Yevamot 232

איכא בינייהו דארגיל הוא קטטה

— The practical difference between them arises in the case where [the husband] created<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'accustomed', i.e., introduced. ');">¹</span> the discord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While the wife shewed no hatred towards him. As she does not hate him she would not invent a lie in order to get rid of him but would nevertheless readily believe that he was dead should he ever have found himself in a position of danger. She would not take the trouble to ascertain whether her conjecture was not groundless. ');">²</span> The question was raised: What [is the law in respect of] one witness in a case of discord? Is the reason why one witness is [elsewhere]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he gives evidence that a husband died in normal circumstances. ');">³</span> believed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the widow is allowed to marry again. ');">⁴</span>

איבעיא להו עד אחד בקטטה מהו מ"ט דעד אחד מהימן משום דמילתא דעבידא לאיגלויי לא משקר הכא נמי לא משקר או דלמא טעמא דעד אחד מהימן משום דהיא דייקא ומינסבא והכא כיון דאית ליה קטטה לא דייקא ומינסבא תיקו:

that he would not tell a lie which is likely to be exposed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 811, n. 13. ');">⁵</span> and consequently he would here also tell no lie;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he is believed. ');">⁶</span> or is it possible that the reason why one witness is believed elsewhere<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 3. ');">⁷</span> is that [the woman] herself makes careful enquiries and [only then] marries again; here, therefore, [his evidence should not be accepted] since, as there was discord between husband and wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to him'. ');">⁸</span>

רבי יהודה אומר לעולם אינה וכו': תניא אמרו לו לרבי יהודה לדבריך פקחת תנשא שוטה לא תנשא אלא אחת זו ואחת זו תנשא

she would not make careful enquiries and yet would marry again? — This remains undecided.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teku, v. Glos. ');">⁹</span> R. JUDAH SAID: SHE IS NEVER etc. It was taught: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages., ');">¹⁰</span> said to R. Judah: According to your statement, only a woman of sound senses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who feels her loss and gives expression to it by her weeping and her torn garments. Others render 'sly'. 'one able to simulate' (cf. Golds.). ');">¹¹</span> would be allowed to marry again while an imbecile<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is unconscious of her loss and consequently gives no outward expression to any grief. [H] may also be rendered 'foolish', 'silly', 'simpleton'. Cf. supra n. 11, second rendering. ');">¹²</span>

ההיא דאתיא לבי דינא דרבי יהודה אמרי לה ספדי בעלך קרעי מאניך סתרי מזייך אלפוה שיקרא אינהו כרבנן סבירא להו אמרי תעביד הכי כי היכי דלישריה:

would never be allowed to marry again! But the fact is that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but'. ');">¹³</span> the one as well as the other may be allowed to marry again. A woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating that her husband died in a country beyond the sea. ');">¹⁴</span> once came to Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd 'R' ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בית הלל אומרים לא שמענו אלא בבאה מן הקציר ובאותה מדינה וכמעשה שהיה

Judah's <i>Beth din</i>. 'Mourn', they said to her, 'for your husband, rend your garments and loosen your hair'. Did they teach her to simulate!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she did not manifest any signs of grief her remarriage should, according to R. Judah's ruling. have been forbidden! ');">¹⁶</span> — They themselves held the same view as the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages in our Mishnah and in the quoted Baraitha. ');">¹⁷</span> but in order that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah. ');">¹⁸</span> also should allow her to marry they advised her to do so.

אמרו להם בית שמאי אחת הבאה מן הקציר ואחת הבאה מן הזיתים ואחת הבאה מן הבציר ואחת הבאה ממדינה למדינה לא דברו חכמים בקציר אלא בהווה חזרו בית הלל להורות כבית שמאי:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. BETH HILLEL STATED: WE HAVE HEARD SUCH A TRADITION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a wife is believed when she states that her husband is dead, ');">¹⁹</span> ONLY IN RESPECT OF A WOMAN WHO CAME FROM THE HARVEST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is explained infra. ');">²⁰</span> AND [WHOSE HUSBAND DIED] IN THE SAME COUNTRY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being thus possible to verify the woman's statement. ');">²¹</span> [THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEING THE SAME] AS THOSE OF A CASE THAT ONCE ACTUALLY HAPPENED. SAID BETH SHAMMAI TO THEM: [THE LAW IS] THE SAME WHETHER THE WOMAN CAME FROM THE HARVEST OR FROM THE OLIVE PICKING, OR FROM THE VINTAGE, OR FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER, FOR THE SAGES SPOKE OF THE HARVEST ONLY [BECAUSE THE INCIDENT TO WHICH THEY REFERRED] OCCURRED THEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. Lit., 'in what is', The ruling of the Sages was given in connection with a particular case where it so happened that the woman returned from a harvest. The same ruling, however, is applicable in all circumstances. [The term generally denotes 'what usually happens'. It is in this sense that it seems to be taken by the T. J. quoted by Tosaf. (s.v [H]]): Why should the harvest (be different)? Said A. Mana: It is different in that an accident usually happens there on account of the scorching sun]. ');">²²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא אמרו להם בית שמאי לבית הלל לדבריכם אין לי אלא קציר חטים קציר שעורים מנין ואין לי אלא קוצר בוצר מוסק גודר עודר מנין

