Yevamot 65a — the Talmud in English

As we learned: A woman does not ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

establish for herself a menstrual cycle

to rely upon it that her status is sufficient from the time of the discovery, and to render her impure if she did not examine herself

until she establishes it three times.

And she is not purified from the menstrual cycle until it is uprooted from her three times.

But if the time of her menstrual cycle passed over her twice and she did not see [blood] at that time, she still remains in her established status, to see on the day on which she became accustomed to seeing.

And an ox accustomed to gore—

as we learned: An ox does not become accustomed to gore

to pay full damages for its goring,

until they testify against it

before its owners and before the rabbinical court

three times

for the goring that its ox gored, because with regard to monetary matters, there is a presumption only after three occurrences.

The following teaching [until after the words of Rav Pappa] is explained according to the method of Tosafot.

The Sages taught:

A woman who

married a

husband

first,

and remained with him ten years,

and she had no children

from him, and she married

a

husband

second,

and remained with him ten years,

and she had no children

from him as well—

she

to a

husband

third may not marry, except

only

one who has children,

who has already fulfilled the mitzva of procreation, since she has been established through two occurrences as a woman who is not capable of bearing children.

And with regard to prohibition, two occurrences are sufficient to establish her.

And if she

married

a third time

one who has no children,

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

this woman

shall leave

the third

without a ketubah,

even before she remained ten years without children, since it is a mistaken transaction.

For if he had known that she had already married two men and had not borne children for them, he would not have married her. But from the first and the second she has a ketubah, since she had not been established three times.

They raised a dilemma before them:

A woman who married a first husband and afterward a second, and she had no children, and she left them with a ketubah, and she

married a third, and

remained with him ten years, and she

had no children,

and was established three times as a woman who is not capable of bearing children —

what is the law: Can the earlier ones claim from her?

They understood that the first two husbands can claim from her that she return the value of the ketubah that she received from them. Can the first two husbands claim from her that she return the value of the ketubah that she received from them?

And the Gemara explains the two sides of the doubt:

Who

[whether]

can say to her

the first husbands: Now

the matter has been revealed, that you are the one who caused

that children should not be born to us from you. For now she has been established through three occurrences as a woman who is not capable of bearing children.

And even with regard to money, a presumption established through three occurrences is effective, and if so, the ketubah was paid to her mistakenly by the first two husbands?

Or perhaps: You can say to them

the woman to the first husbands:

Now is when I have become weak

[she can say: Now I have become weakened and am not capable of bearing children].

And now the Gemara returns to the manner in which the beraita spoke: that she married the third, and he divorced her before she remained with him ten years, and he did not give her a ketubah because he claimed that it was a mistaken transaction, since he had not known that she had already married two men and had not borne children for them, and it raises the following doubt:

They raised a dilemma before them:

If, after the third divorced her, she went and

married a

husband

fourth, and she had children—

what is the law: Can she claim from the third

[whether she can claim a ketubah from the third] who divorced her on the basis of a mistaken transaction, for it has been revealed that she is capable of bearing children, and he divorced her for nothing?

And the Gemara explains the side that she cannot claim her ketubah, even though it has been revealed that she is capable of bearing children:

We say to her: Your silence—

is better than your speech

[it is preferable for you to remain silent]!

For

he

can say to her

the third husband:

I, on the understanding of this

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 is a mistaken divorce, and you are my wife, and you have no ketubah!

Rav Pappa objected to this:

But what benefit will her silence provide her from claiming the ketubah?

For

if she remains silent—

do we remain silent

[if she remains silent, does that mean that we have no reason to remain silent]?

For indeed it has been revealed that the divorce does not take effect, and

the get is found to be invalid,

and her sons are mamzerim.

And necessarily we remain silent, because we say that, because of the doubt, the husband divorced her, and it does not matter to him whether the truth is that she is capable of bearing children, and he definitively resolved to divorce her in any event. Therefore, she can claim a ketubah, since there was no mistaken transaction here, once it was revealed that she is capable of bearing children. And Rav Pappa adds:

Rather,

if indeed we are coming to cause her to lose her ketubah, we can approach him for another reason, because

if we are indeed seeking to deprive her of her marriage contract, we can do so for another reason, because

we say: Now is when she became capable of bearing children

[indeed, she had not been capable of bearing children, but only now has she become established as such], and therefore she cannot claim a ketubah.

The following teaching is explained according to the Rashba in his understanding of Rashi.

It was explained above that one who divorces his wife after ten years during which she did not bear children must give her a ketubah, since he is the one who did not merit to be built up through her, for she is not commanded in procreation, so that the Holy One, blessed is He, would punish her by preventing pregnancy.

Our discussion deals with two situations in which the husband claims that he is not the cause of her failure to become pregnant, and therefore does not give a ketubah.

A.

He

the husband

said: From her

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

And

if

she

the woman

said: From him

[from him], I know that his semen does not shoot like an arrow, and every emission of semen that does not shoot like an arrow does not impregnate, and therefore a ketubah is due to me.

Rabbi Ami said: Matters between him and her

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

trusted

that he is unfit to father, and since he is unfit to have children, his claim that she is unfit to bear children is of no effect, for what does it matter to him, since he too is unfit to have children?

And what is the reason

that we believe her?

For

she is certain regarding [whether the semen] shoots like an arrow

[she is the one who can discern whether his semen shoots like an arrow].

But

he is not certain

[he cannot know]

regarding [whether it] shoots like an arrow.

B.

He said

[the husband]:

I will go, marry a woman, and examine myself

[I will marry another woman in addition to her so that she will bear children for me, and I will thereby prove that because of her she has no children], and I will not give a ketubah.

Rabbi Ami said: In this case as well, he shall divorce her and give her a ketubah.

Since

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

shall divorce her and give her a ketubah.

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

[he has the ability to support them all].