Yevamot 239

לאנסובי לצרה מקמי דידה אי אמרת צרה מעידה לחברתה אף על גב דלא אינסיב מנסבינן לה לצרה אי אמרת משום דהיא לא מקלקלא נפשה אינסיב מנסבינן לה לצרה אי לא אינסיב לא מנסבינן לה

That of allowing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a woman who went overseas with her husband leaving her rival in the home town returned and stated that her husband was dead. ');">¹</span> her rival to marry before herself. If it is granted that a rival may give evidence in favour of her associate, her rival may be permitted to marry even if she herself did not remarry. If, however, it be maintained that the reason is because she would not cause injury to herself, the rival would be permitted to marry only if she herself had married again, but if she herself did not remarry, her rival also would not be permitted to remarry. Now, what [is the decision]? — Come and hear: R. ELEAZAR RULED: SINCE THEY WERE ONCE PERMITTED TO THE LEVIR THEY ARE PERMITTED TO MARRY ANY MAN. Now, if it be granted that [the reason is because] she would not cause injury to herself one can well see the reason why only when the one married again is the other permitted to remarry. If it be maintained, however, that the reason is because a rival is eligible to tender evidence in favour of her associate, [the associate should be permitted to marry again] even if the rival did not remarry. Consequently it must be concluded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but infer from it'. ');">²</span> that R. Eleazar's reason is: Because she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman who reported the death of her husband. ');">³</span>

מאי תא שמע ר' אלעזר אומר הואיל והותרו ליבמין הותרו לכל אדם אי אמרת בשלמא דהיא לא מקלקלא נפשה היינו דכי אינסיב מנסבינן לה

herself had married again and she would not cause injury to herself! — R. Eleazar may have argued on the basis of the view of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'according to their words he said to them'. ');">⁴</span> 'According to my view [he may have said in effect] a rival is eligible to tender evidence in favour of her associate, and even if she herself did not remarry the other may be allowed to marry again. According to your view, however, you must at least agree with me that where she herself' remarried the other also should be allowed to marry again, since she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman who reported the death of her husband. ');">³</span> would naturally not injure herself!' And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why do they not allow the associate to marry even in the latter case? ');">⁵</span>

אלא אי אמרת משום דצרה מעידה לחברתה אף על גב דלא אינסיב נמי אלא שמע מינה טעמא דרבי אלעזר משום דאינסיב הוא ולא מקלקלא נפשה

— She might be acting [in the spirit of] <i>let me die with the Philistines</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges XVI, 30. In order to inflict injury upon her associate she is willing to suffer injury herself. ');">⁶</span> Come and hear: 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. R. Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. R. Eliezer cf. supra p. 845, n. 16. ');">⁷</span> ruled: Since she becomes permitted her rival also becomes permitted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 118a. This proves that, on the evidence of a rival, an associate is always permitted to marry again whether the rival who gave the evidence did or did not herself marry again. ');">⁸</span>

רבי אלעזר לדבריהם קאמר להו לדידי צרה מעידה לחברתה ואף על גב דלא אינסיב מנסבינן לה אלא לדידכו אודו לי מיהת דהיכא דאינסיב מנסבינן לה משום דהיא לא מקלקלא נפשה ורבנן (שופטים טז, ל) תמות נפשי עם פלשתים הוא דקעבדה

— Read: Since she was permitted <i>and she married again</i>. Let it, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the reason why a rival is believed in respect of her associate is not because she is eligible to tender evidence but because she would not injure herself. ');">⁹</span> be apprehended that she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman who reported the death of her husband. ');">³</span> may have returned with a letter of divorce and that the reason why she made her statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that which she said thus'. That her husband was dead. ');">¹⁰</span>

ת"ש האשה שהלכה היא ובעלה למדינת הים ובאה ואמרה מת בעלי תנשא ותטול כתובתה וצרתה אסורה ר' אלעזר אומר הואיל והותרה היא הותרה נמי צרתה אימא הואיל והותרה ונשאת

is because it was her intention to injure her rival!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She herself would thereby suffer no disability since she herself is in any case divorced from her husband. ');">¹¹</span> — If she was married to an Israelite, this would be so indeed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There would be ground for suspecting that she was divorced. ');">¹²</span> but here we are dealing with one who married a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who may not marry a divorcee (v. Lev. XXI, 7). Had she been a divorced woman she would not have ventured to contract such a marriage for fear lest her former husband might return and expose her. ');">¹³</span>

