Yevamot

If shoes  lie under the bed, since the thing is ugly,2   she must, said Rabbi, go.  'Shoes'?  One can surely see whose they are! — Say rather the marks  of shoes. The law is in accordance with the view of Rab,  and the law is in accordance with the view of Rabbi. This, then, represents a contradiction between one law and the other! — There is no contradiction. One  refers to a rumour that had ceased;  the other, to a rumour that had not ceased. Where the rumour has not ceased, though no witnesses are available, [the law is] according to Rabbi; where the rumour has ceased but witnesses are available [the law is] according to Rab. For how long [must a rumour continue in order to be regarded] as uninterrupted? Abaye replied: Mother  told me that a town rumour  [must remain uncontradicted for] a day and a half. This has been said Only in the case where It was not interrupted in the meantime. If, however, it was interrupted in the meantime, well, it was interrupted.  This, however, is only when the interruption was not due to intimidation, but if it was due to intimidation, well, it was due to intimidation.  This,  however, has been said only in the case where no enemies are about, but where enemies are about, well, it must have been the enemies who published the rumour. We learned elsewhere: If a man divorced his wife because of a bad name,  he must not remarry her; if on account of a vow he must not remarry her.  Rabbah son of R. Huna  sent to Rabbah son of R. Nahman: Will our Master Instruct us as to whether he  must part with her if he did remarry her? The other replied: We have learnt It: 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 HAS MARRIED HER!  He said to him: Are these two cases at all alike? There  she was taken away;  here he  had let her go. And Rabbah son of R. Nahman?  — In our Mishnah also we learned, 'He let her go'.  But even now, are they at all alike? Here  it is the husband;  there  it is the seducer!  — The other replied: They are indeed alike.  For here  the Rabbis said, 'he  must not marry her, and if he did marry he must let her go' and there  also the Rabbis would Say, 'he  must not remarry her and if he did remarry he must let her go'. This, however, is not [much of an argument]. There  he lends colour to the rumour,  while here it might well be assumed that he  investigated the rumour and found it to be groundless. MISHNAH. A MAN WHO BRINGS A LETTER OF DIVORCE FROM A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA  AND STATES, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE AND IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', MUST NOT MARRY THE [DIVORCER'S] WIFE.  [SIMILARLY, IF HE STATES]. 'HE DIED', 'I KILLED HIM', OR 'WE KILLED HIM', HE MUST NOT MARRY HIS WIFE. R. JUDAH SAID: [IF THE STATEMENT IS], '  KILLED HIM', THE WOMAN MAY NOT MARRY [ANY ONE];  [IF, HOWEVER, IT IS], 'WE KILLED HIM', THE WOMAN MAY MARRY AGAIN. GEMARA. The reason then  is because he came FROM A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA, in which case we have to entirely upon him;  but [had he come] from the Land of Israel, in which case we need not depend upon him,  would he have been allowed to marry the divorcer's wife? But, surely, when the Statement is, 'HE DIED', in which case we do not depend entirely upon him since a Master said, 'a woman  makes careful inquiry before she marries'  and yet it was stated, HE MUST NOT MARRY HIS WIFE! — There,  no document exists, but here  a document  does exist. For thus we have learned: Wherein lies the difference between [the admissibility of] a letter of divorce and [that of evidence of] death?  In that the document  supplies the proof. [SIMILARLY, IF HE STATES], 'HE DIED', 'I KILLED HIM', OR 'WE KILLED HIM', HE MUST NOT MARRY HIS WIFE. Only he, then, must not marry his wife, she, however, may be married to another man? But, surely, R. Joseph said: [If a man stated], 'So-and-so committed pederasty with me against my will', he and any other witness may be combined  to procure his execution; [if, however, he said], 'with my consent',  he is a wicked man concerning whom the Torah said, Put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness!  And were you to reply that matrimonial evidence  is different because the Rabbis have relaxed the law in its case,  surely, [it may be pointed out], R. Manasseh stated: