Yevamot 49

מנעלים הפוכים תחת המטה אמר רבי הואיל ומכוער הדבר תצא מנעלים הפוכים ליחזי דמאן נינהו אלא מקום מנעלים הפוכים (תחת המטה א"ר הואיל ומכוער הדבר תצא)

<font>If shoes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MSS. Cur. edd. add. 'overturned'. ');">¹</span></font> lie under the bed, since the thing is ugly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The shoes indicating the presence of an unknown stranger on the bed. ');">²</span> she must, said Rabbi, go.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if there were no witnesses that misconduct took place. ');">³</span> 'Shoes'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MSS. Cur. edd. add. 'overturned'. ');">⁴</span>

והלכתא כוותיה דרב והלכתא כוותיה דרבי קשיא הלכתא אהלכתא לא קשיא הא בקלא דפסיק הא בקלא דלא פסיק קלא דלא פסיק וליכא עדים כרבי קלא דפסיק ואיכא עדים כרב

One can surely see whose they are! — Say rather the marks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'place of', i.e., the shoes have left marks on the floor. ');">⁵</span> of shoes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. contain the following addition. 'Overturned under the bed, said Rabbi, since the thing is ugly she shall go'. All this with the exception of the first word is enclosed in parentheses. Cf. Rashal. ');">⁶</span> The law is in accordance with the view of Rab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no rumour or suspicion is to be relied upon in forbidding a wife to her husband. Only the evidence of witnesses may be acted upon. ');">⁷</span> and the law is in accordance with the view of Rabbi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 150, n. 7. ');">⁸</span>

וקלא דלא פסיק עד כמה אמר אביי אמרה לי אם דומי דמתא יומא ופלגא ולא אמרן אלא דלא פסק ביני וביני אבל פסק ביני וביני הא פסק ולא אמרן אלא דלא פסק מחמת יראה אבל פסק מחמת יראה מחמת יראה הוא ולא אמרן אלא דליכא אויבים אבל איכא אויבים אויבים הוא דאפקו ליה לקלא

This, then, represents a contradiction between one law and the other! — There is no contradiction. One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law according to Rab. ');">⁹</span> refers to a rumour that had ceased;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when a contradictory rumour obtained currency. ');">¹⁰</span> the other, to a rumour that had not ceased. Where the rumour has not ceased, though no witnesses are available, [the law is] according to Rabbi; where the rumour has ceased but witnesses are available [the law is] according to Rab. For how long [must a rumour continue in order to be regarded] as uninterrupted? Abaye replied: Mother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His foster-mother. V. Kid. 31b. ');">¹¹</span>

תנן התם המוציא את אשתו משום שם רע לא יחזיר משום נדר לא יחזיר שלח ליה רבה בר הונא לרבה בר ר"נ ילמדנו רבינו כנס מהו שיוציא

told me that a town rumour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], 'suspicion' or 'gossip'. ');">¹²</span> [must remain uncontradicted for] a day and a half. This has been said Only in the case where It was not interrupted in the meantime. If, however, it was interrupted in the meantime, well, it was interrupted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it cannot any more be regarded as 'an uninterrupted rumour'. ');">¹³</span> This, however, is only when the interruption was not due to intimidation, but if it was due to intimidation, well, it was due to intimidation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The force of the rumour is not thereby impaired. ');">¹⁴</span> This,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an uninterrupted rumour is relied upon. ');">¹⁵</span>

א"ל תנינא הנטען על אשת איש והוציאה מתחת ידו אע"פ שכנס יוציא א"ל מי דמי התם הוציאוה והכא הוציאה ורבה בר ר"נ מתניתין נמי הוציאה תנן

however, has been said only in the case where no enemies are about, but where enemies are about, well, it must have been the enemies who published the rumour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it cannot any more be regarded as 'an uninterrupted rumour'. ');">¹³</span> We learned elsewhere: If a man divorced his wife because of a bad name,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suspected immorality. ');">¹⁶</span> he must not remarry her; if on account of a vow he must not remarry her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Git., Sonc. ed. pp. 200ff, q.v. notes. ');">¹⁷</span> Rabbah son of R. Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Emden. Cur. edd: Omit 'R'. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואכתי מי דמי הכא בעל והתם בועל א"ל שפיר דמי אהדדי הכא אמור רבנן לא יכנוס ואם כנס יוציא ה"נ אמרי רבנן לא יחזיר ואם כנס יוציא

