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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 28, 2015 | ื—ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua vโ€™ Elana Malka. "ื” ื ืชืŸ ื•ื” ืœืงื—. ื™ื”ื™ ืฉื ื” ืžื‘ื•ืจืš"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima 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 116

ืœืžืื™ ื ื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืœื” ืื™ ืœื ืคื™ืœื” ืžื–ื”ืจ ื–ื”ื™ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืื™ ืœืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉืžื™ื” ื›ืฉืžื™ื” ืœื ืžืคืงื™ื“ ื’ื‘ื™ื”

With regard to what should we be concerned in the case of the promissory note? If we are concerned about the possibility of falling, i.e., that the promissory note might have dropped from this personโ€™s hand and the other one found it, the former is certainly careful with it so as not to lose it, as he knows there is someone else in the city with the same name. If we are concerned about the possibility that it was given as a deposit for safekeeping, i.e., that the actual owner might have given it to the one in possession of it, since his name is the same as the name of the bailee, the owner would not deposit his contract with him without some insurance.

ืžืื™ ืืžืจืช ื“ืœืžื ืžืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืื•ืชื™ื•ืช ื ืงื ื•ืช ื‘ืžืกื™ืจื”

If you say that perhaps the actual owner passed, i.e., transferred the promissory note to this person whose name is the same as his own, i.e., he gave or sold it to him so he may collect it for himself, in that case the one in possession is entitled to collect the money, as letters of credit are acquired through passing. There is no need for an additional act of acquisition here, which means that the promissory note belongs to the one in possession of it, despite the fact that it was not originally written for him. Consequently, no proof can be brought from this case with regard to whether or not one should be concerned about two people with identical names.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื™ื˜ื ื“ืืฉืชื›ื— ื‘ืกื•ืจื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ืกื•ืจื ืžืชื ืื ื ืขื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืคื˜ืจื™ืช ื•ืชืจื›ื™ืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ืื ืชืชื™ ื•ื‘ื“ืงื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืกื•ืจื ื•ืขื“ ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืขื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื‘ืจ ืžืขื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื—ื’ืจื ื“ื”ื•ื” ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื•ืืชื• ืกื”ื“ื™ ื•ืืžื•ืจ ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืžื ื›ื™ ืื™ื›ืชื‘ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื™ื˜ื ืขื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื—ื’ืจื ื’ื‘ืŸ ื”ื•ื”

The Gemara relates: There was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the city of Sura and the following was written in it: In the city of Sura, I, Anan bar แธคiyya of Nehardeโ€™a, excused and sent away and divorced my wife, so-and-so. And the Sages examined the area from Sura to Nehardeโ€™a, throughout almost all of Babylonia, and there was no other Anan bar แธคiyya than the one they knew, apart from an Anan bar แธคiyya of แธคagra who was in Nehardeโ€™a. And yet witnesses came and said that on that day, when that bill of divorce was written: Anan bar แธคiyya of แธคagra was with us in Nehardeโ€™a, not in Sura.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืฃ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืžื™ื ื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื“ื”ื ืงืืžืจื™ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื”ื•ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื ื‘ืกื•ืจื

Abaye said: Even according to my opinion, by which I say that generally we are concerned about the possibility of someone else with the same name, here we are not concerned. The reason is that the witnesses say the other Anan bar แธคiyya was in Nehardeโ€™a; what, then, is he doing in Sura? Consequently, there is no concern that the bill of divorce was written by the Anan bar แธคiyya of แธคagra.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืฃ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื’ืžืœื ืคืจื—ื ืื–ืœ ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืงืคื™ืฆื” ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืžืกืจ

Rava said: Even according to my opinion, in which I say that we are not concerned in general, here, when it is established that there definitely is another man by the same name, we are concerned. As for the apparently contradictory testimony, perhaps he went by a flying camel, an extremely fast means of transportation, and was able to travel from Nehardeโ€™a to Sura in one day. Alternatively, he might have arrived by a miraculous shortcut. Alternatively, he might have given verbal instructions beforehand for them to write the bill of divorce in a place where he was not physically located.

