Yevamot 183

כל קלא דבתר נשואין לא חיישינן מהו דתימא הואיל ואתאי לבי דינא ושרינן כקלא דקמי נשואין דמי ותיתסר קמ"ל:

No regard need be paid to a rumour that originated after marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for instance, after a priest had married, a rumour arose that before her marriage with him his wife was a divorcee or a harlot. Git. 81a, 88b, 89a. ');">¹</span> — It might have been assumed that since she was to appear before the <i>Beth din</i> to obtain the authorization<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and we permitted'. ');">²</span> [for her marriage].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it had taken place. ');">³</span> the rumour is regarded as one [that arose] before marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her appearance before the court implying that, already at that time, the possibility that her husband was still alive was being considered. ');">⁴</span>

ניסת ע"פ ב"ד תצא וכו': אמר זעירי ליתא למתני' מדתני בי מדרשא דתני בי מדרשא הורו בית דין ששקעה חמה ולבסוף זרחה אין זו הוראה אלא טעות

and she should in consequence he forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her second husband, as if the rumour had been current before her marriage. ');">⁵</span> we were, therefore, taught [that even in such circumstances a rumour is disregarded]. IF SHE MARRIED WITH THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE <i>BETH DIN</i> SHE MUST LEAVE etc. Ze'iri said: Our Mishnah cannot be authentic<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'our Mishnah is not'. ');">⁶</span> owing to a Baraitha that was recited at the academy. For it was recited at the academy: If the <i>Beth din</i> ruled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On a cloudy day which happened to be the Sabbath day. ');">⁷</span>

ורב נחמן אמר הוראה היא

that the sun had set,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And permitted the people to commence their week-day labours which are forbidden on the Sabbath. ');">⁸</span> and later it appeared, [such a decision] is no ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which exempts the individual who acted upon it from a sin- offering and affects the nature of the sin-offering which the congregation who acted upon it has to bring. ');">⁹</span> but a mere error.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the erroneous ruling of the Beth din was not due to an oversight on their part of a point of law but to a false assumption of a matter of fact. They assumed that the sun had set, while in fact, it had not. Similarly here, They assumed that the woman's husband was dead when as a matter of fact he was alive. Our Mishnah, therefore, which exempts the woman from a sin-offering cannot be authentic. ');">¹⁰</span> R. Nahman. however, stated: [Such an authorization]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The permission to the woman to marry again, spoken of in our Mishnah. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ר נחמן תדע דהוראה היא דבכל התורה כולה עד אחד לא מהימן והכא מהימן מ"ט לאו משום דהוראה היא אמר רבא תדע דטעות הוא דאילו הורו ב'ד בחלב ובדם להיתירא והדר חזו טעמא לאיסורא כי הדרי ואמרי להיתירא לא משגחינן להו

is [to be regarded as] a ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Subject to the same laws as all erroneous rulings issued by a Beth din. Cf. supra 11. 6. and Hor. 2aff. ');">¹²</span> Said R. Nahman: You can have proof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thou shalt know'. ');">¹³</span> that it [is to be regarded as] a ruling. For throughout the Torah a single witness is never believed while in this case he is believed. But why? Obviously<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not?' ');">¹⁴</span> because [such an authorization is regarded as] a ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman did not act on the evidence of the witness which, as is now apparent, was due to an error, but on the ruling of the Beth din who accepted the evidence of this witness. Whatever their reason may have been it was their ruling that was the cause of the woman's marriage. ');">¹⁵</span>

ואילו היכא דאתא עד אחד שרינא אתו תרי אסרנא כי הדר אתא עד אחרינא שרינן לה מ"ט לאו משום דטעות הוא

Raba said: You can have proof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thou shalt know'. ');">¹³</span> that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The permission to the woman to marry again, spoken of in our Mishnah. ');">¹¹</span> is [to be regarded as a mere] error.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [They assumed that every woman makes careful investigations before she marries (v. supra 25a) and it has been found that this was not the case]. ');">¹⁶</span> For were <i>Beth din</i> to issue a ruling in a case of some forbidden fat or blood that it is permitted, and then find a [strong] reason for forbidding it, [their subsequent ruling], should they retract and rule again that it is permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Rashi: For a reason not as strong as that which prompted them to prohibit It. Me'iri: For the very same reason which made them permit it at the very first]. ');">¹⁷</span>

