Yevamot 50

Chapter 50

א גזלן דדבריהם כשר לעדות אשה גזלן דדברי תורה פסול לעדות אשה נימא רב מנשה דאמר כר' יהודה

1 'One who is Rabbinically regarded as a robber1 is eligible to be a witness in matrimonial matters;2 one, however, who is Biblically regarded as a robber is ineligible to act as witness in matrimonial matters;3

ב אמר לך רב מנשה אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבנן וטעמא דרבנן הכא כדרבא דאמר רבא אדם קרוב אצל עצמו ואין אדם משים עצמו רשע

2 would it then be necessary to assume that R. Manasseh holds the same opinion as R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in our Mishnah rejected the evidence of the man who admitted murder. The halachah being according to the Rabbis who are the majority, would R. Manasseh ignore the majority in favour of a minority? ');">4 - R. Manasseh can answer you: My statement may be reconciled even with the view of the Rabbis, but the reason of the Rabbis5 here is the same as that of Raba. For Raba said, 'A man is his own relative and consequently6

ג לימא רב יוסף דאמר כרבי יהודה אמר לך רב יוסף אנא דאמרי אפי' לרבנן ושאני עדות אשה דאקילו בה רבנן ורב מנשה דאמר כרבי יהודה:

3 no man may declare himself wicked'. Must it then be assumed that R. Joseph7 is of the same opinion as R. Judah?8

ד הרגתיו כו' הרגנוהו תנשא כו': מאי שנא הרגתיו ומאי שנא הרגנוהו אמר רב יהודה באומר אני הייתי עם הורגיו

4 — R. Joseph can answer you: 'My Statement may be in agreement even with the view of the Rabbis, but matrimonial evidence9 is different, since the Rabbis relaxed the law in its case;10 and it is R. Manasseh who adopted the view of R. Judah'.

ה והתניא אמרו לו לרבי יהודה מעשה בלסטים אחד שיצא ליהרג במגיזת קפוטקיא ואמר להם לכו אמרו לה לאשת שמעון בן כהן אני הרגתי את בעלה בכניסתי ללוד ואמרי לה בכניסתו ללוד והשיאו את אשתו אמר להם משם ראיה באומר אני הייתי עם הורגיו

5 'I KILLED HIM' etc., 'WE KILLED HIM' … MAY MARRY etc. What is the practical difference between 'I killed him' and 'we killed him'?11 — Rab Judah said: [Our Mishnah speaks of the case] where he said, 'I was present together with his murderers' — 12 Has it not, however, been taught: They said to R. Judah, 'It once happened that a robber when led out to his execution in the Cappadocian Pass13

ו והא לסטים קתני שנתפס ע"י לסטיות והא יצא ליהרג קתני בי דינא דעובדי כוכבים דלא דייקי וקטלי:

6 said to those present,14 "Go and tell the wife of Simeon b. Kohen that I killed her husband when I entered Lud" [others Say: When he entered Lud], and his wife was permitted to marry again'!15 He answered them: Is there any proof from there? [It was a case] where he said, 'I was present together with his murderers'.12

ז <big>מתני׳</big> החכם שאסר את האשה בנדר על בעלה הרי זה לא ישאנה מיאנה או שחלצה בפניו ישאנה מפני שהוא ב"ד:

7 But it was stated, 'a robber'! — He was apprehended on account of robbery.16 But it was stated, 'led out to his execution'! — [He was sentenced by] a heathen court of law who executed without due investigation.17 MISHNAH. A SAGE WHO HAS PRONOUNCED A WOMAN FORBIDDEN TO HER HUSBAND BECAUSE OF A VOW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the woman made. If she vowed, for instance, to derive no benefit from her husband, and he did not annul her vow; and on consulting the Sage and finding no ground for the remission of her vow (v. Ned. 22b), her vow was not disallowed and her husband was consequently forbidden to her. ');">18

ח <big>גמ'</big> הא התירה ישאנה במאי עסקינן אילימא בחד חד מי מצי מתיר והאמר (רב אמר) ר' חייא בר אבין אמר רב עמרם תנא התרת נדרים בשלשה

