with her, the court would have removed her from him and required them to divorce, even without witnesses to their adultery. This contradicts Rav’s statement above that they must divorce only if there were witnesses to the infidelity.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּא הַדִּין דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אֲתָא אַחֵר וְאַפְסְקֵיהּ לְקָלָא אִי אִיכָּא עֵדִים מַפְּקִינַן אִי לֵיכָּא עֵדִים לָא מַפְּקִינַן וְהָכִי קָאָמַר דְּאַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲתָא אַחֵר וְאַפְסְקֵיהּ לְקָלָא לְכַתְּחִלָּה לֹא יִכְנוֹס The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you that the same is true even if another did not come and put an end to the rumor by marrying her. The same principle applies: If there were witnesses to the adultery the court removes her and requires them to divorce, but if there were no witnesses, the court does not remove her. And this is what the baraita is saying: The novelty in this baraita is that even though another came and put an end to the rumor by marrying her, nevertheless, the suspected adulterer may not marry her ab initio due to the original suspicions.
מֵיתִיבִי בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁאֵין לָהּ בָּנִים אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים לֹא תֵּצֵא וְאִם בָּאוּ עֵדֵי טוּמְאָה אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ לָהּ כַּמָּה בָּנִים תֵּצֵא The Gemara raises an objection from a different baraita that qualifies the previous one: In what case is this statement, that the court removes her from the suspected adulterer, said? It is when she has no children from her first husband. But if she has children from him, she is not required to be divorced from the suspected adulterer. On the contrary, if they were required to divorce, it could strengthen the original rumor and others might suspect that her children are mamzerim. However, if witnesses to her impurity, i.e., her adultery, came and testified that she had relations with this man while she was married, then even if she has several children from the first husband, she is required to be divorced. This implies that a woman without children from her first husband must separate from a man suspected of illicit relations with her on strength of suspicion alone.
רַב מוֹקֵי לַהּ לְמַתְנִיתִין בְּיֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים וְיֵשׁ לָהּ עֵדִים וּמַאי דּוּחְקֵיהּ דְּרַב לְאוֹקֹמֵי לְמַתְנִיתִין בְּיֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים וְיֵשׁ לָהּ עֵדִים וְטַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים מַפְּקִינַן וְאִי לֵיכָּא עֵדִים לָא מַפְּקִינַן לוֹקְמַהּ בְּשֶׁאֵין לָהּ בָּנִים אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים The Gemara answers and explains that Rav establishes the mishna as referring only to a case where she has children by her first husband and there are witnesses to her adultery. In such a situation, she and the adulterer must divorce, but without witnesses they are not required to divorce. The Gemara asks: What forced Rav to establish the mishna as referring to a case where she has children and there are witnesses and explain that the reason that the court removes her from the suspected adulterer is because there were witnesses, but that if there were no witnesses they do not remove her? Why does he not establish the mishna as referring to a case where there were no children and that they must divorce even if there were no witnesses?
אָמַר רָבָא מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי הוֹצִיאוּהָ לִיתְנֵי הוֹצִיאָהּ אֶלָּא כֹּל הוֹצִיאוּהָ בְּבֵית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין בְּעֵדִים הוּא דְּמַפְּקִי Rava said: The language of the mishna was difficult for him; due to that he deemed it necessary to interpret it as he did. Why does the tanna specifically teach: They remove her from him [hotziuha]? Let it teach: He divorces her [hotziah] in the singular. Rather, every time the plural form: They remove her, is used, it is referring to the judges of the court. And a court removes a woman from her suspected adulterer only if there were witnesses, and not due to suspicion alone.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא הָנֵי מַתְנְיָיתָא רַבִּי הִיא דְּתַנְיָא רוֹכֵל יוֹצֵא וְאִשָּׁה חוֹגֶרֶת בְּסִינָר אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹאִיל וּמְכוֹעָר הַדָּבָר תֵּצֵא רוֹק לְמַעְלָה מִן הַכִּילָה אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹאִיל וּמְכוֹעָר הַדָּבָר תֵּצֵא If you wish, say a different answer for Rav’s explanation: Those baraitot that require the wife and the suspected adulterer to divorce even without witnesses to the adultery are taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where a husband saw a peddler leaving the house, and when he entered he found his wife retying her smock [sinar], i.e., putting her clothes back on, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter because it looks as though she committed adultery with the peddler, she must be divorced by her husband. Alternatively, if the husband entered after the peddler had left and found saliva above the netting of the bed, implying that someone had lain on the bed and spit upward, although no actual act was witnessed, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter, she must be divorced.