ואף ר' אליעזר סבר דטעות הוא דתניא ר' אליעזר אומר יקוב הדין את ההר ותביא חטאת שמינה אי אמרת בשלמא דטעות הוא משום הכי מתיא קרבן אלא אי אמרת דהוראה היא אמאי מתיא קרבן

would be completely disregarded;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we do not look to them'. Once it has been found that their first ruling was erroneous it cannot again be adopted. ');">¹⁸</span> whereas here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 625, n. 8. ');">¹⁹</span> it should one witness present himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Testifying that the woman's husband was dead. ');">²⁰</span> the woman would be permitted to marry again,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we permit'. ');">²¹</span>

ודלמא קסבר ר' אליעזר יחיד שעשה בהוראת ב"ד חייב א"כ מה יקוב הדין את ההר:

and should two witnesses [afterwards] appear<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Declaring that the husband was still alive. ');">²²</span> the woman would be forbidden to marry again,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we forbid'. ');">²³</span> but should another witness subsequently appear<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating that the husband has died since. ');">²⁴</span> the woman would again be permitted to marry. But why?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the first authorization is to be regarded as a ruling it should not again be adopted (cf. supra n. 2), once it has been proved (by the testimony of the two witnesses) that it was erroneous. ');">²⁵</span>

הורוה ב"ד להנשא כו': מאי קלקלה ר' אליעזר אומר זינתה ר' יוחנן אמר אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט

Obviously<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not'? ');">²⁶</span> because it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 625, n. 8. ');">¹⁹</span> [is regarded as a mere] error.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that though the first witness misled the court the last is speaking the truth. ');">²⁷</span> R. Eliezer also is of the opinion that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 625, n. 8. ');">¹⁹</span>

מאן דאמר זינתה כל שכן אלמנה לכהן גדול מאן דאמר אלמנה לכהן גדול אבל זינתה לא מ"ט [דאמרה] אתון הוא דשויתין פנויה

is [to be regarded as a mere] error. For it was taught: R. Eliezer said: Let the law pierce through the mountain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., one should delve deeper into the subject (cf. Rashi a.l.) 'Justice under all circumstances' (Jast.). ');">²⁸</span> and let her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman who married by permission of the court on the evidence of one witness. ');">²⁹</span> bring a fat sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sanh. 6b. Though, if viewed superficially, it would appear that the woman, since she had acted on the decision of a court, is not liable to a sin-offering (cf. Hor. 2a). careful consideration of the case would reveal that she is liable, since the decision was based on the error of the witness and not on a legal oversight of the court. Cf. supra p. 625, n. 7. ');">³⁰</span> Now, if it be granted that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 625, n. 8. ');">¹⁹</span>

תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן הורוה ב"ד להנשא והלכה וקלקלה כגון אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט חייבת בקרבן על כל ביאה וביאה דברי ר' אלעזר

is [to be treated as] an error one can well see the reason why she is to bring an offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 14, second section. ');">³¹</span> If, however, it be contended that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 625, n. 8. ');">¹⁹</span> is [to be regarded as] a ruling, why should she bring an offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. loc. cit. first section. ');">³²</span> But is it not possible that R. Eliezer holds the opinion that an individual who committed a sin in reliance on a ruling of the <i>Beth din</i> is liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To a sin-offering. ');">³³</span>

וחכ"א קרבן אחד על הכל ומודים חכמים לר' אלעזר שאם נשאת לחמשה בני אדם שחייבת בקרבן על כל אחד ואחד הואיל וגופין מוחלקין:

