Yevamot 31: How to Deal with Issues of Sanity; Zikat Shnei Yevamin

The rabbis explore the similarities and differences between uncertain betrothal and uncertain divorce.  They use case examples to flesh out their arguments.  Some of my favourite passages are off-side of the main points of the text.  

One regards Bar Shatya, who is said to have sold his property.  Two witnesses say that he sold it while in good health.  Two other witnesses say that he sold it while zabein, "foolish" or "insane" (sic).  We learn in a note by Steinsaltz that Bar Shatya was said to experience periods of perfect health followed by "fits" of mental illness. Legally speaking, such a sale of property would be valid if Bar Shatya was well, and reversed if he was unwell at the time of sale.  When witnesses were at odds, like in this situation, sale of property was reversed while sale of any movable objects was considered to be valid.

These decisions have some implications regarding the current questions of betrothal and divorce.  However, my interest is peaked by the spotlight placed on ancient understandings of mental health.  Bar Shatya is not understood as a prophet or a revered, wise man.  And yet his mental health is understood as an undeniable fact of life; a trait that must be considered and dealt with through halachic conversation.  Very similar to our current treatment of individuals with mental health issues.

We also learn that dates are not required on statements of betrothal, while they are critical on divorce, get, documents.  Why?  The rabbis remind us that men are entitled to the profits derived from their wives' property once they are fully married.  Betrothal does not require a date for those legal purposes.  A note teaches that betrothal can be secured through exchange of money (ie. a ring), a document of betrothal, or sexual intercourse.  The Sages frowned on the last option, however, as it crossed a fence set around acceptable sexual relationships. 

A deed is required for a slave, by the way, including the date of acquisition.  This is because it is necessary to prove when the belongings of a slave became the belongings of his/her master.  There are too many issues to discuss at this time regarding my responses to this text.

We end the daf with a new Mishna.  It tells us of a case where three brothers marry three unrelated women.  The case leads us to question the notion of double levirate relationship, or zikat shnei yevamin.  Two women whose husbands have died must perform chalitza with the remaining husband.  This is not because they are forbidden by Torah law, but because the rabbis are building another fence.  People should not be led to believe that a man is permitted to marry two women within the same household.  We end the daf with the Gemara's first refutation of this argument.