Yevamot 234

ת"ש אמרה מת בעלי ואח"כ מת חמי תנשא ותטול כתובה וחמותה אסורה מ"ט חמותה אסורה לאו משום דאמרינן לא בעלה מיית ולא חמיה מיית והא דקאמרה הכי לקלקולא לחמותה הוא דקמיכוונא

Come and hear: If a woman stated. 'My husband died first and my father-in-law died after him'. she may marry again and she also receives her <i>kethubah</i>. but her mother-in-law is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry again; infra 118a. The evidence as to the death of her husband is not admissible though the witness. since her own husband was dead at the time she gave her evidence, was no longer her daughter-in-law. ');">¹</span> Now, why is her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The witness's. ');">²</span> mother-in-law forbidden? Is it not because it is assumed that neither her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The witness's. ');">²</span> husband died nor did her father-in-law die<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And both women are still related to one another as mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. ');">³</span>

סברה לבתר שעתא לא תיתי תצטערן

and that by her statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and what she said thus'. ');">⁴</span> she intended to damage the position of her mother-in-law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who if she married again would not any longer be able to live with her first husband, the father-in-law of the witness. ');">⁵</span> hoping that [as a result]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 827. n. 14. ');">⁶</span> she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her mother-in-law. ');">⁷</span>

דלמא שאני התם דרגיש לה צערא:

would not in the future<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When her husband and son returned from their foreign travels. ');">⁸</span> come to torment her!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By reporting to her son all the doings of his wife. It is thus obvious that a daughter-in-law is not believed as a witness for her mother-in-law, though the cause of her hatred (the return of her husband and his mother's gossip) is still a thing of the future and at the time her evidence is given, potential only. From this it follows that a potential mother-in-law also is equally ineligible as a witness for her potential daughter. in-law. ');">⁹</span> — There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in that case the woman for whom evidence is given was already her mother-in-law. ');">¹⁰</span> it may be different because she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter-in-law. ');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> עד אומר מת ונשאת ובא אחד ואמר לא מת הרי זו לא תצא עד אומר מת ושנים אומרים לא מת אע"פ שנשאת תצא שנים אומרים מת ועד אומר לא מת אע"פ שלא נשאת תנשא:

has experienced her annoyance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This case, therefore, provides no proof that a woman hates one who had never been her mother-inlaw and whose annoyances she had never experienced. ');">¹²</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE WITNESS STATED, ['THE HUSBAND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had gone to a country beyond the sea. ');">¹³</span> IS] DEAD', AND THEREUPON HIS WIFE MARRIED AGAIN, AND ANOTHER CAME AND STATED 'HE IS NOT DEAD'. SHE NEED NOT BE DIVORCED. IF ONE WITNESS SAID. 'HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had gone to a country beyond the sea. ');">¹³</span> IS DEAD AND TWO WITNESSES SAID. 'HE IS NOT DEAD', SHE MUST, EVEN IF SHE MARRIED AGAIN, BE DIVORCED. IF TWO WITNESSES STATED, 'HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had gone to a country beyond the sea. ');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דנשאת הא לא נשאת לא תנשא והאמר עולא כ"מ שהאמינה תורה עד אחד הרי כאן שנים ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים

IS DEAD', AND ONE WITNESS STATED, HE IS NOT DEAD', SHE MAY, EVEN IF SHE HAD NOT YET DONE SO,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' prior to the appearance of the one witness. ');">¹⁴</span> MARRY AGAIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after he tendered his evidence. ');">¹⁵</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the woman in the first clause of our Mishnah may live with the man she married. ');">¹⁶</span> then is because [the woman]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose husband's death was reported by the first witness. ');">¹⁷</span>

הכי קאמר עד אחד אומר מת והתירוה להנשא ובא אחד ואמר לא מת לא תצא מהיתירה הראשון:

MARRIED AGAIN; had she, however, not married would she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since our Mishnah only states that SHE NEED NOT BE DIVORCED and does not state that she may marry again. ');">¹⁸</span> not have been permitted to marry? But Surely. 'Ulla stated: Wherever the Torah declared one witness credible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case here, where one witness testifies to the death of a husband (cf. supra 88b). ');">¹⁹</span> he is regarded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'behold here'. ');">²⁰</span> as two witnesses, and the evidence of one man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our case, that of the second witness. ');">²¹</span>

עד אומר מת: פשיטא דאין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים לא צריכא בפסולי עדות וכדר' נחמיה

against that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the place of'. ');">²²</span> of two men<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first instance, the first witness whose evidence had been accepted as valid as that of two. ');">²³</span> has no Validity!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sot. 31b, Keth. 22b, supra 88b. Why then should not the woman be directly permitted to marry again? ');">²⁴</span> — It is this that was meant: IF ONE WITNESS STATED ['THE HUSBAND IS] DEAD' and after his wife had been permitted to marry again ANOTHER CAME AND STATED 'HE IS NOT DEAD', she is not to be deprived of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original [H], lit., 'she shall (or need) not go out', may bear this meaning as well as that given in our Mishnah. ');">²⁵</span>

דתניא רבי נחמיה אומר כל מקום שהאמינה תורה עד אחד הלך אחר רוב דעות ועשו שתי נשים באיש אחד כשני אנשים באיש אחד

her former status of permissibility.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the decision of Beth din had been issued before the second witness appeared. Had he arrived prior to the issue of the decision, the evidence of the first witness, as it had not yet been accepted. would have had no greater validity than his, ');">²⁶</span> IF ONE WITNESS SAID, 'HE IS DEAD', Is this not obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the woman MUST … BE DIVORCED, ');">²⁷</span> For the evidence of one man against that Of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the place of', ');">²⁸</span> two men<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case in the second clause of our Mishnah. ');">²⁹</span>