8 MUST NOT MARRY HER HIMSELF.19 IF, HOWEVER, A WOMAN MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL20 OR PERFORMED HALIZAH IN HIS PRESENCE, HE MAY MARRY HER, SINCE HE [WAS BUT ONE OF THE] BETH DIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Declarations of refusal and the performance of halizah, unlike the disallowance or confirmation of vows, must always take place in the presence of a court of three; and a court of three would not be suspected. ');">21

ט ואלא בתלתא מי חשידי והתנן מיאנה או שחלצה בפניו ישאנה מפני שהוא בית דין

9 GEMARA. This implies that if he had disallowed her vow, be would have been permitted to marry her!22 What then are the circumstances?23 If [he acted] alone, could one disallow a vow? Surely24

י לעולם בחד וכדאמר רב חסדא אמר ר' יוחנן ביחיד מומחה הכא נמי ביחיד מומחה:

10 R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Amram that it was taught: The disallowance of vows is to be carried out by three! If, however, three were Present, would they be suspected? Surely we learned, IF, HOWEVER, A WOMAN MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL OR PERFORMED HALIZAH IN HIS PRESENCE, HE MAY MARRY HER, SINCE HE [WAS BUT ONE OF THE] BETH DIN!-The fact is that [he acted] alone, and25 as R. Hisda said in the name of R. Johanan, 'By a fully qualified individual',26

יא מיאנה או שחלצה וכו': טעמא דב"ד הא בתרי לא

11 so here also it is a case of one fully qualified individual.26 IF A WOMAN MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL, OR PERFORMED HALIZAH etc. The reason, then,27 is because [he was one of a] Beth din,28

יב מ"ש מהא דתנן עדים החתומים על שדה מקח ועל גט אשה לא חשו חכמים לדבר זה היא גופה קמשמע לן לאפוקי ממ"ד מיאון בפני שנים קמשמע לן מיאון בג'

12 but had he been one of a group of two only. would he not [have been permitted]? Wherein, then, does this case differ from the following concerning which it was taught:29 If witnesses signed on [a document relating to] a purchased field or on a letter of divorce, the Rabbis do not apprehend such collusion!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this thing'. They do not, as a precaution against collusion, forbid the witnesses the subsequent purchase of the field from the buyer. or the marriage with the woman n whose divorce they assisted. This obviously shews that even a group of two is not to be suspected! ');">30 — It is this very thing that he taught us,31

יג איבעיא להו כנס מהו שיוציא רב כהנא אמר כנס מוציא רב אשי אמר כנס אינו מוציא תני להו רב זוטי דבי רב פפי כדברי האומר כנס אינו מוציא

13 viz., that the opinion of him who said that a declaration of refusal may be made in the presence of two is to be rejected and that one is to infer32 that a declaration of refusal must be made in the presence of three.33 The question was raised: If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sage referred to in our Mishnah (Rashb. and Asheri). The Sage or the man who delivered a letter of divorce mentioned in the previous Mishnah (Rashi and Maimonides). V. Wilna Gaon, Glosses, a.l. ');">34

יד אמרו ליה רבנן לרב אשי גמרא או סברא אמר להו מתני׳ היא הנטען משפחה ונשתחררה מעובדת כוכבים ונתגיירה הרי זה לא יכנוס ואם כנס אין מוציא אלמא

14 married her35 must he part from her? R. Kahana said: Though he married, he must part from her. R. Ashi said: Once he has married, he need not part from her. R. Zuti at the School of R. Papa recited [a teaching] in accordance with the opinion of him who said that if he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sage referred to in our Mishnah (Rashb. and Asheri). The Sage or the man who delivered a letter of divorce mentioned in the previous Mishnah (Rashi and Maimonides). V. Wilna Gaon, Glosses, a.l. ');">34 married her35 he need not part from her. Said the Rabbis to R. Ashi: Is this36 a tradition or a matter of opinion? He answered them: It is a Mishnah: If a man is suspected of intercourse with a slave who was subsequently emancipated, or with a heathen who subsequently became a proselyte, lo, he must not marry her; if, however, he did marry her the marriage need not be dissolved. Which proves

Previous Chapter Next Chapter