Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 27, 2015 | 讝壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讛

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 115

讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专讛 砖诇讜诐 讘注讜诇诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讞讝拽讛 讗诪专讛 讘讚讚诪讬 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讜诪专注 讞讝拽转讬讛

Because if she wanted to lie she would have said: There was peace in the world, and the court would have accepted her testimony. Or perhaps it can be argued: Since she has maintained that there was a war and this claim of hers has already been accepted, with regard to her report concerning her husband, she will say what she imagines to be the case, and the argument of: Why would I lie, does not come and undermine the established presumption that there was a war.

转讗 砖诪注 注讬砖讬谞讜 注诇讬谞讜 讘讬转 注讬砖讬谞讜 注诇讬谞讜 诪注专讛 讛讜讗 诪转 讜讗谞讬 谞爪诇转讬 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讚讬讚讱 讗讬转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗

The Gemara cites a baraita in an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Come and hear: It was taught that if a woman comes and says: They set our house on fire and the house became filled with smoke, or: They set our cave on fire to smoke us out, and she adds: My husband died and I was saved, she is not deemed credible. In this case, she herself related the entire story, and even so her version of events is not accepted. The Gemara answers that this is no proof. There, in the case of the fire, it is different, as one says to her: Just as a miracle occurred for you and you were saved, likewise a miracle might have occurred for your husband and he too survived.

转讗 砖诪注 谞驻诇讜 注诇讬谞讜 讙讜讬诐 谞驻诇讜 注诇讬谞讜 诇讬住讟讬诐 讛讜讗 诪转 讜谞爪诇转讬 谞讗诪谞转 讛转诐 讻讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗砖讛 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞讛 注诇讬讛

Come and hear a proof from another baraita. If a woman comes and says: A group of gentiles attacked us, or: A group of bandits attacked us, and she adds: My husband died and I was saved, she is deemed credible. This indicates that her testimony is accepted due to the argument of: Why should she lie? The Gemara rejects this proof. There, in that baraita, her testimony is accepted because it stands to reason that she is speaking the truth, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Idi. As Rav Idi said: With regard to a woman, her weapons are upon her. In other words, a woman is generally not killed by thieves, because the very fact of her being a woman protects her. They would most likely rape her and not kill her. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that she is speaking the truth.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讘砖讬诇讛讬 讛诇讜诇讬讛 讗讬转诇讬 谞讜专讗 讘讬 讙谞谞讬 讗诪专讛 诇讛讜 讚讘讬转讛讜 讞讝讜 讙讘专讗讬 讞讝讜 讙讘专讗讬 讗转讜 讞讝讜 讙讘专讗 讞专讜讻讗 讚砖讚讬 讜驻住转讗 讚讬讚讗 讚砖讚讬讗

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who got married. At the end of his wedding a fire broke out in the bridal chamber, where the bride and groom were standing, during the ceremony. His wife screamed and said to them: Look at my husband, look at my husband! They went and saw an unrecognizable burnt man fallen down, and a palm of a hand lying there.

住讘专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 注讬砖讬谞讜 注诇讬谞讜 讘讬转 注讬砖讬谞讜 注诇讬谞讜 诪注专讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗诪专讛 讞讝讜 讙讘专讗讬 讞讝讜 讙讘专讗讬 讜注讜讚 讙讘专讗 讞专讜讻讗 讚砖讚讬 讜驻住转讗 讚讬讚讗 讚砖讚讬讗

Rav 岣yya bar Avin thought to say: This is the same as the case of: They set our house on fire and the house became filled with smoke, or: They set our cave on fire to smoke us out, i.e., we cannot rely on her claim that her husband died. Rava said: Is this case comparable to those? There she did not say: Look at my husband, look at my husband. And furthermore, there is another difference: Here, there is a burnt man who has fallen down and a palm that is lying there. In other words, her statement is substantiated by facts.

讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讙讘专讗 讞专讜讻讗 讚砖讚讬讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗转讗 诇讗爪讜诇讬 讜讗讻讬诇转讬讛 谞讜专讗 讜驻住转讗 讚讬讚讗 讚砖讚讬讗 谞讜专讗 讗讬转诇讬讗 讜讗转讬诇讬讚 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讜诪讞诪转 讻讬住讜驻讗 讗讝诇 讜注专拽 诇注诇诪讗

And why didn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya bar Avin accept her testimony? In his opinion, a burnt man who has fallen down is not conclusive proof, as one might still say: Perhaps another person came to the rescue and the fire burned him. And as for the palm lying there, perhaps the fire burned him and caused a deformity through which he lost his hand, and due to his embarrassment he went and ran away to somewhere else in the world, but he is still alive. Consequently, Rav 岣yya bar Avin did not want to rely upon the testimony of the wife.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 讗讞讚 讘诪诇讞诪讛 诪讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚注讚 讗讞讚 诪讛讬诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪砖拽专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪砖拽专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚注讚 讗讞讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 讜讛讻讗 [讻讬讜谉 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚住谞讬讗 诇讬讛] 诇讗 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗

A dilemma was raised before them: In the case of one witness who testifies to the death of someone during a war, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: The reason that one witness is deemed credible when he provides testimony concerning the death of a husband is because the husband being alive is a matter that is likely to be revealed, and one would not lie in a case of this kind. Here, too, one witness would not lie. Or perhaps the reason that one witness is trusted is because his account is supported by the fact that she herself is exacting in her investigation before she marries again. And here, since sometimes she hates him, and war is a situation that requires especially careful investigation and it is tempting for her to rely on the witness, she is not exacting in her investigation before she marries again, and therefore the testimony of one witness is not accepted.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻砖讬专讚转讬 诇谞讛专讚注讗 诇注讘专 讛砖谞讛 诪爪讗转讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬砖 讘讬转 讚诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬 砖诪注转讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讜谞诪转讬 诇讜 讻谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬 讗诪讜专 诇讛诐 诪砖诪讬 讗转诐 讬讜讚注讬诐 讛诪讚讬谞讛 讛讝讜 诪砖讜讘砖转 讘讙讬讬住讜转 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖诪砖讬讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚

Rami bar 岣ma said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma. Rabbi Akiva said: When I descended to Neharde鈥檃 in Babylonia to intercalate the year, I found there the Sage Ne岣mya of Beit D鈥檒i, and he said to me: I heard that the Sages do not allow a woman to marry in Eretz Yisrael based on the testimony of one witness, apart from Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, as the other Sages are reluctant to rely on his opinion. And I said [namti] to him: This is so. He said to me: Say to them in my name: Do you know that this country is riddled with troops? This is the tradition that I received from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, that the Sages do allow a woman to marry based on one witness.

诪讗讬 诪讚讬谞讛 诪砖讜讘砖转 讘讙讬讬住讜转 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 诪砖讜讘砖转 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 砖诪砖讬讗讬谉 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗诇诪讗 注讚 讗讞讚 诪讛讬诪谉

The Gemara analyzes this baraita in relation to the issue at hand. What is the significance of his comment that this country is riddled with troops? Isn鈥檛 he saying: Even though this country is riddled with troops, this is the tradition that I received, that the Sages do allow a woman to marry based on one witness, notwithstanding the war. Apparently, one witness is deemed credible in the case of a missing husband during a time of war.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讙讬讬住讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗转诐 讬讜讚注讬诐 砖诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 诪砖讜讘砖转 讘讙讬讬住讜转 讜诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬 诇诪砖讘拽 讗讬谞砖讬 讘讬转讬 讜诪讬讬转讬 拽诪讬 专讘谞谉 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖诪砖讬讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚

Rava said: If this is how you interpret the matter, in what way is this country different from any other? In other words, why did Ne岣mya of Beit D鈥檒i mention a particular place? He should have said: Any place where there are troops. Rather, Rava said: This is what he said: You know that this country is riddled with troops, and I cannot leave the members of my household and come before the Sages, due to the danger. Therefore, I cannot testify in person that this is the tradition that I received from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, that the Sages allow a woman to marry based on one witness. According to this interpretation, his statement has no bearing on the matter at hand.

转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 讘砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讘讗讬谉 注诐 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 住讬诪讗讬 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讟讘注讛 讜讛砖讬讗 专讘讬 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 注诇 驻讬 谞砖讬诐 讜讛讗 诪讬诐 讻诪诇讞诪讛 讚诪讜 讜谞砖讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 讻注讚 讗讞讚 讚诪讜 讜拽转谞讬 讛砖讬讗

The Gemara continues. Come and hear a baraita that relates an incident involving two Torah scholars who were coming with Abba Yosei ben Simai by boat, and that boat sank. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi allowed their wives to marry based on the testimony given by women that these men were dead. But consider: Water, i.e., the sea, is like war with respect to this halakha, as there is room in both cases for conjecture and error. And women, even one hundred of them, are considered as one witness with regard to their testimony about a husband鈥檚 death. And yet the baraita taught: He allowed them to marry, which indicates that one may rely on one witness even during a war.

