## Yevamot Daf 25b

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

גַּזְלָן דְּדִבְרֵיהֶם — כָּשֵׁר לְעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה, גַּזְלָן דְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה — פָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה. נֵימָא רַב מְנַשֶּׁה דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Although one who is considered **a robber according to the words** of the Sages is unfit for other forms of testimony, **he is fit** as a witness **for testimony** that **a woman’s** husband died. **A robber according to Torah law is unfit** as a witness even **for testimony** that **a woman’s** husband has died. **Should we say that** what **Rav Menashe said** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda?** Rabbi Yehuda said in the mishna that one who is considered absolutely wicked because he admitted that he is a murderer is unfit for testifying to the death of a husband, but one who was merely present among a gang of murderers is not.


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

אָמַר לְךָ רַב מְנַשֶּׁה: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן — וְטַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן הָכָא כִּדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אָדָם קָרוֹב אֵצֶל עַצְמוֹ, וְאֵין אָדָם מֵשִׂים עַצְמוֹ רָשָׁע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Rav Menashe** could have **said to you: I am speaking even according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** Although the Rabbis did not allow one who was wicked by Torah law to testify for a woman, a witness who admitted: I killed him, is nevertheless believed. **And the rationale of the Rabbis here is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rava, as Rava** disputed Rav Yosef’s opinion and **said:** Even if one said that he was willingly sodomized by this man, he is not believed concerning his own actions, because **a person is his own relative.** Consequently, he may not testify about himself, just as the testimony of any relative is disqualified. **And** furthermore, **a person does not make himself wicked.** His testimony with regard to his own actions is inadmissible because he is his own relative, but his testimony is accepted both to put a sodomizer to death or to render it permitted for a woman to remarry by saying that he killed her husband.


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

לֵימָא רַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר לְךָ רַב יוֹסֵף: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן, וְשָׁאנֵי עֵדוּת אִשָּׁה, דַּאֲקִילּוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן. וְרַב מְנַשֶּׁה דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** according to this explanation that the opinion **that Rav Yosef spoke is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda?** The Gemara rejects this: **Rav Yosef** could have **said to you: I am speaking even according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, as** in my opinion, **testimony** enabling **a woman** to remarry **is different in that the Rabbis ruled more leniently** and they even accept testimony from a completely wicked individual. However, **Rav Menashe, who** renders unfit one who is wicked by Torah law from testimony enabling a woman to remarry, **spoke in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who differentiates even in such testimony between one who is considered wicked according to Torah law and one who is considered wicked by rabbinic law.


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

הֲרַגְתִּיו כּוּ׳ הֲרַגְנוּהוּ תִּנָּשֵׂא כּוּ׳. מַאי שְׁנָא ״הֲרַגְתִּיו״ וּמַאי שְׁנָא ״הֲרַגְנוּהוּ״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, בְּאוֹמֵר: אֲנִי הָיִיתִי עִם הוֹרְגָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the mishna it is taught that the court accepts testimony from one who said: **I killed him,** or: **We killed him,** while Rabbi Yehuda differentiates between one who said: I killed him, whose testimony is not accepted, and one who said: We killed him, whose testimony is accepted and the woman **may be married** to others. The Gemara asks: **What is different between: I killed him, and: We killed him?** Isn’t he a murderer by his own admission as well when he testifies: We killed him? **Rav Yehuda said:** Do not understand that by saying: We killed him, he included himself among the murderers. Rather, it is referring to a case **where he said: I was with his murderers,** but he was not an active participant to the murder.


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

וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּלִסְטִים אֶחָד שֶׁיָּצָא לֵיהָרֵג בִּמְגִיזַת קַפּוֹטְקְיָא, וְאָמַר לָהֶם: ״לְכוּ אִמְרוּ לָהּ לְאֵשֶׁת שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן כֹּהֵן: ׳אֲנִי הָרַגְתִּי אֶת בַּעְלָהּ בִּכְנִיסָתִי לְלוֹד׳״, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: ׳בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ לְלוֹד׳, וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ! אָמַר לָהֶם: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה?! בְּאוֹמֵר: ״אֲנִי הָיִיתִי עִם הוֹרְגָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in a *baraita* that this is the basis for Rabbi Yehuda’s distinction: **They told Rabbi Yehuda:** There was **an incident involving an armed bandit [*listim*] who was taken out to be executed in** the **passage [*megizat*] of Cappadocia, and he said to** those present: **Go and tell the wife of Shimon the Priest** that **I killed her husband as I entered Lod. And some say** that he said: **As he entered Lod. And they married off his wife** on the basis of this testimony. This implies that the court accepts testimony from the murderer himself. Rabbi Yehuda **said to them:** You derive **proof from there?** The case was **that he said: I was with his murderers,** but not that he himself murdered the woman’s husband.


