Yevamot

No regard need be paid to a rumour that originated after marriage!  — It might have been assumed that since she was to appear before the Beth din to obtain the authorization  [for her marriage].  the rumour is regarded as one [that arose] before marriage  and she should in consequence he forbidden,  we were, therefore, taught [that even in such circumstances a rumour is disregarded]. IF SHE MARRIED WITH THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BETH DIN SHE MUST LEAVE etc. Ze'iri said: Our Mishnah cannot be authentic  owing to a Baraitha that was recited at the academy. For it was recited at the academy: If the Beth din ruled  that the sun had set,  and later it appeared, [such a decision] is no ruling  but a mere error. R. Nahman. however, stated: [Such an authorization]  is [to be regarded as] a ruling.  Said R. Nahman: You can have proof  that it [is to be regarded as] a ruling. For throughout the Torah a single witness is never believed while in this case he is believed. But why? Obviously  because [such an authorization is regarded as] a ruling.  Raba said: You can have proof  that it  is [to be regarded as a mere] error.  For were Beth din to issue a ruling in a case of some forbidden fat or blood that it is permitted, and then find a [strong] reason for forbidding it, [their subsequent ruling], should they retract and rule again that it is permitted,  would be completely disregarded;  whereas here,  it should one witness present himself,  the woman would be permitted to marry again,  and should two witnesses [afterwards] appear  the woman would be forbidden to marry again,  but should another witness subsequently appear  the woman would again be permitted to marry. But why?  Obviously  because it  [is regarded as a mere] error. R. Eliezer also is of the opinion that it  is [to be regarded as a mere] error. For it was taught: R. Eliezer said: Let the law pierce through the mountain  and let her  bring a fat sin-offering.  Now, if it be granted that it  is [to be treated as] an error one can well see the reason why she is to bring an offering.  If, however, it be contended that it  is [to be regarded as] a ruling, why should she bring an offering!  But is it not possible that R. Eliezer holds the opinion that an individual who committed a sin in reliance on a ruling of the Beth din is liable?  — If so, what [could have been meant by] 'Let the law pierce through the mountain'! IF THE BETH DIN DECIDED THAT SHE MAY MARRY AGAIN etc. What is meant by DISGRACED HERSELF? — R. Eliezer  replied: She played the harlot. R. Johanan replied: [If being] a widow [she was married] to a High Priest, [or if] a divorcee or a haluzah [she was married] to a common priest. He who stated,'She played the harlot'  would, even more so, [subject the woman to a sin-offering. if as] a widow [she was married] to a High Priest.  He, however, who stated, '[If being] a widow [she was married] to a High Priest' does not  [subject her to a sin-offering if] she played the harlot. What is the reason? — Because she might plead, 'It is you who granted me the status of an unmarried woman'. It was taught in agreement with the opinion of R. Johanan: If Beth din directed that she may be married again. and she went and disgraced herself, so that, for instance, [being] a widow [she was married] to a High Priest.[or being] a divorcee or a haluzah [she was married] to a common priest. she is liable to bring an offering for every single act of cohabitation;  so R. Eleazar. But the Sages said: One offering for all. The Sages, however, agree with R. Eleazar that, If she was married to five men, she is liable to bring an offering for every one, since [here it is a case of] separate bodies. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN WHOSE HUSBAND AND SON WENT TO COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA WAS TOLD,  'YOUR HUSBAND DIED AND YOUR SON DIED AFTERWARDS',  AND SHE MARRIED AGAIN,  AND LATER SHE WAS TOLD,' IT WAS OTHERWISE'.  SHE MUST DEPART;  AND ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE OR AFTER  IS A BASTARD.  IF SHE WAS TOLD. 'YOUR SON DIED AND YOUR HUSBAND DIED AFTERWARDS',  AND SHE CONTRACTED THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, AND AFTERWARDS SHE WAS TOLD, 'IT WAS OTHERWISE'  SHE MUST DEPART;  AND ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE OR AFTER  IS A BASTARD. IF SHE WAS TOLD, 'YOUR HUSBAND IS DEAD, AND SHE MARRIED, AND AFTERWARDS SHE WAS TOLD, 'HE WAS ALIVE  BUT IS NOW DEAD', SHE MUST DEPART,  AND ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE [THE DEATH OF HER FIRST HUSBAND]  IS A BASTARD, BUT ONE BORN AFTER IT  IS NO BASTARD. IF SHE WAS TOLD, 'YOUR HUSBAND IS DEAD AND SHE WAS BETROTHED, AND AFTERWARDS HER HUSBAND APPEARED, SHE IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM. ALTHOUGH THE OTHER  GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE HE HAS NOT THEREBY DISQUALIFIED HER FROM MARRYING A PRIEST. THIS R. ELEAZAR B. MATHIA DERIVED BY MEANS OF THE FOLLOWING EXPOSITION: NEITHER [SHALL THEY  TAKE] A WOMAN PUT AWAY FROM HER HUSBAND,  EXCLUDES ONE PUT AWAY  FROM A MAN WHO IS NOT HER HUSBAND. GEMARA. What is meant by BEFORE  and what is meant by AFTER?  If it be suggested that BEFORE means before the [second] report and that AFTER means after that report, it should have been stated: The child is a bastard!  Because it was desired to state in the final clause, IF SHE WAS TOLD, 'YOUR HUSBAND IS DEAD', AND SHE MARRIED, AND AFTERWARDS SHE WAS TOLD, 'HE WAS ALIVE BUT IS NOW DEAD … ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE  [THE DEATH OF HER FIRST HUSBAND] IS A BASTARD, BUT ONE BORN AFTER IT  IS NO BASTARD, the expressions BORN BEFORE OR AFTER IS A BASTARD were used in the first clause also. Our Rabbis taught: This  is the view of R. Akiba who stated: Betrothal with those who are subject [on intercourse] to the penalties of a negative commandment is invalid.  The Sages, however, said that [the child] of a sister-in-law  is no bastard.  Let it be said: The child of a union between those who are subject [on intercourse] to the penalties of a negative precept is no bastard!  — This Tanna  is the following Tanna of the school of R. Akiba, who stated that [only a child] of a union that is subject to the penalties of a negative precept owing to consanguinity is a bastard, but one born from a union that is subject to the penalties of a mere negative precept  is no bastard. Rab Judah stated