讜转住讘专讗 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗诪专讬 讗住拽讬谞讛讜 拽诪谉

The Gemara rejects this proof. And how can you understand it that way? Apparently, the women testified only that the boat sank, and this is a case of an endless body of water, as the boat sank at sea in a spot from which it is impossible to see the shore. And the halakha is that if a man was on a boat that sank in an endless body of water his wife is prohibited to marry, as there is no proof that he actually drowned and didn鈥檛 emerge from the water on a different shore. Rather, one must say: What are the circumstances? That those women said: Those drowned men were brought up before us

讜讞讝讬谞讛讜 诇讗诇转专 讜拽讗诪专讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 住诪讻讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗住讬诪谞讬诐

and we saw them immediately when they came out of the water, and the women stated distinguishing marks that identified these people. As, in this case we do not rely upon the women, but upon the distinguishing marks.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇转讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 讻谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讬讬谉 讜讘讞讘讬转讗 专诪讬讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬讚讱 砖拽诇转讬谞讛讜 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who deposited sesame plants with his friend. Sometime later he said to him: Give me the sesame plants. The friend said to him: You already took them. The owner replied: But they were of such-and-such an amount, and placed in a barrel; go and check that barrel and you will see that I am right. The bailee said to him: You took your sesame plants, and these in the barrel at my house are other ones.

住讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讱 讗讝诇讜 诇注诇诪讗 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The case came before the Sages for a ruling. Rav 岣sda thought to say: This situation is the same as the situation involving the two Torah scholars who drowned, when they used distinguishing marks to identify them. And we do not say in that case: Those men went elsewhere in the world, and these men who floated up are different people. Here too one may rely upon the distinguishing marks of the sesame plants given by the owner, and there is no reason to think that these sesame plants are different ones.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 拽讗诪专讬 住讬诪谞讬诐 讛讻讗 砖讜诪砖诪讬 诪讗讬 住讬诪谞讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讜讚拽讗诪专 讻谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讬讬谉 讗讬诪专 讞讜砖讘谞讗 讗讬转专诪讬

Rava said to Rav 岣sda: Is it comparable? There they said distinguishing marks that identified the victims. Here, in the case of sesame plants, what distinguishing marks might they have, by which they could be identified? And as for that which he said: They were of such-and-such an amount, one can say it happened by chance that this second time it was the same amount, and there is no proof that these are the same sesame plants.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 驻讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讜讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 拽讜祝 拽专讘谉 诪诐 诪注砖专 讚诇转 讚诪讜注 讟讬转 讟讘诇 转讬讜 转专讜诪讛 砖讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 转讬讜 转讞转 转专讜诪讛

With regard to the same issue, Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: And are we concerned that perhaps the one guarding the plants moved them from their place? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 4:11): If one found a vessel on which the letter kuf was written, all objects inside the vessel are designated for a korban, an offering; if the letter mem was written on it, it is ma鈥檃ser, tithes; if it was the letter dalet, it is dimua, a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce; if tet, it signifies tevel, untithed produce; and finally, if it is a tav, it indicates teruma. As during a time of danger, i.e., religious persecution against Jews, they would write, for example, tav instead of teruma. In this case, no concern is expressed that someone might have moved the teruma from that vessel to somewhere else.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 驻讬谞谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗 讞讘讬转 讜讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖转拽讚 讛讜讛 诪诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讜驻讬谞讛

In response to this claim, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And aren鈥檛 we concerned that perhaps someone moved the teruma from their place? Say the latter clause of that same mishna Rabbi Yosei says: Even if one found a barrel on which the full word teruma was written, these contents are non-sacred. As I say: Last year it was full of teruma, and someone removed the contents and replaced them with non-sacred produce. This proves that the possibility that someone moved the original contents is taken into consideration.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 驻讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻讬谞讛讜 诪讬讻驻专 讛讜讛 讻驻专 讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬诪专 讗讬砖转诇讜讬讬 讗讬砖转诇讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇驻谞讞讬讗 砖讘拽讬讛

Rather, say as follows: Everyone agrees that we are concerned that perhaps someone moved the contents of a container from their place, and here, with regard to the marked vessels, they disagree about this issue: The Sage who claims that one may rely on the inscription holds that if it is so, that he moved the teruma, he would have erased the inscription. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, responds that one can say he forgot to do so. Alternatively, he left the label to preserve [pana岣a] the contents, so that people would mistakenly think that it contained teruma and would refrain from taking the produce.

讬爪讞拽 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘专 讗讞转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 诪拽讜专讟讘讗 诇讗住驻诪讬讗 讜砖讻讬讘 砖诇讞讜 诪讛转诐 讬爪讞拽 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘专 讗讞转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 诪拽讜专讟讘讗 诇讗住驻诪讬讗 讜砖讻讬讘 诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇转专讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜 诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

搂 The Gemara relates a story that deals with the permission of a woman to remarry. Yitz岣k the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, was walking from Cortva to Spain and died along the way. They sent this message from Spain: Yitz岣k the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, was walking from Cortva to Spain and died. The Gemara asks: Are we concerned about the possibility of two men named Yitz岣k or not? Perhaps there is someone else with the same name, and therefore the mention of his name is not a sufficiently distinguishing mark. Abaye said: We are concerned about this possibility. Rava said: We are not concerned.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讻转讬讘 讘爪讚 拽诇讜谞讬讗 诪转讗 讗谞讗 讗谞讚专讜诇讬谞讗讬 谞讛专讚注讗 驻讟专讬转 讜转专讻讬转 讬转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讗谞转转讬 讜砖诇讞讛 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讜砖诇讞 诇讬讛 转讬讘讚拽 谞讛专讚注讗 讻讜诇讛

Abaye said: From where do I say my reasoning that there might be another man with the same name? As a certain bill of divorce was found in the city of Neharde鈥檃, and this passage was written on it: On the colonial [kelonya] side of the city, I, Androlinai of Neharde鈥檃, excused, sent away, and divorced my wife so-and-so. Androlinai鈥檚 wife requested permission to remarry based on this bill of divorce, but they did not know if he was the man who gave the divorce or if it was given by another man of the same name. And the father of Shmuel sent this question before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia in Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent a message to him: All of Neharde鈥檃 must be examined, to see whether there is another man by that name. This shows that one must be concerned that there might be two people with the same name.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讬讘讚拽 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚砖诇讞 讛讻讬

And Rava said: This story provides no proof. If it is so, that there were grounds to suspect that someone else of the same name wrote the bill of divorce, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia should have said: The entire world must be examined, in case there is someone else with the same name somewhere. Since he did not say this, evidently there was no legitimate reason for this suspicion at all. Why, then, did Rabbi Yehuda Nesia send instructions to examine all of Neharde鈥檃? Rather, Rava added, it was due to respect for the father of Shmuel that he sent this message. He did not want to write explicitly that Shmuel鈥檚 father had inquired unnecessarily, and therefore he wrote his reply in a manner which indicated his partial agreement with the concern.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讛谞讛讜 转专讬 砖讟专讬 讚谞驻拽讬 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讞讘讬 讘专 谞谞讗讬 讜谞谞讗讬 讘专 讞讘讬 讜讗讙讘讬 讘讛讜 专讘讗 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讛讗 讞讘讬 讘专 谞谞讗讬 讜谞谞讗讬 讘专 讞讘讬 讘诪讞讜讝讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讟讜讘讗 讜讗讘讬讬

Rava said: From where do I say my reasoning that we are not concerned about two people with identical names? As there were two promissory notes produced in Me岣za, and these names of the creditors were written on them: 岣vai bar Nanai and Nanai bar 岣vai, and Rava bar Avuh collected dinars for them with these promissory notes, without concerning himself with the possibility that they might be referring to other people. And the names 岣vai bar Nanai and Nanai bar 岣vai are very common in Me岣za, i.e., there are certainly other people with these names, and yet he was not worried about this matter. The Gemara asks: And Abaye, how does he answer this proof?

