Yevamot 65a (סה.) — the Talmud in English

As we learned in the Mishna: A woman does not

establish a menstrual cycle

to rely on her such that her current status is sufficient and to render her impure if she did not examine herself

until she establishes it three times.

until she establishes it three times. And she does not become pure from the menstrual cycle until it has been uprooted from her three times.

But if the time of her menstrual cycle passed twice and she did not see blood at that time, she still retains her established pattern, to see blood on the day on which she had become accustomed to seeing it.

And an ox that has become habitually dangerous—

And an ox that has become forewarned — as we learned in the Mishna: An ox does not become forewarned

to pay full compensation for the damage caused by its goring

until they testify against it

before its owners and before a court

three times

for the goring incidents caused by their ox, because with regard to monetary matters, a presumption is established only through three occurrences.

The following passage [until Rav Pappa’s statement] is explained according to the approach of Tosafot.

The Sages taught:

A woman who

married

a

first

husband, and remained with him for ten years,

and she did not have children

from him, and she married

a

husband

second, and remained with him for ten years,

and

she did not have children

from him either —

then

a

husband

third she may not marry, except

only

one who has children, since he has already fulfilled the mitzva of procreation, because she has acquired a presumption through two occurrences that she is a woman who is incapable of bearing children.

With regard to the prohibition, two occurrences are sufficient to establish her status.

And if she

And if she

married

a third time

one who has no children,

and he did not know that she had already been married to two men and had not borne children for them,

then she

must leave

the third husband

without a ketuba,

even before she has remained with him for ten years without children, because the transaction was made in error.

For had he known that she had already been married to two men and had not borne children for them, he would not have married her. But she is entitled to a ketuba from the first and second husbands, since she had not yet acquired a presumption three times.

They raised a dilemma before them:

In the case of a woman who married a first husband and afterward a second, and she did not have children, and she left them with a ketuba, and she

married a third, and

remained with him for ten years, and

she did not have children, and she acquired a presumption through three occurrences that she is a woman incapable of bearing children

what is the ruling: can the earlier husbands demand payment from her?

— what is the halakha: Can these first husbands sue her?

Can the first two husbands sue her to return the amounts of the ketubot that she received from them?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma:

Who

might

be able to say to her

the first husbands: Now

it has become clear that you were the one who caused

us not to have children from you. For it has now been established through three occurrences that you are a woman incapable of bearing children.

And a presumption established through three occurrences is effective with regard to monetary matters as well; if so, the ketuba was paid to her by the first two husbands in error?

Or perhaps: They can say to them

the woman to the first husbands:

It is only now that I have become incapable

[She can say: Now I have weakened and am incapable of bearing children.]

The Gemara now returns to the case discussed by the beraita: She married the third husband, and he divorced her before she had remained with him for ten years, and he did not give her a ketuba because he claimed that the transaction had been made in error, since he had not known that she had already been married to two men and had not borne children for them. The dilemma is:

They raised a dilemma before them:

If, after the third husband divorced her, she went and

married a

husband

fourth, and she had children —

what is the halakha: Can she sue the third husband

[Can she claim a ketuba from the third husband, who divorced her on the grounds that the transaction had been made in error? For it has become clear that she is capable of bearing children, and he divorced her for no reason]?

The Gemara explains the position that she cannot claim her ketuba, although it has become clear that she is capable of bearing children:

We say to her: Your silence —

is preferable to your speech

[It is better for you to remain silent]!

For

he

can say to her

the third husband:

I, with the understanding that

you are capable of bearing children,

did not divorce you

[I would not have divorced you had I known that you were capable of bearing children], and the divorce was made in error; you are still my wife, and you have no ketuba!

Rav Pappa objected to this: What benefit would her remaining silent have with regard to claiming the ketuba?

But how does her silence from demanding the marriage contract help?

For

if she remains silent —

are we to remain silent?

[If she remains silent, that does not mean that we should remain silent.]

For it would indeed become clear that the divorce was not effective, and

the get would be found to be void,

and her children would be mamzerim.

We are necessarily silent, because we say that the husband divorced her on the basis of uncertainty, and he does not care whether the truth is that she is capable of bearing children; he resolved to divorce her in any event. Therefore, she can claim a ketuba, since this was not a transaction made in error, once it has become clear that she is capable of bearing children.

Rav Pappa adds:

Rather,

if we indeed seek to deprive her of her ketuba, we can do so for another reason, because

we say: It is only now that she has become capable of bearing children

[Indeed, she was not capable of bearing children before; she has only now acquired this status], and therefore she cannot claim a ketuba.

The following passage is explained according to the Rashba’s understanding of Rashi.

It was explained above that one who divorces his wife after ten years during which she did not give birth is required to give her a ketuba, since he is the one who failed to merit having children through her. She is not commanded to fulfill the mitzva of procreation, such that the Holy One, blessed be He, would punish her by withholding pregnancy.

Our sugya discusses two situations in which the husband claims that he is not the cause of her failure to become pregnant, and therefore does not give her a ketuba.

A.

He,

the husband,

said: It is from her

[from her], I know that the reason I have no children is because of her , and therefore I will not give her a ketuba.

And

if

she,

the woman,

said: It is from him

[from him], I know that his semen does not shoot like an arrow, and any semen that does not shoot like an arrow cannot cause conception; therefore, I am entitled to a ketuba.

Rabbi Ami said: In matters between him and her

[that his semen does not shoot like an arrow], she

is deemed credible

that he is incapable of fathering children. Since he is incapable of having children, his claim that she is incapable of bearing children is ineffective, for what difference does it make to him, since he too is incapable of having children?

And what is the reason

that we believe her?

Because

she is certain regarding whether it shoots like an arrow

[She is able to discern whether his semen shoots like an arrow.]

But

he is not certain

[he cannot know]

whether it shoots like an arrow.

B.

He said

[the husband]:

I will marry another woman and test myself

[I will marry another woman in addition to her so that she will bear children for me, thereby proving that the lack of children is caused by her], and I will not give her a ketuba.

Rabbi Ami said: In this case too, he must divorce her and give her a ketuba.

Since

I say: Anyone who marries a woman in addition to his wife —

must divorce her and give her a ketuba.

Rava said: A man may marry several wives in addition to his wife, provided that he has the means to support them

[he has the ability to provide sustenance for all of them].