BETH HILLEL, THEREFORE, CHANGED THEIR VIEW [THENCEFORWARD] TO RULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF BETH SHAMMAI. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was taught: Beth Shammai said to Beth Hillel, According to your View,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a wife's evidence regarding the death of her husband may be accepted only in circumstances similar to those of the original incident. (Cf. supra n. 4). ');">²³</span> one would only know the law concerning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I have but'. ');">²⁴</span> the wheat harvest;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The incident (cf. supra note 4) having occurred during the wheat harvest. ');">²⁵</span>

אלא מעשה שהיה בקציר והוא הדין לכולהו הכא נמי מעשה שהיה באותה מדינה והוא הדין לכולהו

whence, however, [the law concerning] the barley harvest? And, furthermore, one would only know the law in the case where<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I have but'. ');">²⁴</span> one harvested; whence, however, [the law in the case where] one held a vintage, picked olives, harvested dates, or picked figs? But [you must admit] it is only the original incident that occurred at harvest time and that the same law is applicable to all [the other seasons]. So here also [we maintain that] the incident occurred with [a husband who died] in the same country. and the same law is applicable to all [other countries]. And Beth Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why do they draw a distinction between a husband's death in the same, and in another country. ');">²⁶</span> — In the case of the same country. where people freely [move about].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From place to place. Another interpretation: Many people knew the husband. ');">²⁷</span> she is afraid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bring a false report which could be easily disproved by one of (a) the travellers or (b) the men who knew the husband, Cf. n. 2. ');">²⁸</span>

ובית הלל באותה מדינה דשכיחי אינשי מירתת ממדינה למדינה אחרת דלא שכיחי אינשי לא מירתת ובית שמאי הכא נמי שכיחי שיירתא

[coming. however]. from one country to another, since people do not freely [move about].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 2 mutatis mutandis. ');">²⁹</span> she is not afraid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf'. supra n. 3 mutatis mutandis. ');">³⁰</span> And Beth Shammai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do they not provide against the possibility of a wife's mendacity! ');">³¹</span> — Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From one country to another. ');">³²</span>

מאי מעשה שהיה דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שילפי קציר חטין היו והלכו עשרה בני אדם לקצור חטין נשכו נחש לאחד מהן ומת ובאת אשתו והודיעה לבית דין ושלחו ומצאו כדבריה באותה שעה אמרו האשה שאמרה מת בעלי תנשא מת בעלי תתייבם

also caravans frequently [move about].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 2 and note 3 mutatis mutandis. ');">³³</span> What was the original incident?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spoken of supra. ');">³⁴</span> — [It was that of] which Rab Judah spoke in the name of Samuel: It was the end of the wheat harvest when ten men went to reap their wheat and a serpent bit one of them and he died [of the wound]. His wife, thereupon, came and reported the incident to <i>Beth din</i>, who, having sent [to investigate]. found her statement to be true. At that time it was ordained: If a woman stated, 'My husband is dead', she may marry again; [if she said] 'My husband is dead [and left no issue]', she may contract the levirate marriage. Must it be suggested that R. Hanania b. Akabia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. Cur. edd., 'Akiba'. ');">³⁵</span>

נימא רבי חנניא בן עקיבא ורבנן בפלוגתא דבית שמאי וב"ה קמיפלגי דתניא לא ישא אדם מי חטאת ואפר חטאת ויעבירם בירדן ובספינה

and the Rabbis differ on the same principle as that on which Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel differ? For it was taught: No man shall carry water of purification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XIX, 1ff. ');">³⁶</span> and ashes of purification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XIX, 1ff. ');">³⁶</span> across the Jordan on board a ship, nor may one stand on [the bank on] one side and throw them across to the other side, nor may one float them upon water nor may one carry them while riding<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'cause them to ride'. ');">³⁷</span> on a beast or on the back of another man unless his [own] feet were touching the [river] bed. He may, however, convey them across a bridge. [These laws are applicable] as well to the Jordan as to other rivers. R. Hanania b. Akabia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. Cur. edd., 'Akiba'. ');">³⁵</span>

ולא יעמוד בצד זה ויזרק לצד אחר ולא ישיטם על פני המים ולא ירכיבם לא על גבי בהמה ולא על גבי חברו אלא אם כן היו רגליו נוגעות בקרקע אבל מעבירם על הגשר אחד ירדן ואחד שאר נהרות רבי חנניא בן עקיבא אומר לא אמרו אלא ירדן ובספינה וכמעשה שהיה

said: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages. ');">³⁸</span> spoke<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When enacting the prohibitions mentioned. ');">³⁹</span> only of the Jordan and of [transport] on board a ship, as was the case in the original incident.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Parah VIII, v. supra. ');">⁴⁰</span> Must it, then, be assumed that the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The authors of the first ruling in the Baraitha cited. ');">⁴¹</span>

