## Yevamot Daf 88b

###### Yevamot 88b:1
[Yevamot 88b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:1)

וְהַבָּא עָלֶיהָ בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי קָאֵי! אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּיסֵּת לְאֶחָד מֵעֵדֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as this is an uncertain case, **one who has intercourse with her stands** obligated to bring **an uncertain guilt-**offering. Since before she remarried some witnesses say she is a married woman while others claim she is now a widow, her relations with her second husband involve a possible prohibition that entails *karet*, and whoever mistakenly performs an action of this kind is liable to bring an uncertain guilt-offering. If so, this second husband must certainly divorce her. **Rav Sheshet said:** We are dealing with a case **where** that woman **married one of her witnesses,** who testified that her husband had died. Since the witness himself has no doubt as to the truth, he is not liable to bring an uncertain guilt-offering.


###### Yevamot 88b:2
[Yevamot 88b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:2)

הִיא גּוּפַהּ בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי קָיְימָא! בְּאוֹמֶרֶת ״בָּרִי לִי״. אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִיסֵּת, אֲבָל נִיסֵּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים — לָא אָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Even so, **she herself stands** obligated to bring **a uncertain guilt-**offering, as she has no personal knowledge of the matter and relied on the witness. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case **where she says: It is clear to me.** For whatever reason, she is certain that this is not her husband and that he is dead, and therefore she too is not liable to bring an uncertain guilt-offering. The Gemara asks: **If so, what** is the purpose **of stating** this? That is, if Rav is referring only to this particular case, he has not taught anything new, as **even Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei, stated** his opinion **only** with regard to a case **where witnesses came and afterward** she **married, but** in the case where she **married and afterward witnesses came, he did not state** his *halakha* with regard to this case.


###### Yevamot 88b:3
[Yevamot 88b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:3)

דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״מֵת״ וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״לָא מֵת״, שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״נִתְגָּרְשָׁה״ וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא, וְאִם נִיסֵּת — לֹא תֵּצֵא. רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר: תֵּצֵא. אָמַר רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵימַת אֲנִי אוֹמֵר תֵּצֵא? בִּזְמַן שֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִיסֵּת. אֲבָל נִיסֵּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵּצֵא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
To what ruling is the Gemara referring? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **two** witnesses **say** that the husband is **dead and two say** he is **not dead,** or if **two say** that this woman **was divorced and two say** she **was not divorced, this** woman **may not marry; and if she married** regardless, she need **not leave** her new husband, as there is no uncontroverted testimony that she is forbidden to him. **Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei, said:** She must **leave** him. **Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei,** further **said: When** do **I say** she must **leave** him? **When the witnesses** who contradicted the first pair by claiming she is still married **came and afterward she married,** despite their testimony. **However,** if **she married and afterward** the second pair of **witnesses came, this** woman need **not leave** her second husband.


###### Yevamot 88b:4
[Yevamot 88b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:4)

כִּי קָאָמַר רַב נָמֵי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִיסֵּת. לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי מְנַחֵם בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמַר: טַעְמָא דְּנִיסֵּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים, אֲבָל בָּאוּ עֵדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִיסֵּת — תֵּצֵא. כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי מְנַחֵם בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When Rav spoke too,** he was referring to a case **when** the second pair of **witnesses came** and testified that this is her husband, **and afterward she married.** Rav claims that even in that case she need not leave her second husband. His ruling serves **to exclude** the opinion of **Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei,** in favor of that of the first *tanna*. **And some say** that Rav’s teaching should be understood as follows: **The reason is that she married and afterward witnesses came; however,** if **witnesses came and afterward she married,** she must **leave** him. **According to whose** opinion is this ruling of Rav? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei.**


###### Yevamot 88b:5
[Yevamot 88b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:5)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא רָצָה — דׇּפְנוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ״, בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection** from a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **that if** a priest **does not want** to observe the strictures against disqualified women, that the court **forces him [*dafno*]** by flogging him, and it sanctifies him despite his wishes? **The verse states,** at the end of the chapter that deals with the prohibitions of the priesthood: **“And you shall sanctify him**…he shall be sacred for you” (Leviticus 21:8), which indicates that this is performed even **against his will.**


###### Yevamot 88b:6
[Yevamot 88b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:6)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי, אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא נִיסֵּת לְאֶחָד מֵעֵדֶיהָ וְלֹא קָאָמְרָה ״בָּרִי לִי״, צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר דְּדׇפְנוֹ? אֶלָּא לָאו, דְּנִיסֵּת לְאֶחָד מֵעֵדֶיהָ, וְקָאָמְרָה ״בָּרִי לִי״, וְקָתָנֵי דׇּפְנוֹ. אַלְמָא, מַפְּקִינַן לַהּ מִינֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava analyzes this *baraita*: **What are the circumstances?** Assuming that this is referring to a priest who married a woman whose status as a divorced woman or a *zona* is uncertain, **if we say that she did not marry one of her witnesses and did not say: It is clear to me,** that the opposing witnesses were speaking the truth, **need this be said** that the court **forces him?** Since both of them are clearly in violation of a transgression, it is obvious that they must be separated. **Rather, is it not** referring to a case **when she married one of her witnesses and she says: It is clear to me, and** even so the *baraita* **is teaching** that the court **forces him? Apparently,** the *halakha* is that **they remove her from him,** which contradicts Rav’s opinion that one who married based on the testimony of two witnesses need not leave her second husband.


