משנה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וּבָאוּ וְאָֽמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ נִשֵּׂאת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַּעֲלָהּ תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וּצְרִיכָה גֵט מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְאֵין לָהּ לא כְּתוּבָּה. וְלֹא פֵירוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה. וְאִם נָֽטְלָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה תַּחֲזִיר וְהַװְלָד מַמְזֵר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. וְלֹא זֶה וְזֶה מִטַּמְּאִין לָהּ. וְלֹא זֶה וְזֶה זַכָּאִים לֹא בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וְלֹא בְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. הָֽיְתָה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. וּבַת לֵוִי מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וּבַת כֹּהֵן מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵין יוֹרְשָׁיו שֶׁל זֶה וְלֹא יוֹרְשָׁיו שֶּׁל זֶה יוֹרְשִׁין אֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. מֵתוּ אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶֶה וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְייַבְּמִין. MISHNAH: A woman’s husband went overseas and some persons1The language of the Mishnah implies that the wife was told (maybe by hearsay), not that she received testimony that would stand up in court. This is clear from the following Mishnaiot and the discussion at the end of Halakhah 2. came and told her, your husband died. If she remarried2Without having her husband declared dead by a competent court. That a woman may remarry even if her husband’s death is not confirmed by two independent witnesses of sterling character (Deut. 19:15) is a rabbinic institution. and then the husband returned, she has to leave both husbands3It is clear that she has to leave the second husband since her marriage to him was invalid by biblical standards. As pointed out by both Talmudim, this shows that the rules of the Mishnah are rabbinical., she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows4Num. 30:14.. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah5If the deceased husband had sons from different wives, before the inheritance is distributed the ketubah of each wife should be given to her sons; only the remainder is distributed among all sons.. If they died6Before the divorce documents were executed and there are no children., the brothers of both of them perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.
הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם כול׳. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתָן שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים שֶׁמָּא מְעוֹבָּרוֹת הֵן. וְאִם הָיוּ קְטַנּוֹת וְלֹא הָיוּ רְאוּיוֹת לְװְלָד מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתָן מִיָּד. וְאָמַר אַף הָכָא כֵן. שַׁנְייָא הִיא תַמָּן שֶׁאֲחֵרִים הִטְעוּ בָהֶן. וְהָכָא לֹא אֲחֵרִים הִטְעוּ בָהּ. קְנָס קָֽנְסוּ בָהּ שֶׁתְּהֵא בוֹדֶקֶת יָפֶה. וְיִקְנְסוּ בָה אֶצֶל הַשֵּׁינִי וְלֹא יִקְנְסוּ בָה אֶצֶל הָרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵרֵיחַ עֶרְוָה נָֽגְעוּ בָהּ. מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לוֹ דֶרֶךְ הֵיתֵר. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אוֹמֵר אֲנִי. שֶׁמָּא שִׁילַּח לָהּ גִיטָּהּ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם. הָתִיב רִבִּי חַגַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. אָֽמְרוּ לָהּ. מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ. וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא [בַעֲלָהּ]. מוּתֶּרֶת לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. שֶׁמָּא שִׁילַּח לָהּ גִיטָּהּ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם. תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן כִּיפֵּר. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן כִּיפֵּר אָמַר. מִן הָאֵירוּסִין מוּתֶּרֶת. וְלֹא מוֹדֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן כִּיפֵּר שֶׁאִם נָתַן לָהּ הָאַחֲרוֹן גֵּט לֹא פְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ הָאַחֲרוֹן גֵּט לֹא פְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא. כְּדֵי לְבָרֵר אִיסּוּרוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן. HALAKHAH: “A woman’s husband went overseas,” etc. As you say there7Mishnah 3:12, speaking of a bride who was switched in the night of the marriage., “these women one separates for three months to see whether they are pregnant. If they were minors not yet able to have a child one returns them at once.” Should one not say the same here8What is the difference between the bride who was led into the wrong chamber and the wife given wrong information?? There is a difference, since there others deceived them. Did here not also others deceive them? They instituted a fine so that she should investigate carefully9In biblical standards, there is no difference; she should be able to return to the first husband since the second marriage is nonexistent. By rabbinic decree they made the consequences of error so enormous that the presumed widow should investigate the report of her husband’s death very thoroughly.. Then they should fine her with respect to the second [husband] but not with respect to the first! