Yevamot

Consequently  [it must refer to] an instance like this one.  Said the first to him, 'But in my dream  they read to me a Scriptural text on the "bruised reed";  did they not mean to tell me: Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed'?  'No'. [the other replied], 'It is this that they meant: A bruised reed shall he not break, and the dimly burning wick shall he not quench'. Rabbi?  — Where it was taught: Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a bondman,  Rabbi explained that Scripture speaks here of a man who bought a slave on the condition that he would set him free.  How is this  to be understood?  R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: In the case where [the buyer] gave him  a written declaration, 'Your person shall become yours as from now as soon as I have bought you'. R. Meir?  — Where it was taught:  If a man said to a woman, 'Be thou betrothed to me after I shall have become a proselyte'. 'after thou shalt have become a proselyte'. 'after I shall have been emancipated'. 'after thou shalt have been emancipated'. 'after thy husband shall have died', 'after thy sister shall have died', or 'after thy brother-in-law shall have submitted to thy halizah', the betrothal is invalid; but R. Meir said that her betrothal is valid. R. Eliezer b. Jacob?  — Where it was taught: More than this did R. Eliezer b. Jacob say: Even if a man said, 'The plucked fruit of this bed shall be terumah for the attached fruit of that  other bed', or 'The attached fruit of this  bed [shall be terumah] for the plucked fruit of that other bed,  when it shall have grown  to a third [of its maturity] and been plucked'. his words are valid if the fruit has grown to  a third [of its maturity] and has been plucked. R. Akiba?  — Where we learned: [If a woman said to her husband]. 'Konam,  if I do aught for your mouth',  he  need not annul [her vow].  R. Akiba, however, said: He  must annul It, since she might do more [work] than is due  to him. An enquiry was addressed to R. Shesheth: What is [the law in respect of] one witness  in the case of a sister-in- law?  Is the reason why one witness [is sometimes believed elsewhere]  because no one would tell a lie which is likely to be exposed. and consequently here also [the witness] would tell no lie;  or is the reason why one witness [is believed elsewhere]  because the woman herself makes careful enquiries and [only then] marries, and consequently here, since she may sometimes be in love with [her brother-in-law]. she might marry him without proper enquiry?  — R. Shesheth answered them: You have learned it, IF SHE WAS TOLD, 'YOUR SON DIED AND YOUR HUSBAND DIED AFTERWARDS', AND SHE CONTRACTED THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, AND LATER SHE WAS TOLD, 'IT WAS OTHERWISE, SHE MUST DEPART; AND ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE OR AFTER IS A BASTARD.  Now, how is this to be understood? If it be suggested [that there were] two witnesses against two,  what reason do you see [it may be asked] for relying on the latter? Rely rather on the former! Furthermore. [how could the child be described as] BASTARD [when he is only] an uncertain bastard! And should you reply that he  was not exact in his expression. surely [it may be pointed out] since in the final clause he  stated, ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE [THE DEATH OF HER FIRST HUSBAND] IS A BASTARD, BUT ONE BORN AFTER IT IS NO BASTARD,  it may well be inferred that he was exact In his expressions, Consequently  it must be concluded [that the first report was that of] one witness, and that the reason [why he is not believed is] because two witnesses came and contradicted his evidence, but had this not been the case  he would have been believed. Another reading: This question  does not arise, since even the woman herself is believed.  For we learned: A woman who stated, 'My husband is dead' may be married again.  and she may similarly contract levirate marriage [if she stated] 'My husband is dead'.  The question arises only in respect of permitting a sister-in-law to marry a stranger.  Is the reason why one witness [is elsewhere sometimes believed]  because no one would tell a lie which is likely to be exposed, and consequently, here also [the witness] would tell no lie;  or is the reason why one witness [is elsewhere believed]  because [the woman] herself makes careful enquiries and [only then] marries, and consequently here she might marry without proper enquiry. since she might fiercely