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

וְהָא ״לִסְטִים״ קָתָנֵי! שֶׁנִּתְפַּס עַל יְדֵי לִסְטִיּוּת. וְהָא ״יָצָא״ לֵיהָרֵג קָתָנֵי! בֵּי דִינָא דְּגוֹיִם, דְּלָא דָּיְיקִי וְקָטְלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: How could Rabbi Yehuda understand the incident in such a way? **But it is taught** in the *baraita* that the witness himself was **an armed bandit.** The Gemara answers: **He was captured for** a charge of **armed banditry.** The Gemara asks: **But it is taught that he was taken out to be executed,** implying that he was found guilty of murder. The Gemara answers: That was **a gentile court, and they execute without being precise.** One who is among a gang of bandits is executed by a gentile court regardless of whether or not he himself was a murderer. This *baraita* therefore provides evidence that Rabbi Yehuda admits the testimony of such a witness only if he says: I was with his murderers.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הֶחָכָם שֶׁאָסַר אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בְּנֶדֶר עַל בַּעְלָהּ — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂאֶנָּה. מֵיאֲנָה, אוֹ שֶׁחָלְצָה בְּפָנָיו — יִשָּׂאֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בֵּית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** A **Sage who** refused to release a woman from a vow that **rendered the wife forbidden to her husband by** that **vow,** resulting in her being divorced from her husband, **may not marry her,** so as to avoid suspicion that he rendered her forbidden to her husband in order to marry her himself. However, a judge before whom a woman **performed refusal** when she was a minor, declaring that she did not desire the husband chosen for her by her family, **or before whom** she **performed *ḥalitza*, may marry her because** he was only one member of **the court,** thereby alleviating suspicion.


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

**גְּמָ׳** הָא הִתִּירָה — יִשָּׂאֶנָּה. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּחַד — חַד מִי מָצֵי מַתִּיר? וְהָאָמַר (רַב אָמַר) רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם, תָּנָא: הַתָּרַת נְדָרִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna taught that a Sage who rendered a woman forbidden to her husband may not then marry her. The Gemara deduces from here: **This** implies that if **he** rendered **her permitted** to her husband and she was later widowed or divorced, then **he may marry her.** The Gemara clarifies this: **With what are we dealing? If we say** that he was **a single** judge and not part of a court, **can a single** judge **dissolve** vows? **But didn’t Rav say** that **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said** that **Rav Amram said: It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Dissolution of vows** requires a court of **three** judges?


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

וְאֶלָּא, בִּתְלָתָא. מִי חֲשִׁידִי? וְהָתְנַן: מֵיאֲנָה אוֹ שֶׁחָלְצָה בְּפָנָיו — יִשָּׂאֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בֵּית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** could it be a case **of three** judges rather than one? In such a case, **would they be suspect** of distorting judgment? **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: If **she performed refusal or performed *ḥalitza* before him, he may marry her because he** functioned as a member of **a court** of three? This teaches that there is no suspicion of a judge in a court of three.


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

לְעוֹלָם בְּחַד, וְכִדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה, הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** you should explain that this case is **that of a single** judge, **and** it is **as Rav Ḥisda said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** Vows may be dissolved even **by a single expert,** and a three-member court is not always necessary. **Here too,** it is referring to **a single expert** refusing to nullify her vow.


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

מֵיאֲנָה אוֹ שֶׁחָלְצָה וְכוּ׳. טַעְמָא דְּבֵית דִּין, הָא בִּתְרֵי — לָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is taught in the mishna that if a woman **performed refusal or performed *ḥalitza*** before a judge, he may still marry her, as he was part of a court. The Gemara deduces from here: **The reason is** specifically that he functioned on **the court** as one of three judges. The Gemara deduces: **Then, if there were** only **two** judges, **he would not** be permitted to marry her.


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

מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: עֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִים עַל שְׂדֵה מִקָּח, וְעַל גֵּט אִשָּׁה לֹא חָשׁוּ חֲכָמִים לְדָבָר זֶה? הִיא גּוּפַהּ קָמַשְׁמַע לַן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִמַּאן דְּאָמַר מֵיאוּן בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן מֵיאוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, in **what** way **is** this case **different from that which we learned** in a *baraita*: If **witnesses signed on the** document of **sale of a field or on a woman’s bill of divorce, the Sages were not concerned about this matter** if one of the witnesses subsequently purchased the field or married the divorcée. Since there are two witnesses, there is no suspicion that they collaborated for the benefit of one of them. The Gemara answers: If there were two judges there would also be no concern; however, **this** mishna **itself** comes **to teach us** that a refusal must be performed before a full court, **to exclude** the opinion of **the one who said that refusal may be performed before two. This teaches us** that **refusal** must be performed before **three** judges.


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

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כָּנַס, מַהוּ שֶׁיּוֹצִיא? רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: כָּנַס — מוֹצִיא. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כָּנַס — אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא. תָּנֵי לְהוּ רַב זוּטֵי דְּבֵי רַב פַּפֵּי כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר כָּנַס אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages with regard to one who was prohibited from marrying a certain woman: If he nevertheless **married** her despite the prohibition, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to whether **he must divorce** her? **Rav Kahana said:** If **he married** her, **he must divorce** her. **Rav Ashi said:** If **he married** her, **he need not divorce** her. **Rav Zuti from the school of Rav Pappi taught** the Sages a *baraita* **in accordance with the statement of the** one who **said that** if **he married** her, **he need not divorce** her.


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

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב אָשֵׁי: גְּמָרָא, אוֹ סְבָרָא? אֲמַר לְהוּ, מַתְנִיתִין הִיא: הַנִּטְעָן מִשִּׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, מִגּוֹיָה וְנִתְגַּיְּירָה — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִכְנוֹס, וְאִם כָּנַס — אֵין מוֹצִיא. אַלְמָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi:** With regard to the *halakha* that you said, that if he married her he need not divorce her, was it based upon **tradition or** is it your own **conclusion? He said to them: It is the mishna.** I reached this conclusion from the wording of the mishna, which taught that **one suspected** by others of engaging in sexual relations **with** a Canaanite **maidservant and she** was subsequently **set free, or with a gentile woman and she** subsequently **converted may not marry** that woman. **But if he did marry her, they,** the judges of the court, **do not remove** her from him. **Apparently,**