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery10The wife inadvertently committed adultery with the second husband. If it had been intentional she would be forbidden to both men (Mishnah Soṭah 5:1); inadvertent adultery is not a cause of forced divorce unless the husband is a Cohen. They treated the inadvertent adultery in this case under the rules of the intentional. This argument is not found in the Babli.. Then she should not need a bill of divorce from him11If the second marriage is treated as adulterous, it is invalid and does not require a divorce.! There is a difference since she was married to him in a lawful manner12Since imperfect witnesses, even slaves, are accepted in court in cases involving a disappeared husband (Mishnah 15:4), the second marriage, based on imperfect witnesses, cannot be declared invalid.. Samuel said, I say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas13The argument is given by Rav Huna, Rav’s student, in the Babli (88b). People would think that the woman entered on her second marriage after receiving a bill of divorce from overseas. If she could return from the second husband to the first without formality, people would think that a marriage may be dissolved without formality.. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did we not state14Mishnah 10:7. In the Babli, 88b/89a, the argument is anonymous.: “If they said to her, your husband has died, she was betrothed and then her husband came, she is permitted to return to him.” If you say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas; should she not be forbidden to return to him15A divorcee may remarry her ex-husband only if she was not married to another man in the meantime, Deut. 24:1–4. The language of the verses makes it clear that this law applies only if the first marriage was consummated. Since, in general, “to take a wife” means to perform a formal betrothal (cf. Chapter 1, Notes 63, 95; Peah 6, Note 46), the prohibition is triggered by formal betrothal to the second husband.? But it must follow Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, as Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said, from betrothal it is permitted16To remarry one’s divorcee who was divorced from a second husband whose marriage was never consummated. This minority opinion is also quoted in the Babli, 88b, as background of Mishnah 10:7.. Did Rebbi Yose ben Kipper not agree that if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce that she was not disabled from priesthood? As we have stated14Mishnah 10:7. In the Babli, 88b/89a, the argument is anonymous., “even if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce, she was not disabled from priesthood.17The reason is spelled out in the Mishnah, that the betrothal was invalid and the dissolution of a non-marriage does not turn the woman into a divorcee forbidden to priests.” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Hila: In order to make clear the prohibition of the first18This is a new explanation of the Mishnah. Even though the second marriage is in fact invalid, the court will require a divorce from the second husband to make clear that the woman is forbidden to return to her first husband..
עַד כְּדוֹן בְּיוֹדַעַת שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. לֹא הָֽיְתָה יוֹדַעַת שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. קְטַנָּה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ. נִתְגָּֽרְשָׁה וְהָֽלְכָה וְהִשִּׂיאָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. תַּנֵּי תַּמָּן. כָּל־הַעֲרָיוֹת אֵינָן צְרִיכוֹת הִימֶּינּוּ גֵט חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בִּלְבָד. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אַף אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. שַׁנְייָא הִיא תַּמָּן בֵּין שֶׁהִיא יוֹדַעַת בֵּין שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת. וְהָכָא לֹא שַׁנְייָא בֵּין שֶׁהִיא יוֹדַעַת בֵּין שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת. So far19The penalties spelled out in the Mishnah apply to a married woman who knowingly enters a relationship that might be adulterous. if she knows that she is a married woman. What if she did not know that she was a married woman? Let us hear from the following: An underage girl who was married off by her father. She was divorced20This clause is a scribal error, induced by the frequent references to a minor who was married off by her father and then divorced. As the text stands, there is no problem at all since by marriage the underage girl is emancipated. If she is divorced as a minor, she becomes “an orphan while her father is living” (Mishnah 13:6) and her subsequent marriage is rabbinically valid.