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ืœืกืคืจื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืœืกืคืจื™ ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื ื›ื• ื‘ืฉื™ืœื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื• ื‘ืฉื™ืœื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืžืกืจืŸ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื”ื™ื ื™ ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื ื›ื• ื‘ื”ื™ื ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื• ื‘ื”ื™ื ื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืžืกืจืŸ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื™

This last answer is as Rav said to the court scribes, and likewise Rav Huna said to the scribes: When you are in a place called Shili, write that the contract was written in Shili, even when the instructions are given to you in a different place called Hini. And likewise, when you are in Hini, write that it was written in Hini, even when the instructions are given to you in Shili.

ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืฉื•ืžืฉืžื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื™ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara returns to the original question: What was the conclusion that was reached about this case involving sesame plants? Do they belong to the one who deposited them, or is the claim of the bailee accepted, that he returned them and placed other sesame plants in the same barrel? Rav Yeimar said: We are not concerned that they are different plants, and Ravina said: We are concerned. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we are concerned about the possibility that the bailee replaced them with others, and we do not rely on the distinguishing marks provided by the claimant in this case.

ืงื˜ื˜ื” ื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื‘ื™ื ื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืงื˜ื˜ื” ื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื‘ื™ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื’ืจืฉื™ื ื™ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื ืžื™ ืืžืจื• ื”ื›ื™ ืืœื ื‘ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื™ืจืฉืชื ื™

ยง The mishna taught: If there was a quarrel between him and her, her testimony that her husband died is not accepted. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a quarrel between him and her? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is a case where people heard her say to her husband: Divorce me. The Gemara asks: Is this proof? All women likewise say this when they are angry; this does not prove that there was an unresolved quarrel left between them. Rather, a quarrel is when she says to her husband: You divorced me, i.e., she claims that she was actually divorced.

ื•ืœื™ื”ืžื ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื™ืจืฉืชื ื™ ื ืืžื ืช ื—ื–ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ืžืขื™ื–ื” ืคื ื™ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื”

The Gemara asks: If she said to her husband that he divorced her, let us believe her claim, in accordance with the statement of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A woman who said to her husband: You divorced me, is deemed credible. Why? There is a presumption that a woman would not dare to lie in the presence of her husband about a matter which he knows to be untrue. If so, why isnโ€™t her claim that she was divorced accepted? This would mean that there is no need for any testimony concerning his death, as the ties between them have already been severed.

ื‘ืื•ืžืจืช ื’ื™ืจืฉืชื ื™ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืฉืื™ืœื ื ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืžืขื•ืœื

The Gemara answers: In fact, a couple is considered to be quarreling when she says: You divorced me in the presence of two witnesses, so-and-so and so-and-so; and the court asked those men and they said: This matter never happened. In this case it is obvious that there was a terrible quarrel between them, but her claim that she was divorced is not accepted. Consequently, her later claim that her husband is dead is not accepted.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืงื˜ื˜ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžืฉืงืจื ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจื” ื‘ื“ื“ืžื™ ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

ยง The Gemara analyzes the ruling of the mishna itself. What is the reason that in the case of a quarrel between them the court does not accept her testimony? Rav แธคanina said: Because she lies, i.e., due to their quarrel she is likely to testify falsely that her husband died. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Because she says what she imagines to be the case. When there is peace between them, she examines the matter thoroughly to discover whether he actually died, but if there is a quarrel between them she is not so exacting, as she is pleased to be rid of him. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two explanations?

ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืืจื’ื™ืœ ื”ื•ื ืงื˜ื˜ื”

The practical difference between them is in a case where he initiated the quarrel. In this situation there is no concern that she might knowingly lie, as she loves him. However, due to the quarrel between them she might not be meticulous in her investigations.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืงื˜ื˜ื” ืžื”ื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ืœืื™ื’ืœื•ื™ื™ ืœื ืžืฉืงืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉืงืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื™ื ื“ื™ื™ืงื ื•ืžื™ื ืกื‘ื ื•ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืงื˜ื˜ื” ืœื ื“ื™ื™ืงื ื•ืžื™ื ืกื‘ื ืชื™ืงื•

ยง A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there was one witness who testified that the husband died, in a case that involved a quarrel between them, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the different sides of this dilemma: What is the reason that one witness is deemed credible? Is it because it is a matter that is likely to be revealed, and one does not lie in a case of this kind? Here too, one witness would not lie. Or perhaps the reason that one witness is deemed credible is because she herself is exacting in her investigation before she marries again. And here, since there is a quarrel between them, she is not exacting in her investigation before she marries again, despite the testimony of the witness. The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ื ื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ืš ืคืงื—ืช ืชื ืฉื ืฉื•ื˜ื” ืœื ืชื ืฉื ืืœื ืื—ืช ื–ื• ื•ืื—ืช ื–ื• ืชื ืฉื

ยง The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehuda says that a wife is never deemed credible when she testifies that her husband died, unless she came crying and her clothing was torn, while the Rabbis say she may remarry in any case. It is taught in a baraita: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: According to your statement, a crafty woman who knows how to deceive will come with torn clothes crying, and it will be permitted for her to marry. However, a foolish woman who does not know how to deceive will not be permitted to marry. Is this a fair outcome? Rather, both this woman and that woman may marry.

ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ืืชื™ื ืœื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืกืคื“ื™ ื‘ืขืœืš ืงืจืขื™ ืžืื ื™ืš ืกืชืจื™ ืžื–ื™ื™ืš ืืœืคื•ื” ืฉื™ืงืจื ืื™ื ื”ื• ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ืืžืจื™ ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื™ืฉืจื™ื”

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who came to the court of Rabbi Yehuda. The people sitting there said to her: Lament your husband, tear your clothing, unbind your hair, so that you have the appearance of a mourner, and the court will believe you. The Gemara asks: Did they instruct her to lie? The Gemara answers: They thought, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that it is permitted for her to marry in any case. However, they were concerned that Rabbi Yehuda would rule that she may not remarry if she did not display her grief, in accordance with his opinion. Therefore, they said that she should do this, so that Rabbi Yehuda would also permit her to marry, and she would avoid any complications.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืงืฆื™ืจ ื•ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืžื“ื™ื ื” ื•ื›ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื”

MISHNA: Beit Hillel say: We heard that one may accept the testimony of a woman concerning the death of her husband only when she comes from the grain harvest, and when she testified in the same country where he died, and in circumstances similar to the incident that occurred, in which a lenient ruling was issued, as will be explained.

ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื—ืช ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืงืฆื™ืจ ื•ืื—ืช ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื™ืชื™ื ื•ืื—ืช ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืฆื™ืจ ื•ืื—ืช ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืžื“ื™ื ื” ืœืžื“ื™ื ื” ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ืงืฆื™ืจ ืืœื ื‘ื”ื•ื•ื” ื—ื–ืจื• ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืœื”ื•ืจื•ืช ื›ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: The same halakha applies to a wife who comes from the grain harvest, and one who comes from the olive harvest, and also one who comes from the grape harvest, and even one who comes from one country to another country. Although the incident in question took place during the grain harvest, the Sages spoke of the grain harvest only because it was the present occurrence, i.e., that is what happened in practice, but this is no proof that she is deemed credible only when she arrived specifically from the grain harvest. The mishna comments: Beit Hillel retracted their opinion, and decided to teach in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai on this issue.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื›ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืงืฆื™ืจ ื—ื˜ื™ื ืงืฆื™ืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืงื•ืฆืจ ื‘ื•ืฆืจ ืžื•ืกืง ื’ื•ื“ืจ ืขื•ื“ืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: According to your statement that this halakha applies solely in circumstances similar to the incident that occurred, if so, I have derived only that it applies in the wheat harvest. From where do I derive that the same applies in the barley harvest? And I have derived only that it applies to one who reaps grain. From where do I derive that this halakha includes someone who harvests grapes, or harvests olives, or harvests dates, or harvests figs?