לימא רבנן דאמרי כב"ש ור' חנניא בן עקיבא דאמר כב"ה

hold the same view as Beth Shammai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both hold that the restrictions apply not only to conditions which are exactly the same as those of the original incident but to any other condition also. ');">⁴²</span> while R. Hanania b. Akabia holds the same view as Beth Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3 mutatis mutandis, Is it likely. however, that the Rabbis and R. Hanania would differ from Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai respectively! ');">⁴³</span> — The Rabbis can answer you: Our ruling agrees with the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we (as to) what we said'. ');">⁴⁴</span> of Beth Hillel also; for Beth Hillel maintained their opinion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Restricting the law to conditions exactly similar to those of the original incident. ');">⁴⁵</span>

אמרי לך רבנן אנן דאמרינן אף כב"ה עד כאן לא קאמר בית הלל התם אלא משום דמירתת במקום קרוב מירתת במקום רחוק לא מירתת הכא מה לי ירדן מה לי שאר נהרות

only there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a wife's evidence on the death of her husband. ');">⁴⁶</span> since [the woman is believed only because] she fears [to tell an untruth, and it is only] in a place that is near that she fears while in a distant one she does not fear. Here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Transporting the water and ashes of purification. ');">⁴⁷</span> however, what matters it whether it is on the Jordan or on other rivers!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it does not matter. ');">⁴⁸</span> R. Hanania b. Akabia can also answer you: I may uphold my view even according to Beth Shammai; for Beth Shammai maintained their opinion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Trusting the evidence of the wife in all cases, even where the conditions differ from those of the original incident. ');">⁴⁹</span>

רבי חנניא בן עקיבא אמר לך אנא דאמרי אף לב"ש עד כאן לא קאמרי ב"ש התם אלא משום דאיהי דייקא ומינסבא מה לי מקום קרוב מה לי מקום רחוק הכא משום מעשה שהיה בירדן ובספינה דהוה מעשה גזור רבנן בשאר נהרות דלא הוה מעשה לא גזור רבנן

only there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a wife's evidence on the death of her husband. ');">⁴⁶</span> because [a woman] makes careful enquiries<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether her husband was dead. ');">⁵⁰</span> and [only then] marries again. Hence, what matters it whether the locality was near or far. Here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 8. ');">⁵¹</span> however, [the prohibition] is due to an actual incident; hence it is only [against transport] on the Jordan and on board a ship, where the incident occurred, that the Rabbis enacted their preventive measure, but against other rivers where the incident did not occur the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure.

מאי מעשה שהיה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה באדם שהיה מעביר מי חטאת ואפר חטאת בירדן ובספינה ונמצא כזית מן המת תחוב בקרקעית של ספינה באותה שעה אמרו לא ישא אדם מי חטאת ואפר חטאת ויעבירם בירדן ובספינה:

What was the incident?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spoken of supra. ');">⁵²</span> — [It was that] which Rab Judah related in the name of Rab: A man was once transporting Water of purification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf Num. XIX, 1ff. ');">⁵³</span> and ashes of purification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf Num. XIX, 1ff. ');">⁵³</span> across the Jordan on board a ship, and a piece of a corpse, of the size of an olive,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minimum that causes defilement of objects that come in contact with it or that are placed in the same ohel (v. Glos.). ');">⁵⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בית שמאי אומרים תנשא ותטול כתובתה בית הלל אומרים תנשא ולא תטול כתובתה אמרו להם בית שמאי התרתם ערוה חמורה ולא נתיר ממון הקל אמרו להם בית הלל מצינו

was found stuck in the bottom of the ship. At that time It was ordained: No man shall carry Water of purification and ashes of purification across the Jordan on board a ship. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman who reports her husband's death. ');">⁵⁵</span> IS PERMITTED TO MARRY AGAIN AND SHE RECEIVES HER <i>KETHUBAH</i>. BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, RULED: SHE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY AGAIN BUT SHE DOES NOT RECEIVE HER <i>KETHUBAH</i>. SAID BETH SHAMMAI TO THEM: YOU HAVE PERMITTED [WHAT MIGHT BE] THE GRAVE OFFENCE OF ILLICIT INTERCOURSE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the woman were not telling the truth she would still be a married woman and her second marriage would be illicit, ');">⁵⁶</span> SHALL WE NOT PERMIT [THE TAKING OF HER HUSBAND'S] MONEY WHICH IS OF LESS IMPORTANCE!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that is light'. ');">⁵⁷</span> BETH HILLEL ANSWERED THEM: WE FIND