יח הא מדקתני סיפא אע"פ
18 and [the evidence of] two women against that of one man is given the same validity as that of two men against one man'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 117b, Sot. 31b. When, therefore, the wife does not contradict the evidence, these otherwise ineligible witnesses are trusted. Where, however, she contradicts them, her evidence is added to that of the one witness who had originally testified that her husband was dead, and the evidence of the second pair of witnesses, being thus contradicted by two, is disregarded. Cf. Maimonides cited by Wilna Gaon, glosses. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> And if you prefer I might reply: Wherever one eligible witness came first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And testified that the first husband was dead. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> even a hundred women<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., ineligible witnesses who, after the woman had married, testified that her first husband was alive. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> are regarded as one witness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And their evidence, being opposed to that of the first witness, is disregarded, as is the case with all evidence of a single witness, which is opposed to that of a previous witness. The woman need not, therefore, leave her second husband even if she does not contradict the second set of witnesses. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> here, however, we are dealing with a case where a woman witness came in the first instance;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 602, n. 11, and two women subsequently testified that the first husband was alive. If the wife keeps silent, there remains a majority of two against one; if she contradicts the two the majority disappears. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> and the statement of R. Nehemiah is to be explained thus: R. Nehemiah stated, 'Wherever the Torah allows credence to one witness, the majority of opinions is to be followed, and [the evidence of] two women against that of one woman is given the same validity as that of two men against one man, but that of two women against that of one man is regarded only as that of a half and a half.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two together representing one; so that the evidence of the first eligible witness remains unaffected by it, provided the woman remarried, even where she remained silent. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> SHE ALSO REQUIRES A LETTER OF DIVORCE FROM ONE AS WELL AS FROM THE OTHER. It is quite intelligible that she should require a divorce from the first husband; but why also from the second [when their union was a] mere act of adultery?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first husband having been alive when it was contracted. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> — R. Huna replied: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The requirement of a divorce from the second husband. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> is a preventive measure against the possibility of assuming that the first had divorced her and the second had [lawfully] married her, and that consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and it is found'. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> a married woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage with the second being assumed to have been valid. ');"><sup>54</sup></span> may leave her husband without a letter of divorce. If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That provision was made against erroneous assumptions. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> in the latter clause also, where it was stated, 'If she was told "your husband is dead", and she was betrothed, and afterwards her husband came, she is permitted to return to him',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 92a. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> might it not be assumed there also that the first husband had divorced her and the other had [lawfully] betrothed her and that consequently a betrothed woman may be released without a letter of divorce! — As a matter of fact she does require a letter of divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the second, to whom she was betrothed. ');"><sup>57</sup></span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a letter of divorce is required. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> [it might there also be assumed that] the first had again married his divorced wife after she had been betrothed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 6 mutatis mutandis. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> — [This statement is in] accordance with R. Jose b. Kiper who stated [that remarrying one's divorced wife] after a marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With a second husband. ');"><sup>60</sup></span> is forbidden but after a betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With a second husband. ');"><sup>60</sup></span> is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 11b. ');"><sup>61</sup></span> Since, however, it was stated in the final clause, 'Although