If the clause is deleted, then we assume that the girl was not informed that her father had betrothed her. While the acts of a minor have no standing in law, the fact that she contracted an invalid marriage necessitates a divorce by the reasoning of R. Hila. and went and married on her own. About this Rebbi Hila said, one states there21In Babylonia. The Babylonian text is quite different (Babli 94b): “For incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman {whose husband had disappeared and} who remarried with the consent of the court; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister and his brother’s wife.” In all these cases, the marriages would have been valid if the information about the death of husband or wife or absence of a child had been true (explanation of RITBA)., for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman22Since adultery is included in the chapter (Lev. 18) on incest prohibitions, it is technically considered incestuous.; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister23Since a man may marry his deceased wife’s sister (Lev. 18:18). and his brother’s wife24Who might be married in levirate.. Is there a difference? There, whether she knows or does not know, here also whether she knows or does not know25This proves only that a formal divorce is needed in all cases. It implies nothing about the material consequences spelled out in the Mishnah. It is to be assumed that the question referred only to the necessity of a divorce which is the subject of the previous discussion..
וְלֹא פֵירוֹת. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אֲבִינָא. שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת שֶׁאָכַל. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁאָכַל עַד שֶּׁלֹּא בָא הָרִאשׁוֹן. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל מִשֶּׁבָּא הָרִאשׁוֹן מוֹצִיאָה. “Nor usufruct26The husband upon marriage becomes the administrator of the wife’s property; he is indemnified for his care and, e. g., for the obligation to redeem his wife should she be kidnapped, by receiving the usufruct of her properties; cf. Chapter 7, Note 1..” Rebbi Avina said, that she cannot recover from him27The second husband. the usufruct he took. That means28In the (French) text before Tosafot (85a, s. v. אלמנה) “Rebbi Ḥanina said, that means …” The ms. text corresponds to the Sephardic text before R. Isaac Fasi (§116, 28b in the Wilna edition)., before the first [husband] returned. But if he took after the return of the first, she can recover29Since from the moment of the return of the first husband, the second knew that he had no right to the property..
וְאִם נָֽטְלָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה תַּחֲזוֹר. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁנָּֽטְלָה מִשֶּׁבָּא הָרִאשׁוֹן. אֲבָל אִם נָֽטְלָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָא הָרִאשׁוֹן כְּמָא דְלָא מַפְקָה מִינֵּיהּ כֵּן לֹא מַפְקֵא מִינָּהּ. “And if she took anything one takes it away from her.” That means, if she took something after the first [husband] returned. But if she took before the first returned, just as she cannot take from him so he cannot take from her30In his absence, she naturally administers the estate and takes the usufruct; cf. Nimmuqe Yosef on RIF, Wilna edition 26b..
וְהַווְלָד מַמְזֵר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. נִיחָא דִװְלָד מַמְזֵר מִן הַשֵּׁינִי. הַװְלָד מַמְזֵר מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי [זְעִירָה] אָמַר. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הִיא. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. הַבָּא עַל סוֹטָתוֹ הַװְלָד מַמְזֵר. הַמַּחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָּׁתוֹ מִשְּׁנִּישֵּׂאת הַװְלָד מַמְזֵר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הַװְלָד כָּשֵּׁר. כְּגִיטָּהּ כֵּן מַמְזֵירָהּ. מַה נְפַק מן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. נָתַן לָהּ הַשֵּׁינִי גֵט וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ הָרִאשׁוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָה הַװְלָד מַמְזֵר כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הַװְלָד כָּשֵּׁר. “Any child from either of the men is a bastard.” One understands that the child is a bastard from the second [husband]31This child is the result of adultery.. Is it a bastard from the first32The marriage to the first is valid.? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba says if a man copulates with his wife whom he accuses of infidelity33Num. 5:11–31. If the husband formally accuses his wife of infidelity, she is forbidden to him until she is cleared (Mishnah Soṭah 1:3). R. Aqiba holds that any child conceived in a union which is not unconditionally permitted is a bastard. the child is a bastard, if a man takes back his divorcee after she had remarried the child is a bastard. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable34Even according to R. Aqiba, thechild of the first husband is not blemished since the wife did not act with criminal intent. The child of the second husband is a bastard by biblical standards; he or she is forbidden to marry an unblemished partner but permitted a bastard. The child of the first husband is a rabbinic bastard; he or she is forbidden to marry an unblemished partner by rabbinic decree and a bastard by biblical standards. This interpretation is explicitly stated in the Babli, 89b.; the status of her bill of divorce is the status of her bastardy. What is the difference between them? If the second one gave her a bill of divorce and then the first one copulated with her. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the child is a bastard following Rebbi Aqiba; in the opinion of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable.
