## Yevamot Daf 25a

###### Yevamot 25a:1
[Yevamot 25a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:1)

מִנְעָלִים הֲפוּכִים תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה, אָמַר רַבִּי: הוֹאִיל וּמְכוֹעָר הַדָּבָר — תֵּצֵא. מִנְעָלִים הֲפוּכִים? לִיחְזֵי דְּמַאן נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא: מְקוֹם מִנְעָלִים הֲפוּכִים (תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה, אָמַר רַבִּי: הוֹאִיל וּמְכוֹעָר הַדָּבָר — תֵּצֵא).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The same applies if the husband found **the shoes reversed under the bed,** so that the toe of the shoe faced the bed; this is a sign that a stranger came in and placed them like that. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said: Since this is a distasteful matter, she** must be **divorced.** The Gemara questions this: **Shoes turned around? Let him see whose they are** and clarify who the stranger was and then find out what he was doing there. **Rather,** the case was that he found the **place of the shoes,** i.e., shoe prints, **reversed under the bed** and cannot recognize whose shoe prints they are. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said: Since this is a distasteful matter, she** must be **divorced.**


###### Yevamot 25a:2
[Yevamot 25a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:2)

וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי. קַשְׁיָא הִלְכְתָא אַהִלְכְתָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — בְּקָלָא דְּפָסֵיק, הָא — בְּקָלָא דְלָא פָּסֵיק. קָלָא דְלָא פָּסֵיק וְלֵיכָּא עֵדִים — כְּרַבִּי. קָלָא דְּפָסֵיק וְאִיכָּא עֵדִים — כְּרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav,** that they must divorce only if there were witnesses, **and the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, that they must divorce if there is a matter that is distasteful. The Gemara challenges this: One ***halakha*** is **difficult,** as it contradicts **the** other ***halakha*.** The Gemara answers: This contradiction is **not difficult. This one** relates to a case **where the rumor ceases** and the woman is sent away only if there are witnesses, but **that one** relates to a case **where the rumor does not cease,** in which case he divorces her even if there are no witnesses. The Gemara elucidates the cases: In cases of **a rumor that does not cease,** even if **there are no witnesses** the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi and he divorces her. If **the rumor ceases and there are witnesses,** the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav,** and he divorces her because there are witnesses.


###### Yevamot 25a:3
[Yevamot 25a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:3)

וְקָלָא דְּלָא פָּסֵיק עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אֲמַרָה לִי אֵם: דּוֹמֵי דְמָתָא יוֹמָא וּפַלְגָא. וְלָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא דְּלָא פְּסַק בֵּינֵי וּבֵינֵי, אֲבָל פְּסַק בֵּינֵי וּבֵינֵי — הָא פְּסַק. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא פְּסַק מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה, אֲבָל פְּסַק מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה — מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה הוּא. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵיכָּא אוֹיְבִים, אֲבָל אִיכָּא אוֹיְבִים — אוֹיְבִים הוּא דְּאַפִּקוּ לֵיהּ לְקָלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies this: **At what point** is it considered to be **a persistent rumor? Abaye said:** My **mother told me: A rumor in the city** lasts **a day and a half.** The Gemara comments: **We said** that this is the length of time **only** if the rumor **did not cease in the meantime. But** if the rumor **did cease in the meantime,** even it was later renewed, **this is** considered a rumor that **has ceased** and is disregarded. **And we said** that a rumor that ceased is not considered persistent **only** if the reason it **ceased** was **not due to fear** of the individual about whom it is said. **But if it ceased due to fear, it is** only **due to fear** and is still considered a persistent rumor. **And we said** that a persistent rumor has validity **only** if the subject of the rumor **does not have any** known **enemies, but** if **he has enemies** it may be assumed that **it is the enemies who put out the rumor** about him.


###### Yevamot 25a:4
[Yevamot 25a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:4)

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֵׁם רָע — לֹא יַחְזִיר. מִשּׁוּם נֶדֶר — לֹא יַחְזִיר. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר הוּנָא לְרַבָּה בַּר רַב נַחְמָן, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: כָּנַס, מַהוּ שֶׁיּוֹצִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Gittin* 45b): A man **who divorces his wife due to** her **bad reputation may not take** her **back** again, even if it turns out that the rumor was untrue. Likewise, if he divorced his wife **due to a vow** of hers that is unbearable to him **he may not take** her **back** even if she is released from that vow. **Rabba bar** Rav **Huna sent** a question **to Rabba bar Rav Naḥman: Our teacher, instruct us.** If one of those men listed in that mishna divorced his wife due to her bad reputation or vow and it was therefore prohibited for him to take her back, yet he nevertheless **remarried** her, **what is** the *halakha*? **Must** he **divorce** her?


