Yevamot 235:1

אשה אומרת מת ואשה אומרת לא מת הרי זו לא תנשא:

OR IF ONE WOMAN STATED. 'HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 830. n. 9. ');">¹</span> IS DEAD', AND ANOTHER WOMAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if she is the rival of the woman concerned. ');">²</span> STATED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 5. ');">³</span> 'HE IS NOT DEAD', SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the first. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דאמרה לא מת הא אישתיקא תנשא הא אין צרה מעידה לחברתה

MAY NOT MARRY AGAIN. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The reason. then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the second wife MAY NEITHER MARRY AGAIN. ');">⁵</span> is because she said, 'HE IS NOT DEAD'; had she, however, kept silent she would presumably have been allowed to marry again; but [it may be objected], no rival may give evidence on behalf of her associate!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her rival. ');">⁶</span> — It was necessary [to teach the case where the OTHER WIFE SAID], 'HE IS NOT DEAD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There was no need to mention the case where she remained silent, which is obvious. ');">⁷</span>

לא מת איצטריכא ליה סד"א הא מיית והא דקאמרה לא מת לקלקולה לצרה היא דקמיכוונא (שופטים טז, ל) ותמות נפשה עם פלשתים קאמרה קמשמע לן:

Since it might have been assumed that [their husband] was really dead and that by stating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and that which she said'. ');">⁸</span> 'HE IS NOT DEAD' she evidently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she went out of her way to contradict her rival and was not content to remain silent. ');">⁹</span> intended to inflict injury upon her rival in the spirit of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.. 'she said'. ');">¹⁰</span> Let me<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] v. marg. note. Cur. edd., [H]. ');">¹¹</span>

אחת אומרת מת כו: וליפלוג רבי מאיר ברישא אמר רבי אלעזר במחלוקת שנויה ורבי יהודה ורבי שמעון היא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא רבי מאיר בהא אפילו רבי מאיר מודה דכל לא מת בעדות אשה לאו הכחשה היא

die with the Philistines,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges XVI, 30. She is prepared herself to lose the right of marrying again in order that her rival also may thereby be deprived of her right. ');">¹²</span> we are informed [that she is nevertheless forbidden to marry again]. IF ONE WIFE STATED, 'HE IS DEAD' etc. R. Meir should have expressed his disagreement in the first clause also!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where. as in the second clause, one woman contradicts the other. ');">¹³</span> R. Eleazar replied: [The first clause] is a subject<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.. 'it was taught'. ');">¹⁴</span>

תנן עד אומר מת ועד אומר לא מת אשה אומרת מת ואשה אומרת לא מת הרי זו לא תנשא בשלמא לרבי אלעזר סתמא כר' מאיר אלא לרבי יוחנן קשיא קשיא:

in dispute and it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The view expressed in the first clause. ');">¹⁵</span> represents the opinion of R. Judah and R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [According to R. Eleazar. R. Meir would forbid in the second clause remarriage to both women, because he admits a rival's contradictory evidence, whereas R. Judah and Simeon hold that a rival's contradiction is not admitted and hence they rule that both are permitted to marry. Similarly in the first clause, on R. Meir's view the first woman would not be allowed to marry, regard being had to the contradiction of her rival. On this assumption, the reason stated in the second clause for R. Judah's and R. Simeon's ruling, that neither denied the fact of the man's death, will have been advanced by them as an argument on the hypothesis that R. Meir's view, admitting the rival's contradiction, is accepted. [H]. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Johanan. however. stated that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The view expressed in the first clause. ');">¹⁷</span> may be said [to represent even the view of] R. Meir, for in such a case even R. Meir agrees,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the assertion of the second wife is not regarded as valid contradiction of the evidence of the first. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האשה שהלכה היא ובעלה למדינת הים ובאה ואמרה מת בעלי תנשא ותטול כתובתה וצרתה אסורה היתה בת ישראל לכהן תאכל בתרומה דברי רבי טרפון

since in the case of testimony relating to a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In connection with the death of her husband in regard to which the laws of evidence have been considerably relaxed. Var. lec. 'the testimony of a rival']. ');">¹⁹</span> the evidence [of the nature of] 'He is not dead' is not [regarded as a valid] contradiction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But as a mere outburst of malice, intended to injure her rival. The first evidence is, therefore, accepted. ');">²⁰</span> We learned: IF ONE WITNESS STATED, HE IS DEAD' AND ANOTHER WITNESS STATED, HE IS NOT DEAD', OR IF ONE WOMAN STATED, 'HE IS DEAD AND ANOTHER WOMAN STATED, HE IS NOT DEAD', SHE MAY NOT MARRY AGAIN. Now according to R. Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who explained that the first clause represents the view of those who differ from R. Meir, while R. Meir maintains that the first wife also is forbidden to marry again, because a rival's contradiction is admitted, v. p. 831, n. 21. ');">²¹</span> it may well be explained that the anonymous statement [in the final clause]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which forbids remarriage, even where the contradictory evidence was given by the rival (v. supra p. 831. n. 7.) ');">²²</span>

