Parallel
יבמות 91:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Rabina replied: The statement was mainly dealing with the question of sacrifice, and is to be understood as follows. If the Beth din acted on their own judgment, [the marriage is regarded] as a wilful [act of adultery between] a man and a [married] woman, and [the latter] does not bring a sacrifice; if, however, they acted] in accordance with the evidence of [two] witnesses, [the marriage is regarded] as [intercourse between] a man and a woman that was due to error and [the latter] has to bring a sacrifice. If you prefer. however, I might say that the first [Baraitha] represents [the view of] the Rabbis, and you may explain it as follows: 'Except a married woman' and one 'who married again in accordance with a decision of a Beth din'. 'Ulla raised an objection: Do we accept the plea 'what could she have done'? Surely we learned: [If a letter of divorce] was dated according to an era that was inappropriate, according to the Median era, or according to the Greek era, according to [the era of] the building of the Temple, or the destruction of the Temple, or if he was in the East and wrote, 'In the West', [or he was] in the West and wrote, 'In the East', she must leave her first and her second husband, and all the disabilities [enumerated, are applicable] to her. But why? Let it be argued. 'What could she have done'! — She should have arranged for the letter of divorce to be read. R. Shimi b. Ashi said, Come and hear: If a levir married his sister-in-law and her rival went and married [another man] and then the former was found to be incapable of procreation, [the latter] must leave the one and the other and all the disabilities [mentioned apply] to her. But why? Let it be argued. 'What could she have done'! — She should have waited. Said Abaye: Come and hear: If the rivals [of] any of the forbidden relatives concerning whom it has been said that they exempt their rivals went and married, and any such forbidden relatives were found to be incapable of procreation, [every rival] must leave the one and the other, and all the disabilities [mentioned apply] to her. But why? Let it be argued. 'What could she have done'! — She should have waited. Said Raba. Come and hear: If a scribe wrote a letter of divorce for the husband and a quittance for the wife, and then made a mistake and handed the letter of divorce to the wife and the quittance to the husband, and they gave them to one another, and after a time the letter of divorce was discovered in the possession of the husband and the quittance in the possession of the wife, [the latter] must leave the one as well as the other, and all the disabilities [mentioned apply] to her. But why? Let It be argued. 'What could she have done'! — She could have arranged for the letter of divorce to be read. Said R. Ashi, Come and hear: If he changed his name or her name, the name of his town or the name of her town, she must depart from the one and from the other, and all the disabilities [mentioned apply] to her. But why? Let it be argued. 'What could she have done'! — She should have arranged for the letter of divorce to be read. Said Rabina, Come and hear: If a man married a woman on [the strength of] a bald letter of divorce she must depart from the one and from the other, etc.! — She should have arranged for the letter of divorce to be read. R. Papa desired to decide a case on [the principle of] 'What could she have done', Said R. Huna Son of R. Joshua to R. Papa: But surely all those Baraithoth were taught? The other answered him: Were they not explained? 'Shall we then', the former retorted, 'rely on explanations'! R. Ashi said: No regard need be paid to a rumour. What kind of rumour [is here meant]? If it be suggested [that it means] a rumour after marriage. Surely [it may be objected] R. Ashi has said this once; for R. Ashi stated:
—