Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 9.4

משנה: שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שְׁנִיָיה לַבַּעַל וְלֹא שְׁנִיָיה לַיָּבָם אֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל וּמוּתֶּרֶת לַיָּבָם שְׁנִיָיה לַיָּבָם וְלֹא שְׁנִיָיה לַבַּעַל אֲסוּרָה לַיָּבָם וּמוּתֶּרֶת לַבַּעַל. שְׁנִיָיה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה אֲסוּרָה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה. אֵין לָהּ לֹא כְתוּבָּה וְלֹא פֵירוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת וְהַוְולָד כָּשֵׁר וְכוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה.

MISHNAH: Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim. If she is secondarily prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. Secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband. Secondarily prohibited to both of them, she is forbidden to both of them. She may claim neither Ketubah nor usufruct nor upkeep nor wear but the child is qualified and one forces him to divorce her. A widow married to the High Priest, a divorcee of one that performed ḥalîṣah married to a simple priest, a female bastard or a Gibeoness married to an Israel, and Israel woman married to a Gibeonite or a bastard have a claim of Ketubah.

הלכה: שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כול׳. הַשְּׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שְׁנִיָיה לַבַּעַל וְלֹא שְׁנִיָיה לַיָּבָם אֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל וּמוּתֶּרֶת לַיָּבָם. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה אֶצֶל הַיָּבָם. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת לוֹ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁכְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִיכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה.

HALAKHAH: “Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim,” etc. “If she is secondarily, rabbinically, prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is permitted to him, she has Ketubah, or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was forbidden to him, does she have no Ketubah?

שְׁנִיָיה לַיָּבָם וְלֹא שְׁנִיָיה לַבַּעַל אֲסוּרָה לַיָּבָם וּמוּתֶּרֶת לַבַּעַל. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה אֶצֶל הַיָּבָם. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁכְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִיכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת לוֹ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה.

“If she is secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is forbidden to him, she does not have Ketubah, or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was permitted to him, does she have Ketubah?

וְלֹא פֵירוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת בִּלְבַד. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי צַיְידָנִיָיה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וּפַלִּיג עַל רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וְזַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. מַהוּ וְלֹא פֵירוֹת. שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת שֶׁאָכַל.

“No usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, that he has from her only the usufruct. Rebbi Yose the Sidonian stated before Rebbi Jeremiah, in disgreement with Rebbi Jeremiah: “He has the right to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows.” What means “no usufruct”? That she cannot reclaim from him the usufruct he had [from her property].

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. כָּל שָׁעָה הַוְיָא רִבִּי הִילָא אָמַר לִי. תְּנֵי מַתְנִיתָךְ. יוֹרְשָׁהּ וּמִיטַמֵּא לָהּ. וְתַנִּי כֵן. מְטַמֵּא הוּא אָדָם בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ הַכְּשֵׁירָה. וְאִינוֹ מִיטַמֵּא בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ פְסוּלָה.

Rebbi Yose said: All the time Rebbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife.

רִבִּי אָבוּן בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. עַבְדֵי שְׁנִיּוֹת מַהוּ שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שְׁתוֹק וְיָפֶה לָךְ. הִיא אוֹכֶלֶת וַעֲבָדֶיהָ אֵינָן אוֹכְלִין.

Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden [wife] eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats but her slaves do not eat.

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. גֶּט מְעוּשֶּׂה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּשֵׁר וּבַגּוֹיִם פָּסוּל. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל לִכְהוּנָה. וָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. אַכְרְזוֹן בְּקִרְוֵיכוֹן. פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל לִכְהוּנָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֵין מְעַשִּׂין אֶלָּא פוֹסְלִין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֵין מְעַשִּׂין אֶלָּא כְגוֹן אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. וְהָא תַנִּינָן שְׁנִיּוֹת. לָא בְגִין אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הַמַדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלֵּיהֲנוֹת לוֹ. עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם יַעֲמִיד פַּרְנָס. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא. שָׁמַעְנוּ כוֹפִין.

There, we have stated: “A forced bill of divorce is valid in Israel; it is invalid from Gentiles.” Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. And Samuel said, publicize in your towns: It is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah for a simple priest. But did we not state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Did he not say “for example”? But did we not state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him, up to 30 days he shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay Ketubah”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him?

מַה בֵין אֵילּוּ לָאֵילּוּ. אֵלֶּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וְאֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. וְאֵילּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִין וְדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִין צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. אֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקְּנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד וְלֹא קָנְסוּ בָהֶן דָּבָר אַחֵר לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. וְאֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵין קְנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד וְקָנְסוּ בָהֶן דָּבָר אַחֵר לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. מַה נְפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. הַמַּחֲזִיר אֶת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵילּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהוּא דְבַר תּוֹרָה לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. אֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקְּנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד. וְזֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵין קְנָסָהּ בְּיָדוֹ וּבְיַד הַוְולָד לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה.

What is the difference between these and those? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah do not need support, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have Ketubah. Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have Ketubah What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has Ketubah. For those who want to say since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no Ketubah.

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. רִבִּי זְעִירָה וְרִבִּי הִילָא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. בִּמְזוֹנוֹת פְּלִיגִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אוֹמְרִים לָהּ. הוֹצִיא. וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. הֲווֹן בָּעִיָין מֵימַר כֵּן. בִּתְנַיֵי כְּתוּבָּה פְלִיגִין. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. בְּיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ קָנְסוּ לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בָּהּ. וּמָאן דָּמַר. בִּמְזוֹנוֹת פְּלִיגִין. הָא בִּתְנַיֵי כְּתוּבָּה לא. לָמָּה. בָּהּ קָנְסוּ וְלֹא קָנְסוּ בְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila say that they differ about upkeep. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may demand upkeep. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, one says to [him], divorce her! And you say so? They wanted to say so, they differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah. Everybody agrees that she cannot claim support since they even punished her heirs, so much more herself. But for him who says that they differ about upkeep it follows that they do not differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah. They fined her but not her heirs.