Ketubot 82b — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

What might you say? “And he shall perform levirate marriage with her,” the Merciful One said, and

even after he has performed levirate marriage with her,

the original levirate-marriage obligations still remain upon her,

that is, this is still not like an ordinary marriage but like levirate marriage, and therefore

a get is not sufficient for her, but rather chalitza.

As a levirate wife.

He teaches us

that she is considered like an ordinary married woman.

The Gemara further asks: What is the novelty in the fact that he

takes her back

if he divorced her?

It is obvious

that he can take her back like any woman.

And we explain:

What might you say,

since in essence she is his brother’s wife, who is forbidden to him, but now

it is a mitzva that the Merciful One imposed upon him

to perform levirate marriage with her, and therefore when he

performed

when he made her his wife

and

divorced her,

now she stands subject to the prohibition of a brother’s wife,

as at the beginning.

He teaches us

that after he married her, she is like an ordinary wife.

And we ask:

And say that this is indeed so?

From where do you know that he is permitted to take her again, not in the context of the mitzva of levirate marriage?

And we explain:

The verse says, “And he shall take her for himself as a wife,”

which is a superfluous verse, and it comes to say:

Once he has taken her, she becomes like his wife.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Provided that her marriage settlement is upon the property of her first husband,”

that is, in this the levirate wife differs from other women: he does not become obligated to give her a marriage settlement from his own property, but rather from the property of her first husband.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that he does not write her a marriage settlement from his own property?

Since

Heaven granted him a wife,

and he did not marry her of his own will, he should not write her a marriage settlement.

And

nevertheless, the Sages instituted that

if she does not have

a marriage settlement

from

the

first husband, she has one from the second, so that she will not be easy in his eyes to divorce.

We learned in the Mishna:

He may not say to her, “Here is your marriage settlement,”

lying on the table; rather, all his property is responsible for her marriage settlement. And likewise, a man may not say to his wife, “Here is your marriage settlement,” lying on the table; rather, all his property is responsible for her marriage settlement.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the meaning of “and likewise”?

That is, what is the novelty that a man may not say to his wife and so forth? Why should his wife be in a worse position than his levirate wife?

What might you say: It is there that he did not write for her, “what I have acquired and what I shall acquire,”

specifically, in the case of a levirate husband, he may not say to her, “Here is your marriage settlement ...,” since he did not lien to her the property that he acquired and that he is destined to acquire, and therefore she does not rely upon it, lest the money be lost,

but here,

with his wife,

since he wrote for her, “what I have acquired and what I shall acquire,” let us say that she relies upon it,

and she is not concerned that the money will be lost, since other property will become liened to her in its place.

He teaches us

that in every event, since she thinks that she has no property in their place, she does not rely upon it. And they will come to enmity.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he divorced

the levirate husband

her, she has only her marriage settlement,

and the rest the levirate husband may sell.

And the Gemara infers:

If he divorced her, yes; if he did not divorce her, no.

That is, specifically if he divorced her, he may sell the rest, but as long as he has not divorced her, he may not sell it. And

he teaches us, in accordance with Rabbi Abba

mentioned above (81a), that the levirate husband may not sell the property of his brother until he divorces her.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If he took her back, she is like all women, and she has only her marriage settlement”:

And we ask:

“If he took her back”—

what does it teach us?

Did we not

already learn

in the chapter HaMotzi (below, 89b):

“One who divorces a woman and takes her back, takes her back on the basis of the first marriage settlement.”

And what more has our Mishna taught us?

And we explain:

What might you say,

specifically

his wife

he takes back on the basis of her first marriage settlement, because

he wrote her a marriage settlement from his own property,

her first marriage settlement being from his property.

But his levirate wife, to whom he did not write

a marriage settlement, but rather her marriage settlement is upon the property of her first husband,

when he divorced her and took her back, let us say that her marriage settlement is from his own property; he teaches us

our Mishna that he too takes her back on the basis of her first marriage settlement.

Rav Yehuda said: At first they would write

for a virgin two hundred, and for a widow one hundred,

but they would not lien property for them,

and they would grow old and would not marry women.

Since the women were afraid to marry, lest when he died the heirs conceal the inheritance money, and they would not be able to collect their marriage settlements.

Until Shimon ben Shetach came and instituted—

“All his property is responsible for her marriage settlement.”

It was likewise taught in a beraita—

At first they would write for a virgin two hundred and for a widow one hundred, and they would grow old and would not marry women.

And therefore at first they

instituted

that they should place it

the marriage settlement

in her father’s house, and still

this was not sufficient, since

when he was angry with her, he would say to her, “Go to your marriage settlement.”

They returned and

instituted

that they should place it in her father-in-law’s house

her husband’s father. And the

wealthy women made it baskets of silver and of gold, while poor women made it a vessel for urine ,

and then they were not concerned that the vessel would be lost, since it was their practice to guard this vessel היטב. Tosafot.

And still

this was not sufficient, since

when he was angry with her, he would say to her, “Take your marriage settlement and leave.”

Until Shimon ben Shetach came and instituted that he should write for her, “All my property is responsible for her marriage settlement.”

We have returned to you, chapter “The Woman Whose Property Fell to Her.”