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Yevamot 115: The Drama of a Sesame Plant

Cases that make the mishnah of the previous daf tangible and practical, including the case of immolation (apparently) of a...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

One witness – Credible – Gefet 38

https://youtu.be/FtUvHY-m6Bk
yehuda ben bava

Flying Letters

Disaster strikes. A couple is separated. The woman makes her way home from a foreign country alone. But when she...

Yevamot 115

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 115

讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专讛 砖诇讜诐 讘注讜诇诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讞讝拽讛 讗诪专讛 讘讚讚诪讬 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讜诪专注 讞讝拽转讬讛

Because if she wanted to lie she would have said: There was peace in the world, and the court would have accepted her testimony. Or perhaps it can be argued: Since she has maintained that there was a war and this claim of hers has already been accepted, with regard to her report concerning her husband, she will say what she imagines to be the case, and the argument of: Why would I lie, does not come and undermine the established presumption that there was a war.

转讗 砖诪注 注讬砖讬谞讜 注诇讬谞讜 讘讬转 注讬砖讬谞讜 注诇讬谞讜 诪注专讛 讛讜讗 诪转 讜讗谞讬 谞爪诇转讬 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讚讬讚讱 讗讬转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗

The Gemara cites a baraita in an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Come and hear: It was taught that if a woman comes and says: They set our house on fire and the house became filled with smoke, or: They set our cave on fire to smoke us out, and she adds: My husband died and I was saved, she is not deemed credible. In this case, she herself related the entire story, and even so her version of events is not accepted. The Gemara answers that this is no proof. There, in the case of the fire, it is different, as one says to her: Just as a miracle occurred for you and you were saved, likewise a miracle might have occurred for your husband and he too survived.

转讗 砖诪注 谞驻诇讜 注诇讬谞讜 讙讜讬诐 谞驻诇讜 注诇讬谞讜 诇讬住讟讬诐 讛讜讗 诪转 讜谞爪诇转讬 谞讗诪谞转 讛转诐 讻讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗砖讛 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞讛 注诇讬讛

Come and hear a proof from another baraita. If a woman comes and says: A group of gentiles attacked us, or: A group of bandits attacked us, and she adds: My husband died and I was saved, she is deemed credible. This indicates that her testimony is accepted due to the argument of: Why should she lie? The Gemara rejects this proof. There, in that baraita, her testimony is accepted because it stands to reason that she is speaking the truth, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Idi. As Rav Idi said: With regard to a woman, her weapons are upon her. In other words, a woman is generally not killed by thieves, because the very fact of her being a woman protects her. They would most likely rape her and not kill her. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that she is speaking the truth.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讘砖讬诇讛讬 讛诇讜诇讬讛 讗讬转诇讬 谞讜专讗 讘讬 讙谞谞讬 讗诪专讛 诇讛讜 讚讘讬转讛讜 讞讝讜 讙讘专讗讬 讞讝讜 讙讘专讗讬 讗转讜 讞讝讜 讙讘专讗 讞专讜讻讗 讚砖讚讬 讜驻住转讗 讚讬讚讗 讚砖讚讬讗

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who got married. At the end of his wedding a fire broke out in the bridal chamber, where the bride and groom were standing, during the ceremony. His wife screamed and said to them: Look at my husband, look at my husband! They went and saw an unrecognizable burnt man fallen down, and a palm of a hand lying there.

住讘专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 注讬砖讬谞讜 注诇讬谞讜 讘讬转 注讬砖讬谞讜 注诇讬谞讜 诪注专讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗诪专讛 讞讝讜 讙讘专讗讬 讞讝讜 讙讘专讗讬 讜注讜讚 讙讘专讗 讞专讜讻讗 讚砖讚讬 讜驻住转讗 讚讬讚讗 讚砖讚讬讗

Rav 岣yya bar Avin thought to say: This is the same as the case of: They set our house on fire and the house became filled with smoke, or: They set our cave on fire to smoke us out, i.e., we cannot rely on her claim that her husband died. Rava said: Is this case comparable to those? There she did not say: Look at my husband, look at my husband. And furthermore, there is another difference: Here, there is a burnt man who has fallen down and a palm that is lying there. In other words, her statement is substantiated by facts.

讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讙讘专讗 讞专讜讻讗 讚砖讚讬讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗转讗 诇讗爪讜诇讬 讜讗讻讬诇转讬讛 谞讜专讗 讜驻住转讗 讚讬讚讗 讚砖讚讬讗 谞讜专讗 讗讬转诇讬讗 讜讗转讬诇讬讚 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讜诪讞诪转 讻讬住讜驻讗 讗讝诇 讜注专拽 诇注诇诪讗

And why didn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya bar Avin accept her testimony? In his opinion, a burnt man who has fallen down is not conclusive proof, as one might still say: Perhaps another person came to the rescue and the fire burned him. And as for the palm lying there, perhaps the fire burned him and caused a deformity through which he lost his hand, and due to his embarrassment he went and ran away to somewhere else in the world, but he is still alive. Consequently, Rav 岣yya bar Avin did not want to rely upon the testimony of the wife.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 讗讞讚 讘诪诇讞诪讛 诪讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚注讚 讗讞讚 诪讛讬诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪砖拽专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪砖拽专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚注讚 讗讞讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 讜讛讻讗 [讻讬讜谉 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚住谞讬讗 诇讬讛] 诇讗 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗

A dilemma was raised before them: In the case of one witness who testifies to the death of someone during a war, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: The reason that one witness is deemed credible when he provides testimony concerning the death of a husband is because the husband being alive is a matter that is likely to be revealed, and one would not lie in a case of this kind. Here, too, one witness would not lie. Or perhaps the reason that one witness is trusted is because his account is supported by the fact that she herself is exacting in her investigation before she marries again. And here, since sometimes she hates him, and war is a situation that requires especially careful investigation and it is tempting for her to rely on the witness, she is not exacting in her investigation before she marries again, and therefore the testimony of one witness is not accepted.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻砖讬专讚转讬 诇谞讛专讚注讗 诇注讘专 讛砖谞讛 诪爪讗转讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬砖 讘讬转 讚诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬 砖诪注转讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讜谞诪转讬 诇讜 讻谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬 讗诪讜专 诇讛诐 诪砖诪讬 讗转诐 讬讜讚注讬诐 讛诪讚讬谞讛 讛讝讜 诪砖讜讘砖转 讘讙讬讬住讜转 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖诪砖讬讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚

Rami bar 岣ma said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma. Rabbi Akiva said: When I descended to Neharde鈥檃 in Babylonia to intercalate the year, I found there the Sage Ne岣mya of Beit D鈥檒i, and he said to me: I heard that the Sages do not allow a woman to marry in Eretz Yisrael based on the testimony of one witness, apart from Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, as the other Sages are reluctant to rely on his opinion. And I said [namti] to him: This is so. He said to me: Say to them in my name: Do you know that this country is riddled with troops? This is the tradition that I received from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, that the Sages do allow a woman to marry based on one witness.

诪讗讬 诪讚讬谞讛 诪砖讜讘砖转 讘讙讬讬住讜转 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 诪砖讜讘砖转 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 砖诪砖讬讗讬谉 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗诇诪讗 注讚 讗讞讚 诪讛讬诪谉

The Gemara analyzes this baraita in relation to the issue at hand. What is the significance of his comment that this country is riddled with troops? Isn鈥檛 he saying: Even though this country is riddled with troops, this is the tradition that I received, that the Sages do allow a woman to marry based on one witness, notwithstanding the war. Apparently, one witness is deemed credible in the case of a missing husband during a time of war.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讙讬讬住讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗转诐 讬讜讚注讬诐 砖诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 诪砖讜讘砖转 讘讙讬讬住讜转 讜诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬 诇诪砖讘拽 讗讬谞砖讬 讘讬转讬 讜诪讬讬转讬 拽诪讬 专讘谞谉 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖诪砖讬讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚

Rava said: If this is how you interpret the matter, in what way is this country different from any other? In other words, why did Ne岣mya of Beit D鈥檒i mention a particular place? He should have said: Any place where there are troops. Rather, Rava said: This is what he said: You know that this country is riddled with troops, and I cannot leave the members of my household and come before the Sages, due to the danger. Therefore, I cannot testify in person that this is the tradition that I received from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, that the Sages allow a woman to marry based on one witness. According to this interpretation, his statement has no bearing on the matter at hand.