ואיבעית אימא כל היכא דאתא עד אחד כשר מעיקרא אפי' מאה נשים כעד אחד דמיין אלא כגון דאתאי אשה מעיקרא

has no validity! — [This ruling' is] required only in the case of ineligible witnesses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the two witnesses were, e.g.. relatives or slaves. ');">³⁰</span> [this being] in accordance with the view of R. Nehemiah. For it was taught: R. Nehemiah stated, 'Wherever the Torah declares one witness credible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case, e.g.. spoken of in the first clause of our Mishnah. ');">³¹</span> the majority of statements is to be followed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the accepted law of valid evidence is in such cases suspended, the evidence of any ineligible witnesses (cf. supra n. 7) is admitted, ');">³²</span> 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',' Hence the necessity for the ruling of our Mishnah. In the absence of such a ruling it would have been assumed that the evidence of ineligible witnesses is here also inadmissible. ');">³³</span>

ותרצה לדרבי נחמיה הכי רבי נחמיה אומר כל מקום שהאמינה תורה עד אחד הלך אחר רוב דעות ועשו שתי נשים באשה אחת כשני אנשים באיש אחד אבל שתי נשים באיש אחד כפלגא ופלגא דמי:

And if you prefer I might reply: Wherever one eligible witness came first, even a hundred women<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., ineligible witnesses who, after the woman had married again, stated that her husband was not dead, ');">³⁴</span> are regarded as one witness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the evidence of a single witness when it is opposed to that of a previous witness whose evidence had already been accepted (cf. supra p. 828, n. 18) is completely disregarded, so is the evidence of the hundred women if it conflicts with that of the first eligible witnesses. ');">³⁵</span> But [here it is such a case] as, for example, where a woman witness came in the first instance;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, on her evidence, the widow was permitted to marry again. As two women subsequently opposed the statement of the one, the marriage must be annulled by a letter of divorce. ');">³⁶</span> and [the statement] of R. Nehemiah is to be explained thus: R. Nehemiah stated, 'Wherever the Torah declares one witness credible, the majority of statements is to be followed, and [the evidence of] two women against one woman is given the same validity as that of two men against one man; but [the evidence of] two women against that of one man is regarded as half<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a valid evidence, i.e., as that of one witness. ');">³⁷</span>

שנים אומרים מת וכו': מאי קמשמע לן בפסולי עדות וכדר' נחמיה דאזיל בתר רוב דעות היינו הך

and half.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The evidence of two women against that of one man would, therefore, have the same validity as that of one witness against another, spoken of in the first clause of our Mishnah. and the widow would have retained her first status of permissibility. v. supra 88b. ');">³⁸</span> IF TWO WITNESSES STATED, 'HE IS DEAD' etc. What does this teach us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it not obvious that two witnesses are relied upon when they are opposed by one witness only! ');">³⁹</span> [A ruling] in respect of ineligible witnesses, [the principle being the same] as that of R. Nehemiah who follows the majority of statements.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the two witnesses are ineligible. their evidence against that of the one witness, since they form the majority, is accepted, and the widow is permitted to marry again. ');">⁴⁰</span> But is not this exactly the same [as the previous clause]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the second clause of our Mishnah which, as has just been explained, teaches this very principle. ');">⁴¹</span>

מהו דתימא כי אזלינן בתר רוב דעות לחומרא אבל לקולא לא קמ"ל:

— It might have been assumed that the majority is followed only when the law is thereby made more stringent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the second clause where, owing to the majority principle, the woman is forbidden to marry again. ');">⁴²</span> but not [where it leads] to a relaxation of the law;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the final clause under discussion, where, by following the majority. the woman is allowed to marry again. ');">⁴³</span> hence we were taught [the final clause],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of our Mishnah, to indicate that in all cases the majority is to be followed. ');">⁴⁴</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE WIFE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a man who has gone to a country beyond the sea. ');">⁴⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אחת אומרת מת ואחת אומרת לא מת זו שאומרת מת תנשא ותטול כתובתה וזו שאומרת לא מת לא תנשא ולא תטול כתובתה

SAID ['HER HUSBAND IS] DEAD' AND THE OTHER WIFE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her rival. ');">⁴⁶</span> SAID, 'HE IS NOT DEAD, THE ONE WHO SAID, 'HE IS DEAD' MAY MARRY AGAIN AND SHE ALSO RECEIVES HER <i>KETHUBAH</i>, WHILE THE ONE WHO SAID, 'HE IS NOT DEAD, MAY NEITHER MARRY AGAIN NOR IS SHE TO RECEIVE HER <i>KETHUBAH</i>. IF ONE WIFE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 830. n. 9' ');">⁴⁷</span> STATED, 'HE IS DEAD' AND THE OTHER STATED. 'HE WAS KILLED', R. MEIR RULED: SINCE THEY CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER THEY MAY NOT MARRY AGAIN. R. JUDAH AND R. SIMEON RULED: SINCE BOTH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.. 'this and this'. ');">⁴⁸</span>

אחת אומרת מת ואחת אומרת נהרג ר"מ אומר הואיל ומכחישות זו את זו הרי אלו לא ינשאו ר' יהודה ור' שמעון אומרים הואיל וזו וזו מודות שאין קיים ינשאו עד אומר מת ועד אומר לא מת

ADMIT THAT HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their husband. ');">⁴⁹</span> IS NOT ALIVE, BOTH MAY MARRY AGAIN. IF ONE WITNESS STATED, 'HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 830. n. 9' ');">⁵⁰</span> IS DEAD', AND ANOTHER WITNESS STATED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the Beth din, on the evidence of the first witness, had allowed the woman to marry again. ');">⁵¹</span> 'HE IS NOT DEAD',