ืืœื ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืงืฆื™ืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืžื“ื™ื ื” ื•ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื•

Rather, that incident which occurred during the grain harvest, and the same is true of all these other circumstances. Here too, concerning a woman who comes from another country, and other, similar cases, the incident that occurred took place in that country, but the same is true of all these other cases.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืžื“ื™ื ื” ื“ืฉื›ื™ื—ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ืžื™ืจืชืช ืžืžื“ื™ื ื” ืœืžื“ื™ื ื” ืื—ืจืช ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื—ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ืœื ืžื™ืจืชืช ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืฉื›ื™ื—ื™ ืฉื™ื™ืจืชื

And Beit Hillel, how did they respond to this argument? In that same country, where people are commonly found moving from place to place, she is scared to lie, lest her account be contradicted. However, between one country and another country, where people are not commonly found moving back and forth, she is not scared, and therefore she might be lying when she says he died. And Beit Shammai reason: Here too caravans are found, and if he was alive the truth would eventually be revealed.

ืžืื™ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉื™ืœืคื™ ืงืฆื™ืจ ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ื•ื”ืœื›ื• ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืœืงืฆื•ืจ ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื ืฉื›ื• ื ื—ืฉ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืžืช ื•ื‘ืืช ืืฉืชื• ื•ื”ื•ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืœื—ื• ื•ืžืฆืื• ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืฉืขื” ืืžืจื• ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื™ ืชื ืฉื ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื™ ืชืชื™ื™ื‘ื

The Gemara asks: What was this incident that occurred? As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It was at the end [shilfei] of the wheat harvest, and ten people went to harvest wheat. A snake bit one of them and he died, and his wife came and told the court that her husband died. And they sent messengers, who discovered that it happened in accordance with her statement. At that time they said: The woman who says: My husband died, may marry on the basis of this testimony. Furthermore, if she says: My husband died without children, and he has a brother, she enters into levirate marriage. This is the case to which Beit Hillel referred.

ื ื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื ื™ืฉื ืื“ื ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืคืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื™ืขื‘ื™ืจื ื‘ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื”

ยง The Gemara analyzes this dispute. Let us say that Rabbi แธคananya ben Akiva and the Rabbis, who argued in this case, disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. As it is taught in a baraita: A person may not carry the waters of purification, i.e., the water containing the ashes of the red heifer for the ritual purification of one who became impure through contact with a corpse, and the ashes of purification, of the red heifer, and transport them on the Jordan River. And one may not transfer them across the river in a boat.

ื•ืœื ื™ืขืžื•ื“ ื‘ืฆื“ ื–ื” ื•ื™ื–ืจืง ืœืฆื“ ืื—ืจ ื•ืœื ื™ืฉื™ื˜ื ืขืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื™ื ื•ืœื ื™ืจื›ื™ื‘ื ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ืจื• ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืจืงืข ืื‘ืœ ืžืขื‘ื™ืจื ืขืœ ื”ื’ืฉืจ ืื—ื“ ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืืจ ื ื”ืจื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจื• ืืœื ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ื•ื›ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื”

And one may not stand on one side of the river and throw the ashes to the other side, nor float them upon the water as he crosses, nor ride with them across the river, neither on the back of an animal nor on the back of another person, as this is similar to a boat that passes over the water, unless the legs of the rider were touching the ground. However, one may transport them across the water over a bridge. This prohibition applies to both the Jordan River and all other rivers. Rabbi แธคananya ben Akiva says: They said this prohibition only with regard to the Jordan, and transporting in a boat, and in circumstances similar to the incident that occurred, when ritual impurity was found in a boat on the Jordan River.

ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ื›ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ

Let us say that the Rabbis say in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, that when a decree is enacted due to a specific case that occurred, this halakha applies to all similar circumstances. And Rabbi แธคananya ben Akiva says in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, that the decree applies only in the exact circumstances as the precedent case.

ืืžืจื™ ืœืš ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื”ืชื ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื™ืจืชืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงืจื•ื‘ ืžื™ืจืชืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืจื—ื•ืง ืœื ืžื™ืจืชืช ื”ื›ื ืžื” ืœื™ ื™ืจื“ืŸ ืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืืจ ื ื”ืจื•ืช

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. The Rabbis could say to you: We stated our ruling even in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, as there is a difference between the two cases. Beit Hillel state their opinion, that she is not deemed credible when she comes from one country to another, only in that case there, because she is scared. In a nearby place she is scared to give false testimony, as her lie can easily be discovered, whereas in a distant place she is not scared. However, here, concerning the ashes of the red heifer, what difference does it make to me if it is the Jordan River, and what difference does it make to me if it is one of the many other rivers?

ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœืš ืื ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืฃ ืœื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ืชื ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื”ื™ ื“ื™ื™ืงื ื•ืžื™ื ืกื‘ื ืžื” ืœื™ ืžืงื•ื ืงืจื•ื‘ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžืงื•ื ืจื—ื•ืง ื”ื›ื ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื’ื–ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืืจ ื ื”ืจื•ืช ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืฉื” ืœื ื’ื–ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ

Meanwhile, Rabbi แธคananya ben Akiva could have said to you: I stated my ruling even in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as Beit Shammai state their opinion only there, because she herself is exacting in her investigation before she marries again. Since this is the decisive consideration, what difference does it make to me if the place is near, and what difference does it make to me if the place is far? Here, however, the Sages issued their decree due to a specific incident that occurred. And therefore the Sages issued their decree with regard to the Jordan River and in a boat, the circumstances in which the incident occurred. Conversely, the Sages did not issue the decree with regard to other rivers, where the incident did not occur.

ืžืื™ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื“ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืคืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ื•ื ืžืฆื ื›ื–ื™ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืžืช ืชื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ืงืจืงืขื™ืช ืฉืœ ืกืคื™ื ื” ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืฉืขื” ืืžืจื• ืœื ื™ืฉื ืื“ื ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืคืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื™ืขื‘ื™ืจื ื‘ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื”

The Gemara explains: What is this incident that occurred, involving the ashes of the red heifer? As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: An incident occurred involving a person who was transporting waters of purification and ashes of purification on the Jordan River, and in a boat, and an olive-bulk of a corpse was found stuck to the bottom of the boat, which rendered the waters and ashes ritually impure. At that time they said: A person may not carry waters of purification and ashes of purification and transport them on the Jordan River, and in a boat. Later Sages dispute whether this decree applies to similar cases, or only to the exact circumstances of this specific incident.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืชื ืฉื ื•ืชื˜ื•ืœ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืชื ืฉื ื•ืœื ืชื˜ื•ืœ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ืชืจืชื ืขืจื•ื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ื•ืœื ื ืชื™ืจ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืงืœ ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืžืฆื™ื ื•

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A woman who testifies that her husband died may marry, and take the money guaranteed in her marriage contract. Beit Hillel say: She may marry, but she may not take her marriage contract, as qualified witnesses are required for monetary matters. Beit Shammai said to them: If you have permitted a woman potentially forbidden to him, which is a relatively stringent prohibition, based merely upon her own testimony, will we not permit a monetary matter, which is more lenient, as the money can be returned and this sin does not entail such a severe punishment? Beit Hillel said to them: This is no proof, as we find

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua vโ€™ Elana Malka. "ื” ื ืชืŸ ื•ื” ืœืงื—. ื™ื”ื™ ืฉื ื” ืžื‘ื•ืจืš"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima 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 116: The Dangerous Grain Harvest

When a husband and wife have quarreled, it calls into question her testimony in the event if his death. But...