לֹא זֶה וְזֶה מִיטַּמִּין לָהּ. הָדָא הִיא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. מִטַּמֵּא הוּא אָדָם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ כְשֵׁירָה. וְאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ פְסוּלָה. “Neither of them may defile himself for her.” That is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A man defiles himself for his acceptable wife but he does not defile himself for his disqualified wife.35If either one of the two husbands is a Cohen, he may not defile himself to bury her. The statement ascribed to R. Ḥiyya is anonymous in the Babli (94b), where the rule is derived from Lev. 21:4: “A husband may not defile himself if this desecrates him.””
אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. תֵּצֵא בִשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דָּבָר. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. תֵּצֵא בְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר דָּבָר. מָאן דָּמַר. תֵּצֵא בִשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דָּבָר. עֲבַד בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ חָדָא. וּמָאן דָּמַר. בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר דָּבָר. עֲבַד כָּל־חָדָא וְחָדָא מִינְּהוֹן חָדָא. Some Tannaim state, she leaves under thirteen disabilities, but some Tannaim state, she leaves under fourteen disabilities. He who says that she leaves under thirteen disabilities takes what she finds and what she earns as one case, but he who says under fourteen disabilities takes each one by itself36In fact, if one takes all disabilities stated in the Mishnah and the next under 13 or 14 categories, one has to take quite a few statements as one category. The Babli does not try to give a number..
אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. לְוִיָּה שֶׁזִּינָת אוֹכֶלֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. לְוִיָּיה שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית אוֹ שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַפְּסוּלִין לָהּ לֹא כָל־הֵימֶנָּה לְפוֹסְלָהּ. לְוִיִים הַמְזוּהָמִין מֵאִימָּן לֹא חָשׁוּ לָהֶם מִשּׁוּם רֵיחַ פְּסוּל. וְהָתַנִּינָן בַּת לֵוִי מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָֽלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בֶן. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the promiscuous levitic woman still eats tithe37Tithe in the hands of a Levite is totally profane; its consumption does not require any status of holiness.. One has stated thus: If a levitic woman was kidnapped38And presumed raped. or if any one barred for her39Whom she could not legally marry. copulated with her, he40The male illegally having sex with her. In all these cases, the daughter of a Cohen would be disabled for heave. is not empowered to disable her. One does not suspect even a hint of disability for Levites who were compromised from their mother’s side41Whose father was a Levite or Cohen of questionable standing.. But did we not state42In Mishnah 1.: “the daughter of a Levite from tithe”? Rebbi Yose said, explain it that an Israel came upon her and she bore him a son43The status of the mother always follows that of her child; the mother of an Israel is an Israel woman. Cf. Halakhot 7:3–4..