sent to Rabbah son of R. Nahman: Will our Master Instruct us as to whether he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who divorced his wife 'because of a bad name'. ');">¹⁹</span> must part with her if he did remarry her? The other replied: We have learnt It: IF A MAN IS SUSPECTED OF INTERCOURSE WITH A MARRIED WOMAN WHO [IN CONSEQUENCE] WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HER HUSBAND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So MS.M. in conformity with the text of our Mishnah. Cur. edd.: and he had let her go.] ');">²⁰</span> HE MUST LET HER GO EVEN THOUGH HE HAS MARRIED HER!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So also in the case under discussion, though he married her, he must part from her. ');">²¹</span> He said to him: Are these two cases at all alike? There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');">²²</span>

ולא היא התם אלומי אלמיה לקלא הכא אמרינן קם ביה בקלא וליתיה:

she was taken away;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the Beth din acting on the evidence of witnesses. ');">²³</span> here he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her husband at his own discretion. ');">²⁴</span> had let her go.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the prohibition to remarry her is only Rabbinical. Hence it is possible that once he has remarried her he need not part from her. ');">²⁵</span> And Rabbah son of R. Nahman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can he draw a comparison between two dissimilar cases? ');">²⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המביא גט ממדינת הים ואמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם לא ישא את אשתו מת הרגתיו הרגנוהו לא ישא את אשתו רבי יהודה אומר הרגתיו לא תנשא אשתו הרגנוהו תנשא אשתו:

— In our Mishnah also we learned, 'He let her go'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though there were no witnesses. Consequently, the woman is forbidden to her paramour Rabbinically only on the ground of suspicion (cf. supra p. 148. n. 10) and yet it was stated that he must part with her, which proves that even where the prohibition to marry is Rabbinical only (cf. supra note 9) the woman must be parted from the man. ');">²⁷</span> But even now, are they at all alike? Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah b. R. Huna's enquiry. ');">²⁸</span> it is the husband;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose remarriage of his former wife is obviously not suggestive of any immorality. ');">²⁹</span> there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">³⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דממדינת הים דעליה קסמכינן אבל מא"י דלאו עליה קסמכינן ישא את אשתו והא

it is the seducer!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose marriage with the woman undoubtedly lends colour to the rumoured suspicion. In such circumstances it is quite reasonable to order their separation. How can this, however, be used as an example for the case in the enquiry? (Cf. supra n. 13). ');">³¹</span> — The other replied: They are indeed alike.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the prohibition in both cases is only Rabbinical. ');">³²</span> For here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">³⁰</span> the Rabbis said, 'he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her paramour. ');">³³</span>

מת דלאו עליה קסמכינן דאמר מר אשה דייקא ומינסבא וקתני לא ישא את אשתו

must not marry her, and if he did marry he must let her go' and there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though there were no witnesses. Consequently, the woman is forbidden to her paramour Rabbinically only on the ground of suspicion (cf. supra p. 148. n. 10) and yet it was stated that he must part with her, which proves that even where the prohibition to marry is Rabbinical only (cf. supra note 9) the woman must be parted from the man. ');">²⁷</span> also the Rabbis would Say, 'he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman's former husband. ');">³⁴</span> must not remarry her and if he did remarry he must let her go'. This, however, is not [much of an argument]. There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">³⁰</span> he lends colour to the rumour,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he enforces the rumour'. Cf. supra n. 15. ');">³⁵</span>

התם ליכא כתבא הכא איכא כתבא דתנן מה בין גט למיתה שהכתב מוכיח:

while here it might well be assumed that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman's former husband. ');">³⁴</span> investigated the rumour and found it to be groundless. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A MAN WHO BRINGS A LETTER OF DIVORCE FROM A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'country of the sea', a term applied to all countries of the world exclusive of Palestine and Babylonia. ');">³⁶</span> AND STATES, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE AND IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', MUST NOT MARRY THE [DIVORCER'S] WIFE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the validity of the divorce 15 entirely dependent on his word (v. infra n. 6) he may be suspected of giving false evidence with a view to marrying the woman himself. As, however, a woman 15 permitted to marry even if only a single witness had testified to the death of he husband, she is allowed to marry any other man. ');">³⁷</span>