###### Yevamot 88b:7
[Yevamot 88b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:7)

אִיסּוּר כְּהוּנָּה שָׁאנֵי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מַאי דׇּפְנוֹ — דׇּפְנוֹ בְּעֵדִים. וְאִבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִיסֵּת, וְרַבִּי מְנַחֵם בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **A prohibition** with regard **to the priesthood is different,** as uncertainties with regard to priests are treated stringently, as though they were definite. **And if you wish, say: What is** the meaning of the phrase: The court **forces him?** It means that it **forces him by witnesses.** In other words, only if another pair of witnesses comes and clarifies the matter does the court prevent the marriage *ab initio*. However, if she has already married she need not leave her husband. **And if you wish, say** instead that it is referring to a situation **when witnesses came and afterward she married, and** this *baraita*, which claims that the court forces him to divorce her in that case, **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei.**


###### Yevamot 88b:8
[Yevamot 88b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:8)

רַב אָשֵׁי אוֹמֵר: מַאי ״לֹא תֵּצֵא״ דְּקָאָמַר רַב — לֹא תֵּצֵא מֵהֶיתֵּירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: What is** the meaning of the phrase: She need **not leave** him, **that Rav said?** It means that she need **not leave her** state of **being permitted** to her **first** husband. Since she married according to *halakha*, on the basis of witness testimony, she is considered to have acted under duress. Like any other woman not married to a priest who was unfaithful against her will, she may return to her first husband upon his return.


###### Yevamot 88b:9
[Yevamot 88b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:9)

הָא אַמְרַהּ רַב חֲדָא זִימְנָא, דִּתְנַן: נִיסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת — מוּתֶּרֶת לַחְזוֹר לוֹ. וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אֲמַר רַב: הָכִי הִלְכְתָא! חֲדָא מִכְּלָלָא דַּחֲבֶרְתַּהּ אִיתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If that is what he meant, **Rav** already **said it once. As we learned** in the mishna: If she **married without** the **consent** of the court, but rather by witnesses’ testimony, it is **permitted** for **her to return to him. And Rav Huna said** that **Rav said: That is** the ***halakha*.** Evidently, Rav already ruled that she does not forfeit her original permitted status. The Gemara answers: **One** ruling **was stated by inference from the other.** In other words, Rav did not state both *halakhot* explicitly, but only one of them, from which his other statement was inferred.


###### Yevamot 88b:10
[Yevamot 88b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:10)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא מַכְחַשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל מַכְחַשְׁתּוֹ — לֹא תֵּצֵא. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּבֵי תְרֵי, כִּי מַכְחֲשָׁא לֵיהּ מַאי הָוֵי! אֶלָּא בְּחַד, טַעְמָא דְּמַכְחַשְׁתּוֹ, הָא שָׁתְקָה — תֵּצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said: They taught** that she must leave her second husband **only if she does not contradict** the witness who claims her first husband is alive. **However,** if **she contradicts him,** she need **not leave** her second husband. The Gemara inquires: **With what are we dealing** here? **If we say** we are dealing **with two** witnesses who testified that her husband is still alive, even **if she contradicts him, what of it?** The testimony of the two witnesses is fully accepted. **Rather,** it must be referring **to one** witness, from which it may be inferred that **the reason** that she need not leave her second husband **is that she contradicts him,** which indicates that **if she** remains **silent** and does not contradict his testimony, she must **leave** him.


###### Yevamot 88b:11
[Yevamot 88b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:11)

וְהָאָמַר עוּלָּא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד, הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת, וְכִדְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Ulla say** that **wherever** you find **that the Torah relies on one witness, this is** a full testimony equal to that of **two** witnesses, **and the statement of one** witness **has no** bearing **in a place where** it is contradicted by **two** witnesses? If so, there is no difference between one witness and two witnesses in this case. The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** With a case where the pair who said he was alive were **disqualified** from giving **testimony, and** this is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya.**


###### Yevamot 88b:12
[Yevamot 88b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:12)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב דֵּעוֹת. וְעָשׂוּ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד כִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Neḥemya says: Wherever** you find that **the Torah relies on one witness, follow the majority of opinions.** If the testimony is valid, the account of two witnesses is the same as one hundred, as no greater credence is granted to the larger number. However, when the testimony is invalid the majority opinion is accepted. **And** in these cases **they established** the testimony of **two women against one man like** the testimony of **two men against one man,** whose claim is not considered equivalent to two. In this case, if the wife also contradicts their account she joins the single witness, and therefore the testimony of the disqualified witnesses is not accepted.


