Siman 12

As has been explained in siman 11, section 10, that the sages, of blessed memory, were concerned with malicious talk, so too there are other matters where they were concerned for this; and they were only concerned for this regarding one person and not regarding two, for the second would not agree, as will be explained. Therefore, one who brings a get from overseas, where the agent must say "in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed," and without his statement we do not permit her—he is forbidden to marry the divorcee, lest they say he set his eyes upon her and testified falsely. But when he does not need to say "in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed," such as when both are in the city and the witnesses of the get are standing there at the time the woman receives the get, as written in siman 161—he is permitted to marry her, for it is not by his word that we permit her. However, when the witnesses of the get are not present at her receiving of it, such that he must say "in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed," even if the matter is well-known throughout the city that the matter is true—nevertheless, he shall not marry her. And so too in any place where he does not need to say it and yet he said it—he shall not marry her, for there will nevertheless be a rumor [Radbaz]. However, two who brought a get, even though they said "in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed"—nevertheless, one of them is permitted to marry her, as has been written.

And similarly, a single witness who testified for a woman that her husband died—he may not marry her. And even if he did not testify with intent but rather as one speaking in passing, since she is permitted through him there is cause for gossip, for among the masses there is no distinction between testimony with intent and one speaking in passing. But two witnesses who testified about a woman that her husband died—one of them is permitted to marry her, for two are not likely to sin for the sake of one and there is no cause for rumor. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even though this is the law, nevertheless, a person of soul should distance himself from this, and even when there are three witnesses or more. And there is one who wishes to say that this is only in a matter that requires two by law that a person of soul must distance himself from this since, ultimately, she is also permitted through his word, but in a place where two are not required at all—even a person of soul should not distance himself from this, but it does not appear so from the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch.

If she performed me'anah or performed chalitzah before a beit din – one of the members of the beit din is permitted to marry her, as has been written that two are not suspected, and all the more so a beit din. Similarly, a woman who vowed against benefit from her husband and he did not annul it for her, and she came before a beit din to release her based on an opening and regret and they did not find a release for her and she was divorced – one of them is permitted to take her since they are a beit din. However, a single expert who is able to release a vow alone, as has been written in Yoreh Deah siman 228 that he forbade her – he is forbidden to marry her because of "evil talk," as they will say that he intentionally forbade her so that her husband would divorce her. And even though nowadays there is no single expert as has been written there, nevertheless, if she came before a single expert to ask if it is possible to release her vow and he told her that it is not possible and they did not convene a beit din to release her – behold, he shall not marry her, since she was forbidden based on his answer [it appears to me]. And in all these cases that have been explained – if he married her, he does not divorce her, since this is nothing more than mere rumor, as has been written in siman 11 regarding one suspected of a maidservant. And some say that regarding an agent of a get and a witness who testifies to the death of the husband, even if he married – he must divorce her, for there is a concern here of a married woman since according to the rumor she was not divorced at all and was not widowed; but the great later authorities [Chelkat Mechokek, Beit Shmuel] did not agree to this, for it is not logical at all to remove a woman from her husband because of a mere rumor. However, if they warned him not to marry her and he transgressed and married her – he must divorce her, and there in section 12 this was explained, see there, and similarly regarding one who performed kiddushin but did not marry, it was explained there.

Each of these women who are forbidden to marry them – are permitted to marry their sons or their other relatives, for there is no concern that they would remove them from their husbands for the sake of their relatives or their sons, and there will be no rumor regarding this at all. Therefore, she is permitted to marry the son of the witness who testified for her or the son of the sage who forbade her to her husband, and all the more so to other relatives. And even to them themselves if others intervened, for example if after the testimony and the prohibition they married others and were widowed or divorced – they are permitted to marry them, for no rumor is relevant to this at all. And so too even if others did not intervene but at the time of the act they had wives and afterwards the wives died – they are also permitted for no suspicion is relevant; even in a place where it is permitted to marry two wives, they will not suspect him that he wanted to marry this one as well. However, if their wives were sick at the time of the act and died – they are forbidden to marry them even in a place where it is forbidden to marry two wives, for nevertheless there will be a rumor, and even though most sick people are for life, nevertheless such is the way of the world regarding such rumors [it appears to me]. And if they were divorced from their husbands afterwards, if the husband instigated the quarrel from which the divorce resulted – he is forbidden to marry her, for they will spread a rumor about him that he intentionally testified or forbade her and instigated the quarrel with his wife so that he would divorce her. But if she instigated the quarrel – there is no rumor here, and so too if they had quarrels prior to this – there is no rumor here, and it is not similar to where she was sick where we suspect that they will say he set his eyes upon her and was concerned lest his wife die, and why should we not also suspect in a case of a quarrel in this manner? For in a quarrel there is certainly no concern in this, for many women quarrel with their husbands and we are witnesses that they do not set their eyes upon divorce, but when she is sick the thought of death hovers over his heart, and furthermore, with a sick wife he does not have a wife and it is possible that his inclination overcame him, which is not the case with a quarrel [it appears to me, and see Beit Shmuel and Chelkat Mechokek and the Gra].