וליחוש דלמא בגיטא אתאי והאי דקאמרה הכי לקלקלא לצרה היא מיכוונה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. EVIDENCE [OF IDENTITY]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of a dead man. ');">¹⁴</span> MAY BE LEGALLY TENDERED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enable the widow to marry again. ');">¹⁵</span> ONLY ON [PROOF AFFORDED BY] THE FULL FACE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] cf. [G]. ');">¹⁶</span>

אי דאינסיב לישראל הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקי' דאינסיב לכהן:

WITH THE NOSE, THOUGH THERE WERE ALSO MARKS ON THE MAN'S BODY OR CLOTHING. NO EVIDENCE [OF A MAN'S DEATH]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enable the widow to marry again. ');">¹⁵</span> MAY BE TENDERED BEFORE HIS SOUL HAS DEPARTED; EVEN THOUGH THE WITNESSES HAVE SEEN HIM WITH HIS ARTERIES CUT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'mortally wounded' (v. Rashi). [H] rt. [H], to cut an artery', a mode of execution practised among certain peoples (cf. Jast.). ');">¹⁷</span> OR CRUCIFIED OR BEING DEVOURED BY A WILD BEAST.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is possible to recover life even in such precarious conditions. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אין מעידין אלא על פרצוף פנים עם החוטם אע"פ שיש סימנין בגופו ובכליו אין מעידין אלא עד שתצא נפשו ואפי' ראוהו מגוייד וצלוב והחיה אוכלת בו אין מעידין אלא עד ג' ימים

EVIDENCE [OF IDENTIFICATION] MAY BE TENDERED [BY THOSE] ONLY [WHO SAW THE CORPSE] WITHIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until'. ');">¹⁹</span> THREE DAYS [AFTER DEATH].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After this period, the decay of the corpse would hinder identification. ');">²⁰</span> R. JUDAH B. BABA, HOWEVER, SAID: NEITHER ALL MEN, NOR ALL PLACES, NOR ALL SEASONS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hours', 'times'. ');">²¹</span>

ר' יהודה בן בבא אומר לא כל האדם ולא כל המקום ולא כל השעות שוין:

ARE ALIKE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Decomposition in one case may be much more rapid than in another. The period of THREE DAYS mentioned must, therefore, be varied according to physical and climatic conditions. ');">²²</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: Evidence [of identification]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of a dead man. ');">²³</span> may be tendered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enable the widow to marry again. ');">²⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן פדחת ולא פרצוף פנים פרצוף פנים ולא פדחת אין מעידין עד שיהו שניהם עם החוטם אמר אביי ואיתימא רב כהנא מאי קרא (ישעיהו ג, ט) הכרת פניהם ענתה בם

only on [proof afforded by] the forehead without the face<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 5. ');">²⁵</span> or the face without the forehead — Both together with the nose must<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until'. ');">¹⁹</span> be present.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the evidence of identification is to be valid. ');">²⁶</span>

אבא בר מרתא דהוא אבא בר מניומי הוה מסקי ביה דבי ריש גלותא זוזי אייתי קירא דבק בבלייתא דבק באפותיה חלף קמייהו ולא בשקרוה:

Abaye, or it might be said, R. Kahana, stated: What is the Scriptural proof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the full face is essential for identification. ');">²⁷</span> — <i>The shew of their countenance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on countenance; not any other part of the body. ');">²⁸</span></i> doth witness against them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. III, 9. ');">²⁹</span>

אע"פ שיש סימנין וכו': למימרא דסימנין לאו דאורייתא

Abba b. Martha, otherwise<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which he', 'who was'. ');">³⁰</span> Abba b. Manyumi, was being pressed for the payment of some money by the people of the Exilarch's house. Taking some wax he smeared it on a piece of rag and stuck it upon his forehead. He passed before them and they did not recognize him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they did not discover it'. [H] (cf. [H]) 'to examine', 'to discover'. ');">³¹</span> THOUGH THERE WERE ALSO MARKS etc. Does this imply that identification marks are not valid Pentateuchally? A contradiction, surely, may be pointed out: If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man who was carrying a letter of divorce from a husband to his wife. ');">³²</span>