###### Yevamot 88b:13
[Yevamot 88b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:13)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דַּאֲתָא עֵד אֶחָד כָּשֵׁר מֵעִיקָּרָא, אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה נָשִׁים — כְּעֵד אֶחָד דָּמְיָין. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דְּאָתְיָא אִשָּׁה מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **anywhere that one valid witness came initially** and testified that the husband was dead, **even one hundred women** claiming that he is alive **are considered like one** witness, and their contrary account is not accepted. And **with what are we dealing here?** In a case **where a woman came** and testified **initially.**


###### Yevamot 88b:14
[Yevamot 88b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:14)

וְתָרְצַהּ לִדְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הָכִי: רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב דֵּעוֹת, וְעָשׂוּ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת — כִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד אֲבָל שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד — כְּפַלְגָא וּפַלְגָא דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** you must accordingly **amend** the statement **of Rabbi Neḥemya** so that it reads **as follows: Rabbi Neḥemya says: Wherever** you find that **the Torah relies on one witness, follow the majority of opinions, and they established two women against one woman like two men against one man. However,** in a case involving **two women against one man** who is a valid witness, this **is like half against half,** i.e., they are equal. With regard to Shmuel’s statement, if the wife herself remains silent, the testimony of the first woman that the husband is dead has been negated, as her account was contradicted by two women. But if the claim of the wife is joined to that of the first woman she need not leave her second husband.


###### Yevamot 88b:15
[Yevamot 88b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:15)

צְרִיכָה גֵּט מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. בִּשְׁלָמָא מֵרִאשׁוֹן תִּבְעֵי גֵּט, אֶלָּא מִשֵּׁנִי אַמַּאי? זְנוּת בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if she remarried as the result of an error, then when her first husband returns **she requires a bill of divorce from this one and from that one.** The Gemara asks: **Granted, from the first** husband **she requires a bill of divorce,** as she is his actual wife. **But from the second, why** does she need a bill of divorce? Surely their relationship **is merely licentious.** Since her first husband was alive at the time, her marriage to the second is entirely invalid, as one cannot betroth a married woman. A woman does not require a bill of divorce for engaging in sexual relations.


###### Yevamot 88b:16
[Yevamot 88b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:16)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ גֵּירַשׁ זֶה וְנָשָׂא זֶה, וְנִמְצֵאת אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ יוֹצְאָה בְּלָא גֵּט. אִי הָכִי, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: אָמְרוּ לָהּ ״מֵת בַּעְלִךְ״ וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַּעְלָהּ — מוּתֶּרֶת לַחְזוֹר לוֹ. הָתָם נָמֵי, נֵימָא: גֵּירַשׁ זֶה וְקִדֵּשׁ זֶה, וְנִמְצֵאת אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ יוֹצְאָה שֶׁלֹּא בַּגֵּט!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said:** It is a rabbinic **decree lest** those who are unaware of the entire story **say** that **this** first husband **divorced** her **and** afterward **this** second man **married** her. **And** if she subsequently leaves him without a bill of divorce, they will claim that we **find a married woman leaving** her husband **without a bill of divorce.** The Gemara asks: **If so,** consider **the latter clause** of the mishna (92a), **that teaches** that if **they said to her: Your husband is dead, and she became betrothed** to another, **and afterward her husband came,** it is **permitted** for her **to return to** her first husband. **There too, let us say** that people might think that **this one divorced** her **and that one betrothed** her, **and** we **find a married woman leaving** her husband, i.e., her second husband, **without a bill of divorce.**


###### Yevamot 88b:17
[Yevamot 88b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:17)

לְעוֹלָם בָּעֲיָא גֵּט. אִי הָכִי, נִמְצָא זֶה מַחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה! כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפָּר, דְּאָמַר: מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין — אֲסוּרָה, מִן הָאֵירוּסִין — מוּתֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** even if she was merely betrothed she **requires a bill of divorce** from the second man before she can return to her first husband. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** people will say that we **find this one remarrying his divorcée after she was betrothed** to another. The Gemara answers: In this regard the *tanna* holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar, who stated** a principle with regard to a divorcée who formed a relationship with another man, that if she came **from marriage** it is **prohibited** for her to return to her first husband, but if she came **from betrothal** it is **permitted.** Consequently, even if people do claim as above, there is no cause for concern.


###### Yevamot 88b:18
[Yevamot 88b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/88b:18)

הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אַף עַל פִּי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: **From** the fact **that the latter clause** of the mishna (92a) **teaches: Even though**