Yevamot 116

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 116

ืœืžืื™ ื ื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืœื” ืื™ ืœื ืคื™ืœื” ืžื–ื”ืจ ื–ื”ื™ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืื™ ืœืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉืžื™ื” ื›ืฉืžื™ื” ืœื ืžืคืงื™ื“ ื’ื‘ื™ื”

With regard to what should we be concerned in the case of the promissory note? If we are concerned about the possibility of falling, i.e., that the promissory note might have dropped from this personโ€™s hand and the other one found it, the former is certainly careful with it so as not to lose it, as he knows there is someone else in the city with the same name. If we are concerned about the possibility that it was given as a deposit for safekeeping, i.e., that the actual owner might have given it to the one in possession of it, since his name is the same as the name of the bailee, the owner would not deposit his contract with him without some insurance.

ืžืื™ ืืžืจืช ื“ืœืžื ืžืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืื•ืชื™ื•ืช ื ืงื ื•ืช ื‘ืžืกื™ืจื”

If you say that perhaps the actual owner passed, i.e., transferred the promissory note to this person whose name is the same as his own, i.e., he gave or sold it to him so he may collect it for himself, in that case the one in possession is entitled to collect the money, as letters of credit are acquired through passing. There is no need for an additional act of acquisition here, which means that the promissory note belongs to the one in possession of it, despite the fact that it was not originally written for him. Consequently, no proof can be brought from this case with regard to whether or not one should be concerned about two people with identical names.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื™ื˜ื ื“ืืฉืชื›ื— ื‘ืกื•ืจื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ืกื•ืจื ืžืชื ืื ื ืขื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืคื˜ืจื™ืช ื•ืชืจื›ื™ืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ืื ืชืชื™ ื•ื‘ื“ืงื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืกื•ืจื ื•ืขื“ ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืขื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื‘ืจ ืžืขื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื—ื’ืจื ื“ื”ื•ื” ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื•ืืชื• ืกื”ื“ื™ ื•ืืžื•ืจ ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืžื ื›ื™ ืื™ื›ืชื‘ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื™ื˜ื ืขื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื—ื’ืจื ื’ื‘ืŸ ื”ื•ื”

The Gemara relates: There was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the city of Sura and the following was written in it: In the city of Sura, I, Anan bar แธคiyya of Nehardeโ€™a, excused and sent away and divorced my wife, so-and-so. And the Sages examined the area from Sura to Nehardeโ€™a, throughout almost all of Babylonia, and there was no other Anan bar แธคiyya than the one they knew, apart from an Anan bar แธคiyya of แธคagra who was in Nehardeโ€™a. And yet witnesses came and said that on that day, when that bill of divorce was written: Anan bar แธคiyya of แธคagra was with us in Nehardeโ€™a, not in Sura.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืฃ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืžื™ื ื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื“ื”ื ืงืืžืจื™ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื”ื•ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื ื‘ืกื•ืจื

Abaye said: Even according to my opinion, by which I say that generally we are concerned about the possibility of someone else with the same name, here we are not concerned. The reason is that the witnesses say the other Anan bar แธคiyya was in Nehardeโ€™a; what, then, is he doing in Sura? Consequently, there is no concern that the bill of divorce was written by the Anan bar แธคiyya of แธคagra.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืฃ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื’ืžืœื ืคืจื—ื ืื–ืœ ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืงืคื™ืฆื” ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืžืกืจ

Rava said: Even according to my opinion, in which I say that we are not concerned in general, here, when it is established that there definitely is another man by the same name, we are concerned. As for the apparently contradictory testimony, perhaps he went by a flying camel, an extremely fast means of transportation, and was able to travel from Nehardeโ€™a to Sura in one day. Alternatively, he might have arrived by a miraculous shortcut. Alternatively, he might have given verbal instructions beforehand for them to write the bill of divorce in a place where he was not physically located.