רבי עקיבא אומר אין זו דרך מוציאתו מידי עבירה עד שתהא אסורה לינשא ואסורה מלאכול בתרומה

is in agreement with R. Meir. According to R. Johanan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated that R. Meir agrees with the ruling in the first clause that a rival's contradiction is admitted. ');">²³</span> however, there is a difficulty! — This is a difficulty. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A WOMAN AND HER HUSBAND WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA, AND SHE RETURNED AND STATED, MY HUSBAND IS DEAD'. SHE MAY BE MARRIED AGAIN AND SHE ALSO RECEIVES HER <i>KETHUBAH</i>. HER RIVAL, HOWEVER, IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry again; since a woman may not tender evidence for her rival. ');">²⁴</span> IF [HER RIVAL] WAS THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE [WHO WAS MARRIED] TO A PRIEST, SHE IS PERMITTED TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As during the lifetime of her husband. The evidence of the other which is regarded as invalid to enable the rival to marry again (v. supra n. 1) is equally invalid to deprive her of her right to the eating of terumah. ');">²⁵</span>

אמרה מת לי בעלי ואחר כך מת חמי תנשא ותטול כתובתה וחמותה אסורה היתה בת ישראל לכהן תאכל בתרומה דברי רבי טרפון רבי עקיבא אומר אין זו דרך מוציאה מידי עבירה עד שתהא אסורה לינשא ואסורה מלאכול בתרומה:

SO R. TARFON. R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, SAID: THIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To forbid the rival to marry and to allow her to eat terumah. ');">²⁶</span> IS NOT A WAY THAT WOULD LEAD HER OUT OF THE POWER OF TRANSGRESSION, UNLESS [IT BE ENACTED THAT] SHE SHALL BE FORBIDDEN BOTH TO MARRY AND TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. IF SHE 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-LAWS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For whom a daughter-in-law is ineligible to tender evidence. ');">²⁷</span> IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry; though. at the time the evidence in her favour was given. the witness, according to whose evidence her husband died before her father-in-law, was no longer her daughter-in-law. The reason is explained supra 117b. ');">²⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וצריכא דאי איתמר הך קמייתא בהא קא"ר טרפון משום דצערא דגופה אבל חמותה דצערא מילי דעלמא אימא מודי ליה לרבי עקיבא

IF [THE LATTER] WAS THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE [WHO WAS MARRIED] TO A PRIEST, SHE IS PERMITTED TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>; SO R. TARFON. R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, SAID.. THIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3 mutatis mutandis. ');">²⁹</span> IS NOT A WAY THAT WOULD LEAD HER OUT OF THE POWER OF TRANSGRESSION, UNLESS [IT BE ENACTED THAT] SHE SHALL BE FORBIDDEN BOTH TO MARRY AGAIN AND TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. And [both statements<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first (relating to a rival) and the second (relating to a mother-in-law). ');">³⁰</span> were] necessary. For If the first only had been stated, it might have been assumed that only in that did N. Tarfon maintain [his view],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the evidence of a rival is not accepted. ');">³¹</span>

ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי עקיבא אבל בהך אימא מודה ליה לרבי טרפון צריכא

since the grievance is personal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deprivation of marital intercourse caused by a rival. Only 10 such circumstances, it is possible, did R. Tarfon discredit the evidence of a rival who might indeed be actuated by malice. ');">³²</span> but that in respect of a mother-in-law, the grievance against whom is merely general,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'things in the world'. ');">³³</span> he agrees with N. Akiba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a daughter-in-law need not be suspected of deliberate lying because of some general grievance against her mother-in-law; and that consequently. though her evidence is not accepted in respect of relaxing the laws of marriage. it may be accepted in respect of enforcing the laws of terumah. ');">³⁴</span> And had the latter only been stated it might have been assumed that R. Akiba maintained [his view] there only, but that in the former case he agrees with R. Tarfon. [Hence both statements were] necessary.

א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי טרפון אמר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא ניתן לי בן במדינת הים מת בני ואח"כ בעלי נאמנת בעלי ואחר כך בני אינה נאמנת

Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Tarfon. Said Abaye: We also learned the same: [If a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who went to a country beyond the sea with her husband before any issue was born from their union. ');">³⁵</span> states],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On her return. ');">³⁶</span> 'A son was given to me in a country beyond the sea, and my son died first while my husband died after him', she is believed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And may contract levirate marriage. Her evidence merely confirms the status in which she was already at the time of her departure. At that time as well as now she had no children to exempt her from the levirate obligations. ');">³⁷</span> [If, however, she states]. 'My husband [died first] and my son died after him', she is not believed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be permitted to marry a stranger without previous halizah with the levir. The evidence of a woman is accepted only in respect of the death of her husband, where it is assumed that she takes all possible care to ascertain the fact of his death. it is not, however, accepted in respect of liberating her from a levir against whom she might have been nursing a personal hatred, so that she would, without making the necessary enquiries, be ready on the flimsiest of proofs to testify anything which enables her to get rid of him. ');">³⁸</span>

וחוששין לדבריה וחולצת ולא מתייבמת לדבריה הוא דחוששין הא לדברי צרה אין חוששין ש"מ:

though note must be taken of her statement, and she must, therefore, perform <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to the status in which she has been confirmed. ');">³⁹</span> but may not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since note must be taken of her allegation. ');">⁴⁰</span> contract the levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 118b, 119b. ');">⁴¹</span> [From which it follows that] 'note must be taken of her statement', but that no note need be taken of the statement of a rival. Thus our point is proved.