— If so, what [could have been meant by] 'Let the law pierce through the mountain'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 12 (first interpretation) and supra note 14. ');">³⁴</span> IF THE <i>BETH DIN</i> DECIDED THAT SHE MAY MARRY AGAIN etc. What is meant by DISGRACED HERSELF? — R. Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marg. note, 'Eleazar'. ');">³⁵</span> replied: She played the harlot. R. Johanan replied: [If being] a widow [she was married] to a High Priest, [or if] a divorcee or a <i>haluzah</i> [she was married] to a common priest. He who stated,'She played the harlot'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even in such a case a sin-offering must be brought. ');">³⁶</span> would, even more so, [subject the woman to a sin-offering. if as] a widow [she was married] to a High Priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is obvious that the court's permission did not extend to a marriage which is in any case forbidden to the woman, even if her husband is dead. ');">³⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האשה שהלך בעלה ובנה למדינת הים ובאו ואמרו לה מת בעליך ואח"כ מת בנך ונשאת ואחר כך אמרו לה חילוף היו הדברים תצא והולד ראשון ואחרון ממזר

He, however, who stated, '[If being] a widow [she was married] to a High Priest' does not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but not'. ');">³⁸</span> [subject her to a sin-offering if] she played the harlot. What is the reason? — Because she might plead, 'It is you who granted me the status of an unmarried woman'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since she acted on a ruling of a court, she is not liable to a sin-offering. ');">³⁹</span> It was taught in agreement with the opinion of R. Johanan: If <i>Beth din</i> directed that she may be married again. and she went and disgraced herself, so that, for instance, [being] a widow [she was married] to a High Priest.[or being] a divorcee or a <i>haluzah</i> [she was married] to a common priest. she is liable to bring an offering for every single act of cohabitation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is further explained in Ker. 15a. ');">⁴⁰</span> so R. Eleazar. But the Sages said: One offering for all. The Sages, however, agree with R. Eleazar that, If she was married to five men, she is liable to bring an offering for every one, since [here it is a case of] separate bodies.

אמרו לה מת בנך ואח"כ מת בעליך ונתייבמה ואח"כ אמרו לה חילוף היו הדברים תצא והולד ראשון ואחרון ממזר אמרו לה מת בעליך וניסת ואח"כ אמרו לה קיים היה ומת תצא והולד ראשון ממזר והאחרון אינו ממזר

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A WOMAN WHOSE HUSBAND AND SON WENT TO COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA WAS TOLD,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and they came and said to her'. ');">⁴¹</span> 'YOUR HUSBAND DIED AND YOUR SON DIED AFTERWARDS',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the son was alive when his father died the widow is not subject to the levirate marriage or halizah. ');">⁴²</span> AND SHE MARRIED AGAIN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A stranger. ');">⁴³</span> AND LATER SHE WAS TOLD,' IT WAS OTHERWISE'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the matter was reversed', the son died first, so that when his father died afterwards the widow was subject to halizah or levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁴</span>

אמרו לה מת בעליך ונתקדשה ואחר כך בא בעלה מותרת לחזור לו אע"פ שנתן לה אחרון גט לא פסלה מן הכהונה את זו דרש רבי אלעזר בן מתיא (ויקרא כא, ז) ואשה גרושה מאישה ולא מאיש שאינו אישה:

SHE MUST DEPART;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From her second husband, since he married her before she had performed the required halizah. ');">⁴⁵</span> AND ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE OR AFTER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second report. Lit., 'and the first and last child'. ');">⁴⁶</span> IS A BASTARD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being the issue of a union forbidden by a negative precept. V. Gemara infra. ');">⁴⁷</span> IF SHE WAS TOLD. 'YOUR SON DIED AND YOUR HUSBAND DIED AFTERWARDS',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 627. n. 10. ');">⁴⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי ראשון ומאי אחרון אילימא ראשון לפני שמועה ואחרון לאחר שמועה ליתני הולד ממזר

AND SHE CONTRACTED THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, AND AFTERWARDS SHE WAS TOLD, 'IT WAS OTHERWISE'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 627, n. 8. ');">⁴⁹</span> SHE MUST DEPART;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the levir, to whom, (her husband having had issue from her at the time he died) she is forbidden as 'his brother's wife'. ');">⁵⁰</span> AND ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE OR AFTER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second report. Lit., 'and the first and last child'. ');">⁴⁶</span> IS A BASTARD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being the issue of a union forbidden by a negative precept. V. Gemara infra. ');">⁴⁷</span>

משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא אמרו לה מת בעליך ונשאת ואח"כ א"ל קיים היה ומת הראשון ממזר והאחרון אינו ממזר תנא נמי רישא ראשון ואחרון ממזר