转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 讘砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讘讗讬谉 注诐 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 住讬诪讗讬 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讟讘注讛 讜讛砖讬讗 专讘讬 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 注诇 驻讬 谞砖讬诐 讜讛讗 诪讬诐 讻诪诇讞诪讛 讚诪讜 讜谞砖讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 讻注讚 讗讞讚 讚诪讜 讜拽转谞讬 讛砖讬讗

The Gemara continues. Come and hear a baraita that relates an incident involving two Torah scholars who were coming with Abba Yosei ben Simai by boat, and that boat sank. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi allowed their wives to marry based on the testimony given by women that these men were dead. But consider: Water, i.e., the sea, is like war with respect to this halakha, as there is room in both cases for conjecture and error. And women, even one hundred of them, are considered as one witness with regard to their testimony about a husband鈥檚 death. And yet the baraita taught: He allowed them to marry, which indicates that one may rely on one witness even during a war.

讜转住讘专讗 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗诪专讬 讗住拽讬谞讛讜 拽诪谉

The Gemara rejects this proof. And how can you understand it that way? Apparently, the women testified only that the boat sank, and this is a case of an endless body of water, as the boat sank at sea in a spot from which it is impossible to see the shore. And the halakha is that if a man was on a boat that sank in an endless body of water his wife is prohibited to marry, as there is no proof that he actually drowned and didn鈥檛 emerge from the water on a different shore. Rather, one must say: What are the circumstances? That those women said: Those drowned men were brought up before us

讜讞讝讬谞讛讜 诇讗诇转专 讜拽讗诪专讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 住诪讻讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗住讬诪谞讬诐

and we saw them immediately when they came out of the water, and the women stated distinguishing marks that identified these people. As, in this case we do not rely upon the women, but upon the distinguishing marks.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇转讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 讻谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讬讬谉 讜讘讞讘讬转讗 专诪讬讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬讚讱 砖拽诇转讬谞讛讜 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who deposited sesame plants with his friend. Sometime later he said to him: Give me the sesame plants. The friend said to him: You already took them. The owner replied: But they were of such-and-such an amount, and placed in a barrel; go and check that barrel and you will see that I am right. The bailee said to him: You took your sesame plants, and these in the barrel at my house are other ones.

住讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讱 讗讝诇讜 诇注诇诪讗 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The case came before the Sages for a ruling. Rav 岣sda thought to say: This situation is the same as the situation involving the two Torah scholars who drowned, when they used distinguishing marks to identify them. And we do not say in that case: Those men went elsewhere in the world, and these men who floated up are different people. Here too one may rely upon the distinguishing marks of the sesame plants given by the owner, and there is no reason to think that these sesame plants are different ones.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 拽讗诪专讬 住讬诪谞讬诐 讛讻讗 砖讜诪砖诪讬 诪讗讬 住讬诪谞讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讜讚拽讗诪专 讻谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讬讬谉 讗讬诪专 讞讜砖讘谞讗 讗讬转专诪讬

Rava said to Rav 岣sda: Is it comparable? There they said distinguishing marks that identified the victims. Here, in the case of sesame plants, what distinguishing marks might they have, by which they could be identified? And as for that which he said: They were of such-and-such an amount, one can say it happened by chance that this second time it was the same amount, and there is no proof that these are the same sesame plants.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 驻讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讜讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 拽讜祝 拽专讘谉 诪诐 诪注砖专 讚诇转 讚诪讜注 讟讬转 讟讘诇 转讬讜 转专讜诪讛 砖讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 转讬讜 转讞转 转专讜诪讛

With regard to the same issue, Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: And are we concerned that perhaps the one guarding the plants moved them from their place? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 4:11): If one found a vessel on which the letter kuf was written, all objects inside the vessel are designated for a korban, an offering; if the letter mem was written on it, it is ma鈥檃ser, tithes; if it was the letter dalet, it is dimua, a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce; if tet, it signifies tevel, untithed produce; and finally, if it is a tav, it indicates teruma. As during a time of danger, i.e., religious persecution against Jews, they would write, for example, tav instead of teruma. In this case, no concern is expressed that someone might have moved the teruma from that vessel to somewhere else.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 驻讬谞谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗 讞讘讬转 讜讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖转拽讚 讛讜讛 诪诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讜驻讬谞讛

In response to this claim, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And aren鈥檛 we concerned that perhaps someone moved the teruma from their place? Say the latter clause of that same mishna Rabbi Yosei says: Even if one found a barrel on which the full word teruma was written, these contents are non-sacred. As I say: Last year it was full of teruma, and someone removed the contents and replaced them with non-sacred produce. This proves that the possibility that someone moved the original contents is taken into consideration.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 驻讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻讬谞讛讜 诪讬讻驻专 讛讜讛 讻驻专 讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬诪专 讗讬砖转诇讜讬讬 讗讬砖转诇讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇驻谞讞讬讗 砖讘拽讬讛

