Yevamos - Daf 25
- קלא דפסיק
The Mishnah on Daf 24b stated: הנטען על אשת איש והוציאוה מתחת ידו - If one was subject to rumors that he had relations with a married woman and Beis Din required the husband to divorce her, אף על פי שכנס יוציא – even if the suspected adulterer married her, he must divorce her. The Gemara brought a machlokes where Rav held that the adulterer only divorces her when there were witnesses to the adultery, and Rebbe held he must divorce her even based on a mere rumor without witnesses. On this Daf the Gemara says the halachah is like each of them, and explains that this is not a contradiction, for the distinction is whether there was a קלא דפסיק – a rumor that was stopped by a counter rumor that denied the first one. In a case where the rumor did not stop and there were no eidim, the halachah is like Rebbe and he must divorce her. If the case is where the rumor was stopped, and there are witnesses, he must divorce her. Abaye says that his adopted mother taught him that a קלא דלא פסיק – a rumor that was not stopped, is a rumor that endures for a day and a half. The Gemara says that this is provided that no counter-rumor arose in the meantime, even if the counter rumor died down before the one-and-a-half-day period. The Gemara will bring additional qualifications for the ruling.
- A witness who testified, “I killed him,” or “we killed him.”
The next Mishnah states that if one testifies regarding a man, "מת הרגתיו הרגנוהו לא ישא את אשתו" – that “he died,” or “I killed him,” or “we killed him,” he may not marry the dead man’s wife. The Gemara says that this implies that while he may not marry the wife, others may marry her. This contradicts Rav Yosef, who said that if one testifies that he consented to an act of sodomy with another, then the person is a rasha according to his own testimony, and the Torah states: "אל תשת ידך עם רשע להיות עד חמס" – Do not put your hand with a rasha to be a thieving witness. This would disqualify his testimony against the sodomizer as well. Therefore, in the case of our Mishnah, the man should not be believed as a witness and the woman should not be permitted to marry someone else? The Gemara answers that the Mishnah can be explained in accordance with Rava, who rules: אדם קרוב אצל עצמו ואין אדם משים עצמו רשע – A person is considered related to himself, and therefore a person cannot disqualify himself from testifying by establishing himself as a rasha. In effect, פלגינן דיבורא – we split his testimony, so the part regarding himself is not considered, but his testimony regarding the other is believed. The Gemara goes on to explain how Rav Yosef would explain his ruling even according to the Rabbanon.
- החכם שאסר את האשה בנדר על בעלה הרי זה לא ישאנה
The next Mishnah states: החכם שאסר את האשה בנדר על בעלה הרי זה לא ישאנה – A Chochom who forbids a woman to her husband by not releasing her from a neder she made not to derive pleasure from him, and he divorced her, may not marry the woman. The Gemara says this implies that if he did release her from the neder, he would be permitted to marry her, and seeks to understand the case. It cannot be that a single Rabbi annulled the vow, because heter nedarim is with a beis din of three judges. And if it was with a Beis Din of three judges, then it is obvious he is not suspect, as the Mishnah teaches that if a woman did mi’un or chalitzah before a chochom, he may marry her, מפני שהוא בית דין – because he was part of a Beis Din. The Gemara answers that the case was with a single judge who is a יחיד מומחה – an expert judge. In such a case, he may release her from the vow, and if he does not, then he is prohibited to marry her.