###### Yevamot 25a:5
[Yevamot 25a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵינָא, הַנִּטְעָן עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְהוֹצִיאָהּ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּנַס — יוֹצִיא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם ״הוֹצִיאוּהָ״ וְהָכָא ״הוֹצִיאָהּ״. וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב נַחְמָן, מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי ״הוֹצִיאָהּ״ תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba bar Rav Naḥman **said to him: We** already **learned** in the mishna (24b): With regard to **one who is suspected of** committing adultery with **a married woman, and he,** her husband, **divorced her, even if he** subsequently **remarried** her **he must divorce** her. Rabba bar Rav Huna **said to him: Is this comparable** to the case I asked about? **There,** in the mishna, it says: **They,** the court, **remove her** from him, **whereas here** (*Gittin* 45b), the mishna states: **He divorced her** of his own accord. Perhaps if the court requires them to divorce, the *halakha* is different. The Gemara explains: **And Rabba bar Rav Naḥman,** who held that the two *mishnayot* were comparable, had a text of **the mishna** that **also** read: **He divorced her,** instead of: They remove her.


###### Yevamot 25a:6
[Yevamot 25a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:6)

וְאַכַּתִּי מִי דָּמֵי? הָכָא בַּעַל, וְהָתָם בּוֹעֵל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי אַהֲדָדֵי. הָכָא אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: לָא יִכְנוֹס, וְאִם כָּנַס — יוֹצִיא. הָכִי נָמֵי: אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, לֹא יַחְזִיר, וְאִם כָּנַס — יוֹצִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba bar Rav Huna asks: **Still, is this comparable? Here,** the question was raised in a case where **the** first **husband** remarried her, which will not strengthen the rumors of her bad reputation, **but there,** the mishna refers to **the man** with whom she committed **adultery** remarrying her, which strengthens those rumors. **He said to him: They are certainly comparable to each other: Here,** in the mishna discussing one who is suspected of committing adultery, **the Sages said that he may not marry** her **and if he did marry** her **he must divorce** her. **So too, the Sages said** in the case of one who divorced his wife due to her reputation or vow **that he may not take** her **back, and if he does remarry** her **he must divorce** her.


###### Yevamot 25a:7
[Yevamot 25a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:7)

וְלָא הִיא. הָתָם: אַלּוֹמֵי אַלְּמֵיהּ לְקָלָא, הָכָא: אָמְרִינַן קָם בֵּיהּ בְּקָלָא וְלֵיתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **That is not so,** as **there,** when the man suspected of committing adultery marries the woman, **he thereby strengthens the rumor** of adultery. For this reason he must divorce her. **Here, we say that he,** the husband, **established** the facts of **the rumor** and found that it **was not so** and the rumor was baseless. Therefore, there is no need for him to divorce her if he remarries her. Rabba bar Rav Huna’s question remains unresolved.


###### Yevamot 25a:8
[Yevamot 25a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְאָמַר: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ — לֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. ״מֵת״, ״הֲרַגְתִּיו״, ״הֲרַגְנוּהוּ״ — לֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״הֲרַגְתִּיו״ — לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא אִשְׁתּוֹ, ״הֲרַגְנוּהוּ״ — תִּנָּשֵׂא אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** An agent **who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas and said: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,** as required in order to establish the bill of divorce as valid, **may not marry** the **wife,** i.e., the divorcée. Since the validity of the bill of divorce is based upon his testimony, marrying the divorcée creates the impression that he had an ulterior motive for his testimony. Similarly, a witness who testified that a certain man **died,** or testified: **I killed him,** or: **We killed him, may not marry** that man’s **wife. Rabbi Yehuda says:** If he testified: **I killed him, his wife may not be married** at all based on that evidence, as his testimony is unreliable, but if he said: **We killed him, his wife may be married** to anyone other than those witnesses.


