Yevamot

what practical ruling was thereby intended?  — To impair his rights; As a firstborn does not take a double portion in his father's prospective property  in the same way as he does in that which is already In his possession,  so does this one  take no [double]  portion In [his father's] prospective property  as he does in that which is already in his possession. MISHNAH. IF A MAN IS SUSPECTED OF [INTERCOURSE]  WITH A SLAVE WHO WAS LATER EMANCIPATED, OR WITH A HEATHEN WHO SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME A PROSELYTE, LO, HE MUST NOT MARRY HER.  IF, HOWEVER, HE DID MARRY HER THEY NEED NOT BE PARTED.  IF A MAN IS SUSPECTED OF INTERCOURSE  WITH A MARRIED WOMAN  WHO, [IN CONSEQUENCE,] WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HER HUSBAND,  HE MUST LET HER GO EVEN THOUGH HE HAD MARRIED HER. GEMARA. This implies that she may become a proper prose lyte.  But against this a contradiction is raised. Both a man who became a proselyte for the sake of a woman and a woman who became a proselyte for the sake of a man, and, similarly, a man who became a proselyte for the sake of a royal board, or for the sake of joining Solomon's servants,  are no proper proselytes. These are the words of R. Nehemiah, for R. Nehemiah used to Say: Neither lion-proselytes,  nor dream-proselytes  nor the proselytes of Mordecai and Esther  are proper proselytes unless they become converted at the present time. How can it be said, 'at the present time'? — Say 'as at the present time'!  -Surely concerning this it was stated that R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha said in the name of Rab: The halachah is in accordance with the opinion of him who maintained that they were all proper proselytes. If so, this  should have been permitted altogether!  - On account of [the reason given by] R. Assi. For R. Assi said,  Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lip's etc. Our Rabbis learnt: No proselytes will be accepted in the days of the Messiah.  In the same manner no proselytes were accepted in the days of David nor in the days of Solomon.  Said R. Eleazar: What Scriptural [support is there for this view]? — Behold he shall be a proselyte who is converted for my own sake,'  he who lives with you shall be settled among you,  he only who 'lives with you' in your poverty shall be settled among you; but no other. IF A MAN IS SUSPECTED OF INTERCOURSE WITH A MARRIED WOMAN etc. Rab said: [This  must be confirmed] by witnesses.  Said R. Shesheth: It seems  that Rab made this statement while he was sleepy and about to doze off;  for it was taught: 'If a man is suspected of intercourse with a married woman who, in consequences was taken away from her husband  and was subsequently divorced by another man,  he  need not part with her once he has married her'. Now, how is this to be understood? If it is a case where witnesses  are available, of what avail is it that another man stepped in and checked the rumour?  [Must we] not then [conclude that this is a case] where there were no witnesses;  and the reason  is because another man stepped in and checked the rumour, but had that not happened she would have been taken away from him?  — Rab can answer you: The same law, that where witnesses  are available she is taken away from him and that where no witnesses are available she is not taken away, applies also to the case where no other man stepped in and checked the rumour, but this it is that was meant: 'Even if another man stepped in and checked the rumour it is not proper for him  to marry her'. An objection was raised: This  has been said in the case only where she had no children,  but if she has children  she must not be divorced.  If, however, witnesses to the seduction  presented What, however, impels Rab to explain our Mishnah as dealing with a case where she has children and where witnesses against her are available, and to give as the reason why she is to be taken away, because witnesses are available, and [to imply that] if witnesses are not available she is not taken away; let him rather explain [our Mishnah as dealing with the case] where she has no children [and has to be taken away] even though no witnesses are available! Raba replied: Our Mishnah presented a difficulty to him. What point was there [he argued] for using the expression 'WAS TAKEN AWAY'?  It should have been stated 'he parted from her';  but any such expression as 'was taken away' implies 'by the Beth din' and the Beth din take away only where witnesses are available. If you prefer I may say that that Baraitha  represents the view of Rabbi;  for It was taught: When a pedlar  leaves a house and the woman within is fastening her sinnar,  since the thing is ugly she must, said Rabbi, go.  If spittle is found  on the upper part of the curtained bed, since the thing is ugly,  she must, said Rabbi, go.