IF SHE WAS TOLD, 'YOUR HUSBAND IS DEAD, AND SHE MARRIED, AND AFTERWARDS SHE WAS TOLD, 'HE WAS ALIVE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time she married her second husband. ');">⁵¹</span> BUT IS NOW DEAD', SHE MUST DEPART,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From her second husband who married her while, as a married woman, she was forbidden to him. ');">⁵²</span> AND ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE [THE DEATH OF HER FIRST HUSBAND]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and the first child'. ');">⁵³</span> IS A BASTARD, BUT ONE BORN AFTER IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and the last'. ');">⁵⁴</span>

ת"ר זו דברי ר"ע שהיה אומר אין קדושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין אבל חכמים אומרים אין ממזר מיבמה ולימא אין ממזר מחייבי לאוין

IS NO BASTARD. IF SHE WAS TOLD, 'YOUR HUSBAND IS DEAD AND SHE WAS BETROTHED, AND AFTERWARDS HER HUSBAND APPEARED, SHE IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM. ALTHOUGH THE OTHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the last, the man who betrothed her. ');">⁵⁵</span> GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE HE HAS NOT THEREBY DISQUALIFIED HER FROM MARRYING A PRIEST. THIS R. ELEAZAR B. MATHIA DERIVED BY MEANS OF THE FOLLOWING EXPOSITION: NEITHER [SHALL THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Priests. ');">⁵⁶</span> TAKE] A WOMAN PUT AWAY FROM HER HUSBAND,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 7- ');">⁵⁷</span> EXCLUDES ONE PUT AWAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and not'. ');">⁵⁸</span>

האי תנא הך תנא דר"ע הוא דאמר מחייבי לאוין דשאר הוי ממזר מחייבי לאוין גרידי לא הוי ממזר אמר רב יהודה

FROM A MAN WHO IS NOT HER HUSBAND.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The divorce being unnecessary it has no effect on the status of the woman. ');">⁵⁹</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is meant by BEFORE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clauses of our Mishnah. ');">⁶⁰</span> and what is meant by AFTER?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is first and what is last'. ');">⁶¹</span> If it be suggested that BEFORE means before the [second] report and that AFTER means after that report, it should have been stated: The child is a bastard!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the child's legitimacy is not determined by the date of the report but by the facts. ');">⁶²</span> Because it was desired to state in the final clause, IF SHE WAS TOLD, 'YOUR HUSBAND IS DEAD', AND SHE MARRIED, AND AFTERWARDS SHE WAS TOLD, 'HE WAS ALIVE BUT IS NOW DEAD&nbsp;… ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the first'. ');">⁶³</span> [THE DEATH OF HER FIRST HUSBAND] IS A BASTARD, BUT ONE BORN AFTER IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and the last'. ');">⁶⁴</span> IS NO BASTARD, the expressions BORN BEFORE OR AFTER IS A BASTARD were used in the first clause also. Our Rabbis taught: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement in the first clause of our Mishnah that the child is a bastard. ');">⁶⁵</span> is the view of R. Akiba who stated: Betrothal with those who are subject [on intercourse] to the penalties of a negative commandment is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 10b. And no divorce is consequently required. ');">⁶⁶</span> The Sages, however, said that [the child] of a sister-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who married a stranger before she had performed halizah with the levir. ');">⁶⁷</span> is no bastard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. XI. Since such marriage is forbidden by a negative precept only, and is not subject to kareth. ');">⁶⁸</span> Let it be said: The child of a union between those who are subject [on intercourse] to the penalties of a negative precept is no bastard!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This more general statement would have also included the particular case of the sister-inlaw mentioned. ');">⁶⁹</span> — This Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referred to in the Baraitha cited as 'the Sages'. ');">⁷⁰</span> is the following Tanna of the school of R. Akiba, who stated that [only a child] of a union that is subject to the penalties of a negative precept owing to consanguinity is a bastard, but one born from a union that is subject to the penalties of a mere negative precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage, for instance, of the sister-in-law to a stranger. The general statement (v. supra note 7) was consequently inadmissible. ');">⁷¹</span> is no bastard. Rab Judah stated