רִבִּי בִּיסְנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁזִּינָת אוֹכֶלֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. בַּת כֹּהֵן מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. הָא בְמַעֲשֵׂר אוֹכֶלֶת. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין נוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי נָסָא. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן פְּלִיגִין. דְאָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹסִינָא בְשֵׁם רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה. כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל גְּרוּשָׁה וְהוֹלִיד בֶּן וּמֵת הָאָב. בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים הַבֶּן חַיָּיב לִפְדוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם חֲזָקָה שֶׁפְּדָייוֹ אָבִיו. וְאִם לָאֲחֵרִים הוּא פוֹדֶה לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן בְּנוֹ. Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A promiscuous priestly woman may eat tithe44Since any Cohen is also a Levite (Deut. 18:1), he holds that even if a priestly woman loses her priestly status she is still levitic.. Is that not the Mishnah: “the daughter of a Cohen from heave,” this implies that she eats tithe. It may follow him who says that tithe is not given to Cohanim45In that case, no statement about tithe is implied; cf. Ma‘aśer Šeni 5:9.. Rebbi Nasa said, the words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Hila, Simeon ben Yosina, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said: If a Cohen came upon a divorcee, had a son from her, and died. [If the father died] within thirty days [of the son’s birth], the son must redeem himself. After thirty days, the presumption is that his father redeemed him46The children of priests and Levites, as well as priestly or levitic women of good standing, are not redeemed (Num. 3:11–13). If the disabled son of a Cohen has to be redeemed, it follows that with the priestly he also lost the levitic status. This disproves R. Bisna’s statement.
In the Babli, Bekhorot 47b, there is a dissenting opinion that even if the father died before 30 days, the son does not have to give his redemption money to a Cohen since his father, being a Cohen, could not be sued for the money by other Cohanim. This does not change the validity of the argument given here.. If he redeems for others, certainly for his son.
וְלֹא כְּבָר תְּנִינָתָהּ. אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. בָּהּ קָֽנְסוּ וְלֹא קָֽנְסוּ בְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרִיךְ מֵימַר. אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. Had it not already been stated: “she has no ketubah”?47This refers to the statement in the Mishnah that no children of hers, by any of her husbands, do inherit her claim to ketubah if she predeceases the husbands. Since it was stated earlier that she has no claim to any ketubah sum, the statement about her children seems superfluous. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, that you should not say, they fined her but not her heirs. Therefore it was necessary to say, she has no ketubah48That means, the first mention of the ketubah also refers to the claim of the children (explanation of Rav Papa in Babli 91a)..
סוֹטָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ הִיא אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבַּעַל כָּךְ הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבּוֹעֵל. יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁצָּרַת סוֹטָה אֲסוּרָה לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבַּעַל כָּךְ תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבּוֹעֵל. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם. בָּאוּ וְאָֽמְרוּ לָהּ. מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ. וְהָיָה לָהּ יָבָם כָּאן וְיִבְּמָהּ וָמֵת. וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַּעֲלָהּ. אָסוּר בָּהּ וּמוּתָּר בְּצָרָתָהּ. אָסוּר בָהּ וּמוּתָּר בְּאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לֹא כְצָרַת סוֹטָה הִיא. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁצָּרַת סוֹטָה מוּתָּר לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבּוֹעֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. אַתְייָא כְרַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא וְתַנֵּיי תַמָּן. כָּל־הַעֲרָיוֹת אֵינָן צְרִיכוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בִּלְבָד. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אַף אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו (לֹא כְצָרַת סוֹטָה הִיא. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. צָרַת סוֹטָה מוּתֶּרֶת לְאָחִיו שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל.) בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִן דְּהָכָא. רִבִּי חִייָה אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה הִימֶּינּוּ גֵט מִשּׁוּם הֲלָכָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ קָנָה בָהּ. עֶרְוָה [הִיא]. וְעֶרְוָה פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. אֲפִילוּ כְרַבָנִן דְּהָכָא אַתְייָא הִיא. בָּהּ קָֽנְסוּ וְלֹא קָֽנְסוּ בְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִילֵּל. אִם כְּרַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן יְהֵא מוּתָּר בָּהּ. רִבִּי זְעִירָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. צָרַת סוֹטָה אֲסוּרָה וְצָרַת גְּרוּשָׁה מוּתֶּרֶת. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל־הַצָּרוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת חוּץ מִצָּרַת סוֹטָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. גְּרוּשָׁה עַצְמָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְבֵיתָהּ. מַה פְלִיג. בְּגִין דַּהֲווֹן עָֽסְקִין בְּצָרוֹת לֹא אִדְכָּרִין גְּרוּשׁוֹת. צָרַת סוֹטָה לָמָּה הִיא אֲסוּרָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מֵרֵיח עֶרְוָה נָֽגְעוּ בָהּ. רַב אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ טוּמְאָה כַעֲרָיוֹת. Just as the woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour54Mishnah Soṭah 5:1; Sifry Num. 19. Unless she is cleared from the accusation, she may not marry her presumed paramour after being divorced or after her husband’s death. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother55If her husband dies childless and her status was not clarified; Mishnah Soṭah 1:2., so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. I might think that just as the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband’s brother56As explained at the end of this paragraph., so she should be forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Let us hear from the following57Tosephta 14:3.: “A woman’s husband went overseas; they came and told her that her husband had died, and she had a levir here; he married her in levirate58The husband was childless. and died. Then her husband returned. She is forbidden to him but her co-widow is permitted to him; she is forbidden to him but his brother’s wife is permitted to him59The two parts of this sentence say the same: the co-widow is the brother’s wife..” Is his brother’s wife not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That means that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother. Rebbi Judan said, this follows the rabbis there60The Tosephta must be Babylonian. Since for the anonymous majority a woman married in incestuous levirate does not need a bill of divorce; she never was a co-wife in the legal sense and her disabilities cannot be transferred to her co-wives., as Rebbi Hila said, one states there21In Babylonia. The Babylonian text is quite different (Babli 94b): “For incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman {whose husband had disappeared and} who remarried with the consent of the court; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister and his brother’s wife.” In all these cases, the marriages would have been valid if the information about the death of husband or wife or absence of a child had been true (explanation of RITBA)., for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman22Since adultery is included in the chapter (Lev. 18) on incest prohibitions, it is technically considered incestuous.; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister23Since a man may marry his deceased wife’s sister (Lev. 18:18). and his brother’s wife24Who might be married in levirate. (not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That implies that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother.)51The text in parentheses is dittography and is missing in Soṭah 1:2. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, everybody agrees that his brother’s wife needs a bill of divorce from him61This negates R. Judan’s premiss. because of the rule of a married wife. He married a person forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is accepted even according to the rabbis here. They fined her but not her heirs62This sentence is figurative speech. It means that in most cases of fines, the heirs are not responsible, so also in this case her disability is not transferred to her co-wives.. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, according to the rabbis there, she should be permitted to him63Since according to the Babylonian rabbis an erroneous levirate does not necessitate a divorce, the wife committed unintentional adultery which does not cause a forced divorce except for Cohanim.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden, the co-wife of a divorcee64A divorcee remarried by her ex-husband after a second marriage. The remarriage is forbidden but not incestuous. The Babli agrees, 11b. is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All co-wives65Of a woman in a forbidden but non-incestuous marriage. are permitted except the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity. Samuel said, the divorcee herself is permitted in her house66If the husband died childless, she may be married in levirate.. Does he disagree? Since they were discussing co-wives they did not mention divorcees. Why is the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity forbidden? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery10The wife inadvertently committed adultery with the second husband. If it had been intentional she would be forbidden to both men (Mishnah Soṭah 5:1); inadvertent adultery is not a cause of forced divorce unless the husband is a Cohen. They treated the inadvertent adultery in this case under the rules of the intentional. This argument is not found in the Babli.. Rav said, because impurity is written there parallel to incest prohibitions67Incestuous relations are declared impure in Lev. 18:24. Adultery is declared impure repeatedly in the law of the suspected wife, Num. 5:11–31. This argument is the only one given in the Babli, 11a..