ורמינהי מצאו קשור בכיס ובארנקי ובטבעת או שנמצא בין כליו אפילו לזמן מרובה כשר

found it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The letter of divorce after it had been lost for a time. ');">³³</span> tied to a bag, a purse or a seal-ring<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 120b. [H] 'ring'. ');">³⁴</span> or if it was found among his furniture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashi. ');">³⁵</span>

אמר אביי לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר בן מהבאי הא רבנן דתניא אין מעידין על השומא ר' אליעזר בן מהבאי אומר מעידין מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר סימנין דאורייתא ומר סבר סימנין דרבנן

even after a long time, it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The letter of divorce after it had been lost for a time. ');">³³</span> is valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 27b; provided he is able to identify the bag, or any of the other objects mentioned, as the original object to which the letter of divorce had been tied. Though the assumed validity of the document affects a Pentateuchal law (permitting a married woman to marry a stranger) it is nevertheless permitted to rely upon the identification marks, contrary to the implication of our Mishnah. ');">³⁶</span> — Abaye replied: This is no difficulty. The one is the view of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that'. ');">³⁷</span>

אמר רבא דכולי עלמא סימנין דאורייתא הכא בשומא מצויה בבן גילו קמיפלגי מר סבר שומא מצויה בבן גילו ומר סבר אינה מצויה בבן גילו

R. Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pesaro ed. and MSS. read 'Eleazar'. ');">³⁸</span> b. Mahebai while the other is that of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that'. ');">³⁷</span> the Rabbis. For it was taught: No evidence [of identification] by a mole may he legally tendered. R. Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pesaro ed. and MSS. read 'Eleazar'. ');">³⁸</span>

ואיכא דאמרי הכא בשומא העשויה להשתנות לאחר מיתה קמיפלגי מר סבר עשויה להשתנות לאחר מיתה ומר סבר אינה עשויה להשתנות לאחר מיתה

h. Mahebai ruled: Such evidence may be legally tendered. Do they not differ on the following principle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course they do. ');">³⁹</span> that one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer. ');">⁴⁰</span> is of the opinion that identification marks are valid Pentateuchally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.M. 27a., ');">⁴¹</span>

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבא דכולי עלמא סימנין דרבנן והכא בשומא

while the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna. ');">⁴²</span> is of the opinion that identification marks are only Rabbinically valid? — Said Raba: All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the first Tanna as well as R. Eliezer. ');">⁴³</span> agree that identification marks are valid Pentateuchally; but here they differ on the question whether it is common for the same kind of mole to he found on persons of simultaneous birth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]., lit., 'son of his circle', ('circle' referring to the sphere of the zodiac). Persons born at the same hour of the day are assumed to be physically and morally subject to the same planetary influences for good and for evil. ');">⁴⁴</span> One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna. ');">⁴²</span> is of the opinion that it is common for the same kind of mole to be found on persons of simultaneous birth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the corpse and the man in question might have been such persons, all marks, other than those afforded by those of the full face, are no reliable proof of identity. ');">⁴⁵</span> and the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer. ');">⁴⁶</span> is of the opinion that it is not common for the same kind of mole to be found on persons of simultaneous birth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mole, therefore, is a valid identification mark. ');">⁴⁷</span> Others say: Their<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 849, n. 14. ');">⁴⁸</span> point of difference here is whether a mole usually undergoes a change after one's death — One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna. ');">⁴⁹</span> is of the opinion that it usually undergoes a change after one's death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it cannot be regarded as a valid mark of identification. ');">⁵⁰</span> and the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer. ');">⁴⁶</span> is of the opinion that it does not usually undergo a change after one's death. Others maintain that Raba said: All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 849, n. 14. ');">⁵¹</span> agree that identification marks are only Rabbinically valid; but here [it is on the question] whether a mole