###### Yevamot 25a:9
[Yevamot 25a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּמִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, דַּעֲלֵיהּ קָסָמְכִינַן. אֲבָל מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּלָאו עֲלֵיהּ קָסָמְכִינַן — יִשָּׂא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara clarifies: **The reason that** the agent may not marry the divorcée applies specifically in a case where he brings the bill of divorce **from a country overseas, as** in this case **we,** the court, **rely upon his** testimony to validate the bill of divorce. **But** an agent who brings a bill of divorce **from Eretz Yisrael** need not make any verbal declaration, and **since we,** the court, **do not rely upon his** testimony but upon the written bill of divorce alone, **he may marry his wife,** i.e., the divorcée, since it does not arouse suspicion.


###### Yevamot 25a:10
[Yevamot 25a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:10)

וְהָא מֵת, דְּלָאו עֲלֵיהּ קָסָמְכִינַן, דְּאָמַר מָר: אִשָּׁה דַּיְיקָא וּמִינַּסְבָא, וְקָתָנֵי: לֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: **But** also in the case of a witness who said that the husband **died, we,** the court, **do not rely** solely **upon** his testimony. **As the Master said: A woman is exacting** in her investigation of the truth of the testimony that her husband died before she **marries** again, and it is primarily on that basis that she is permitted to remarry. **Yet it is taught that he** still **may not marry his wife.**


###### Yevamot 25a:11
[Yevamot 25a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:11)

הָתָם לֵיכָּא כְּתָבָא, הָכָא אִיכָּא כְּתָבָא. דִּתְנַן: מָה בֵּין גֵּט לְמִיתָה — שֶׁהַכְּתָב מוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The two cases are not comparable, as **there,** in the case when a witness testifies that the husband has died, **there is not anything written** as proof, and therefore he may not marry the widow. However, **here,** in a case where an agent brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael, **there is** a **written** document that is valid without any testimony. **As we learned** in a mishna (117a): **What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death?** Why does the court rely upon those men who are not trusted as witnesses to the death of a husband if they act as agents to bring a bill of divorce, even from overseas, such that they must give testimony that it was written and signed in their presence? The difference is **that** with regard to a bill of divorce **the writing proves** their testimony.


###### Yevamot 25a:12
[Yevamot 25a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:12)

״מֵת״, ״הֲרַגְתִּיו״, ״הֲרַגְנוּהוּ״ — לֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. הוּא נִיהוּ דְּלֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, הָא לְאַחֵר תִּנָּשֵׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna stated that if the witness said with regard to the husband that **he died,** or: **I killed him,** or: **We killed him,** then **he may not marry** the **wife** of the deceased. The Gemara infers that **he,** the witness **himself, may not marry** the **wife; this** implies that **to another she may be married** on the basis of his testimony.


###### Yevamot 25a:13
[Yevamot 25a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:13)

וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: ״פְּלוֹנִי רְבָעַנִי לְאוֹנְסִי״ — הוּא וְאַחֵר מִצְטָרְפִין לְהׇרְגוֹ. ״לִרְצוֹנִי״ — רָשָׁע הוּא, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״אַל תָּשֶׁת יָדְךָ עִם רָשָׁע לִהְיוֹת עֵד חָמָס״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: **Didn’t Rav Yosef say:** With regard to one who testified that **so-and-so sodomized me against my will,** then **he** who testified to being the victim of the sexual assault **and another** bystander witness can **combine** as a pair of witnesses in order **to put** the assailant **to death** for homosexual intercourse. But if he testified: I was **willingly** sodomized by so-and-so, then **he is wicked** by his own admission, since he willingly transgressed. **And the Torah said: “Put not your hand with the wicked to be a corrupt witness”** (Exodus 23:1). If one renders himself unfit as a witness by admitting to murder, how can his testimony be accepted to permit the wife to remarry?


###### Yevamot 25a:14
[Yevamot 25a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/25a:14)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: שָׁאנֵי עֵדוּת אִשָּׁה דַּאֲקִילּוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן — וְהָאָמַר רַב מְנַשֶּׁה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **testimony** that **a woman’s** husband died **is different, as the Sages ruled leniently** in such matters and perhaps accepted testimony of a wicked witness in such cases, **didn’t Rav Menashe say:**