מת הרגתיו הרגנוהו לא ישא את אשתו: הוא ניהו דלא ישא את אשתו הא לאחר תנשא

[SIMILARLY, IF HE STATES]. 'HE DIED', 'I KILLED HIM', OR 'WE KILLED HIM', HE MUST NOT MARRY HIS WIFE. R. JUDAH SAID: [IF THE STATEMENT IS], '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'country of the sea', a term applied to all countries of the world exclusive of Palestine and Babylonia. ');">³⁶</span> KILLED HIM', THE WOMAN MAY NOT MARRY [ANY ONE];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having admitted murder he cannot any longer be regarded as a reliable witness. ');">³⁸</span> [IF, HOWEVER, IT IS], 'WE KILLED HIM',

והאמר רב יוסף פלוני רבעני לאונסי הוא ואחר מצטרפין להרגו לרצוני רשע הוא והתורה אמרה (שמות כג, א) אל תשת ידך עם רשע להיות עד חמס

THE WOMAN MAY MARRY AGAIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained infra. ');">³⁹</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The reason then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the man who brings the letter of divorce may not marry the divorcer's wife. ');">⁴⁰</span> is because he came FROM A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA, in which case we have to entirely upon him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The divorce not being valid unless the carrier of the letter of divorce can testify that it was written and signed in his presence. (V. Git. 20). ');">⁴¹</span> but [had he come] from the Land of Israel, in which case we need not depend upon him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reliance being placed on the qualified scribes of Palestine, there is no need for the carrier of a letter of divorce to declare that he witnessed the writing and the signing of it. ');">⁴²</span>

וכ"ת שאני עדות אשה דאקילו בה רבנן והא"ר מנשה

would he have been allowed to marry the divorcer's wife? But, surely, when the Statement is, 'HE DIED', in which case we do not depend entirely upon him since a Master said, 'a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ab death of whose husband is attested by one witness Only. ');">⁴³</span> makes careful inquiry before she marries'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for this reason is allowed to remarry. Infra 53 b, 115a. 116b. ');">⁴⁴</span> and yet it was stated, HE MUST NOT MARRY HIS WIFE! — There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of evidence of death. ');">⁴⁵</span> no document exists, but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Divorce. ');">⁴⁶</span> a document<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The letter of divorce. ');">⁴⁷</span> does exist. For thus we have learned: Wherein lies the difference between [the admissibility of] a letter of divorce and [that of evidence of] death?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., why are certain relatives accepted as legally qualified. carriers of a letter of divorce but not as witnesses to the death of a husband? ');">⁴⁸</span> In that the document<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The letter of divorce. ');">⁴⁷</span> supplies the proof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Git. 23b, infra 117a. ');">⁴⁹</span> [SIMILARLY, IF HE STATES], 'HE DIED', 'I KILLED HIM', OR 'WE KILLED HIM', HE MUST NOT MARRY HIS WIFE. Only he, then, must not marry his wife, she, however, may be married to another man? But, surely, R. Joseph said: [If a man stated], 'So-and-so committed pederasty with me against my will', he and any other witness may be combined<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two together forming a pair of witnesses, the minimum required for bringing about a man's condemnation by a court of law. ');">⁵⁰</span> to procure his execution; [if, however, he said], 'with my consent',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Was the crime committed. ');">⁵¹</span> he is a wicked man concerning whom the Torah said, Put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, which shews that a man who admitted a criminal offence may not act as a witness at all! ');">⁵²</span> And were you to reply that matrimonial evidence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In allowing a woman to marry on the evidence of the death of her husband. ');">⁵³</span> is different because the Rabbis have relaxed the law in its case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In other cases two witnesses are required and in this case one is sufficient. ');">⁵⁴</span> surely, [it may be pointed out], R. Manasseh stated: