(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 117

YEVAMOS 116-119 - have been sponsored through the generous contribution of Mr. Uri Wolfson and family


QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law may not testify about the death of the other's husband. Each woman is suspected of maliciously attempting to harm the other by lying about the other's husband, due to the enmity they have for each other. The Gemara explains that the mother-in-law hates the daughter-in-law because the daughter-in-law is "eating all the fruits of her labor" (because the son gives his wife everything his mother prepared for him).

The Tana'im argue about the source of the inverse hatred, though. Why does the daughter-in-law hate the mother-in-law? Rebbi Yehudah, in a Beraisa, says that she hates her mother-in-law because her mother-in-law reveals all of the secrets of what her daughter-in-law does in private to the daughter-in-law's husband. The Rabanan say that she hates her mother-in-law simply because her mother-in-law hates her, as the verse says, "As water reflects a face back to a face, so one's heart reflects the other's heart" (Mishlei 27:19). The Mishnah follows the view of the Rabanan, and their view is the Halachah.

The Gemara then discusses the trustworthiness of a woman to testify about the husband of her *potential* mother-in-law ("Chamosah ha'Ba'ah l'Achar mi'Kan"). This refers to a woman who is married, but will fall to Yibum if her husband dies, and her husband's brother has a different mother than her husband. The Gemara asks whether such a woman hates her potential mother-in- law or not.

The Gemara cites proof from the Mishnah later (118a) which discusses a case where a woman's husband and her father-in-law travelled abroad to Medinas ha'Yam. The woman testifies that her husband and the husband of her mother- in-law both died. The Mishnah states that she is not believed to permit her mother-in-law to remarry. The Gemara asserts from here that a woman does hate her mother-in-law now, even though it is only due to her anticipated hatred.

RASHI explains that the Gemara's proof is that we see that the daughter-in- law hates the mother-in-law even when both husbands are in Medinas ha'Yam and the mother-in-law does not have the opportunity to reveal to her son the secrets of her daughter-in-law. Even though right now the daughter-in-law has no reason to be angry at her mother-in-law since her husband is away, nevertheless she is afraid that when her husband returns her mother-in-law will reveal her secrets.

Why does Rashi mention only Rebbi Yehudah's reason for why a daughter-in-law hates her mother-in-law? He should have explained the Gemara's proof according to the Halachic reason, that of the Rabanan, who say that the daughter-in-law feels reciprocal hatred for her mother-in-law, simply because her mother-in-law hates her.

ANSWER: Rashi means that according to the Rabanan, the Gemara has no proof from the Mishnah later. The reason the mother-in-law hates the daughter-in- law is because the daughter-in-law eats the fruit of her labors. Consequently, according to the Rabanan, as long as the daughter-in-law is benefiting from the work of the mother-in-law, she will also hate the mother- in-law because of the reciprocal hatred. If so, she will certainly hate the mother-in-law even when their husbands are away, because the mother-in-law still hates her at this very moment!

For this reason, Rashi understands that the Gemara's proof from the Mishnah later is *only* according to the reasoning of Rebbi Yehudah, that the daughter-in-law hates the mother-in-law because she reveals her secrets. According to that reason, the Gemara has a good proof that we must be concerned for anticipated hatred, because while the daughter-in-law's husband is away (and cannot hear any secrets) she has no reason to hate her mother- in-law. (The Gemara is assuming that Rebbi Yehudah agrees to the Halachah of the Mishnah later, that the daughter in law cannot testify about her mother in law when both husbands are abroad.)

This seems to be the way the RITVA understands Rashi as well. The Ritva adds that if the Gemara can only prove according to *Rebbi Yehudah* that the daughter-in-law hates the mother-in-law because of anticipated hatred, how can we prove that the Rabanan agree to him on this point? The Ritva answers that there is no reason to assume that the Rabanan should *not* agree with Rebbi Yehudah on that point. Thus, by proving that Rebbi Yehudah holds that a woman hates her mother-in-law due to anticipated hatred, we can assume that that is the opinion of the Rabanan as well.


Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,