Rather, say as follows: Everyone agrees that we are concerned that perhaps someone moved the contents of a container from their place, and here, with regard to the marked vessels, they disagree about this issue: The Sage who claims that one may rely on the inscription holds that if it is so, that he moved the teruma, he would have erased the inscription. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, responds that one can say he forgot to do so. Alternatively, he left the label to preserve [pana岣a] the contents, so that people would mistakenly think that it contained teruma and would refrain from taking the produce.

讬爪讞拽 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘专 讗讞转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 诪拽讜专讟讘讗 诇讗住驻诪讬讗 讜砖讻讬讘 砖诇讞讜 诪讛转诐 讬爪讞拽 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘专 讗讞转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 诪拽讜专讟讘讗 诇讗住驻诪讬讗 讜砖讻讬讘 诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇转专讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜 诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

搂 The Gemara relates a story that deals with the permission of a woman to remarry. Yitz岣k the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, was walking from Cortva to Spain and died along the way. They sent this message from Spain: Yitz岣k the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, was walking from Cortva to Spain and died. The Gemara asks: Are we concerned about the possibility of two men named Yitz岣k or not? Perhaps there is someone else with the same name, and therefore the mention of his name is not a sufficiently distinguishing mark. Abaye said: We are concerned about this possibility. Rava said: We are not concerned.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讻转讬讘 讘爪讚 拽诇讜谞讬讗 诪转讗 讗谞讗 讗谞讚专讜诇讬谞讗讬 谞讛专讚注讗 驻讟专讬转 讜转专讻讬转 讬转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讗谞转转讬 讜砖诇讞讛 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讜砖诇讞 诇讬讛 转讬讘讚拽 谞讛专讚注讗 讻讜诇讛

Abaye said: From where do I say my reasoning that there might be another man with the same name? As a certain bill of divorce was found in the city of Neharde鈥檃, and this passage was written on it: On the colonial [kelonya] side of the city, I, Androlinai of Neharde鈥檃, excused, sent away, and divorced my wife so-and-so. Androlinai鈥檚 wife requested permission to remarry based on this bill of divorce, but they did not know if he was the man who gave the divorce or if it was given by another man of the same name. And the father of Shmuel sent this question before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia in Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent a message to him: All of Neharde鈥檃 must be examined, to see whether there is another man by that name. This shows that one must be concerned that there might be two people with the same name.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讬讘讚拽 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚砖诇讞 讛讻讬

And Rava said: This story provides no proof. If it is so, that there were grounds to suspect that someone else of the same name wrote the bill of divorce, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia should have said: The entire world must be examined, in case there is someone else with the same name somewhere. Since he did not say this, evidently there was no legitimate reason for this suspicion at all. Why, then, did Rabbi Yehuda Nesia send instructions to examine all of Neharde鈥檃? Rather, Rava added, it was due to respect for the father of Shmuel that he sent this message. He did not want to write explicitly that Shmuel鈥檚 father had inquired unnecessarily, and therefore he wrote his reply in a manner which indicated his partial agreement with the concern.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讛谞讛讜 转专讬 砖讟专讬 讚谞驻拽讬 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讞讘讬 讘专 谞谞讗讬 讜谞谞讗讬 讘专 讞讘讬 讜讗讙讘讬 讘讛讜 专讘讗 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讛讗 讞讘讬 讘专 谞谞讗讬 讜谞谞讗讬 讘专 讞讘讬 讘诪讞讜讝讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讟讜讘讗 讜讗讘讬讬

Rava said: From where do I say my reasoning that we are not concerned about two people with identical names? As there were two promissory notes produced in Me岣za, and these names of the creditors were written on them: 岣vai bar Nanai and Nanai bar 岣vai, and Rava bar Avuh collected dinars for them with these promissory notes, without concerning himself with the possibility that they might be referring to other people. And the names 岣vai bar Nanai and Nanai bar 岣vai are very common in Me岣za, i.e., there are certainly other people with these names, and yet he was not worried about this matter. The Gemara asks: And Abaye, how does he answer this proof?

Scroll To Top