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ืœืกืคืจื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืœืกืคืจื™ ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื ื›ื• ื‘ืฉื™ืœื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื• ื‘ืฉื™ืœื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืžืกืจืŸ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื”ื™ื ื™ ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื ื›ื• ื‘ื”ื™ื ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื• ื‘ื”ื™ื ื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืžืกืจืŸ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื™

This last answer is as Rav said to the court scribes, and likewise Rav Huna said to the scribes: When you are in a place called Shili, write that the contract was written in Shili, even when the instructions are given to you in a different place called Hini. And likewise, when you are in Hini, write that it was written in Hini, even when the instructions are given to you in Shili.

ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืฉื•ืžืฉืžื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื™ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara returns to the original question: What was the conclusion that was reached about this case involving sesame plants? Do they belong to the one who deposited them, or is the claim of the bailee accepted, that he returned them and placed other sesame plants in the same barrel? Rav Yeimar said: We are not concerned that they are different plants, and Ravina said: We are concerned. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we are concerned about the possibility that the bailee replaced them with others, and we do not rely on the distinguishing marks provided by the claimant in this case.

ืงื˜ื˜ื” ื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื‘ื™ื ื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืงื˜ื˜ื” ื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื‘ื™ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื’ืจืฉื™ื ื™ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื ืžื™ ืืžืจื• ื”ื›ื™ ืืœื ื‘ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื™ืจืฉืชื ื™

ยง The mishna taught: If there was a quarrel between him and her, her testimony that her husband died is not accepted. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a quarrel between him and her? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is a case where people heard her say to her husband: Divorce me. The Gemara asks: Is this proof? All women likewise say this when they are angry; this does not prove that there was an unresolved quarrel left between them. Rather, a quarrel is when she says to her husband: You divorced me, i.e., she claims that she was actually divorced.

ื•ืœื™ื”ืžื ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื™ืจืฉืชื ื™ ื ืืžื ืช ื—ื–ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ืžืขื™ื–ื” ืคื ื™ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื”

The Gemara asks: If she said to her husband that he divorced her, let us believe her claim, in accordance with the statement of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A woman who said to her husband: You divorced me, is deemed credible. Why? There is a presumption that a woman would not dare to lie in the presence of her husband about a matter which he knows to be untrue. If so, why isnโ€™t her claim that she was divorced accepted? This would mean that there is no need for any testimony concerning his death, as the ties between them have already been severed.

ื‘ืื•ืžืจืช ื’ื™ืจืฉืชื ื™ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืฉืื™ืœื ื ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืžืขื•ืœื

The Gemara answers: In fact, a couple is considered to be quarreling when she says: You divorced me in the presence of two witnesses, so-and-so and so-and-so; and the court asked those men and they said: This matter never happened. In this case it is obvious that there was a terrible quarrel between them, but her claim that she was divorced is not accepted. Consequently, her later claim that her husband is dead is not accepted.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืงื˜ื˜ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžืฉืงืจื ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจื” ื‘ื“ื“ืžื™ ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

ยง The Gemara analyzes the ruling of the mishna itself. What is the reason that in the case of a quarrel between them the court does not accept her testimony? Rav แธคanina said: Because she lies, i.e., due to their quarrel she is likely to testify falsely that her husband died. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Because she says what she imagines to be the case. When there is peace between them, she examines the matter thoroughly to discover whether he actually died, but if there is a quarrel between them she is not so exacting, as she is pleased to be rid of him. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two explanations?

ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืืจื’ื™ืœ ื”ื•ื ืงื˜ื˜ื”

The practical difference between them is in a case where he initiated the quarrel. In this situation there is no concern that she might knowingly lie, as she loves him. However, due to the quarrel between them she might not be meticulous in her investigations.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืงื˜ื˜ื” ืžื”ื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ืœืื™ื’ืœื•ื™ื™ ืœื ืžืฉืงืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉืงืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื™ื ื“ื™ื™ืงื ื•ืžื™ื ืกื‘ื ื•ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืงื˜ื˜ื” ืœื ื“ื™ื™ืงื ื•ืžื™ื ืกื‘ื ืชื™ืงื•

ยง A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there was one witness who testified that the husband died, in a case that involved a quarrel between them, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the different sides of this dilemma: What is the reason that one witness is deemed credible? Is it because it is a matter that is likely to be revealed, and one does not lie in a case of this kind? Here too, one witness would not lie. Or perhaps the reason that one witness is deemed credible is because she herself is exacting in her investigation before she marries again. And here, since there is a quarrel between them, she is not exacting in her investigation before she marries again, despite the testimony of the witness. The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ื ื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ืš ืคืงื—ืช ืชื ืฉื ืฉื•ื˜ื” ืœื ืชื ืฉื ืืœื ืื—ืช ื–ื• ื•ืื—ืช ื–ื• ืชื ืฉื

ยง The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehuda says that a wife is never deemed credible when she testifies that her husband died, unless she came crying and her clothing was torn, while the Rabbis say she may remarry in any case. It is taught in a baraita: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: According to your statement, a crafty woman who knows how to deceive will come with torn clothes crying, and it will be permitted for her to marry. However, a foolish woman who does not know how to deceive will not be permitted to marry. Is this a fair outcome? Rather, both this woman and that woman may marry.

ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ืืชื™ื ืœื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืกืคื“ื™ ื‘ืขืœืš ืงืจืขื™ ืžืื ื™ืš ืกืชืจื™ ืžื–ื™ื™ืš ืืœืคื•ื” ืฉื™ืงืจื ืื™ื ื”ื• ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ืืžืจื™ ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื™ืฉืจื™ื”

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who came to the court of Rabbi Yehuda. The people sitting there said to her: Lament your husband, tear your clothing, unbind your hair, so that you have the appearance of a mourner, and the court will believe you. The Gemara asks: Did they instruct her to lie? The Gemara answers: They thought, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that it is permitted for her to marry in any case. However, they were concerned that Rabbi Yehuda would rule that she may not remarry if she did not display her grief, in accordance with his opinion. Therefore, they said that she should do this, so that Rabbi Yehuda would also permit her to marry, and she would avoid any complications.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืงืฆื™ืจ ื•ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืžื“ื™ื ื” ื•ื›ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื”

MISHNA: Beit Hillel say: We heard that one may accept the testimony of a woman concerning the death of her husband only when she comes from the grain harvest, and when she testified in the same country where he died, and in circumstances similar to the incident that occurred, in which a lenient ruling was issued, as will be explained.

ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื—ืช ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืงืฆื™ืจ ื•ืื—ืช ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื™ืชื™ื ื•ืื—ืช ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืฆื™ืจ ื•ืื—ืช ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืžื“ื™ื ื” ืœืžื“ื™ื ื” ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ืงืฆื™ืจ ืืœื ื‘ื”ื•ื•ื” ื—ื–ืจื• ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืœื”ื•ืจื•ืช ื›ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: The same halakha applies to a wife who comes from the grain harvest, and one who comes from the olive harvest, and also one who comes from the grape harvest, and even one who comes from one country to another country. Although the incident in question took place during the grain harvest, the Sages spoke of the grain harvest only because it was the present occurrence, i.e., that is what happened in practice, but this is no proof that she is deemed credible only when she arrived specifically from the grain harvest. The mishna comments: Beit Hillel retracted their opinion, and decided to teach in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai on this issue.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื›ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืงืฆื™ืจ ื—ื˜ื™ื ืงืฆื™ืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืงื•ืฆืจ ื‘ื•ืฆืจ ืžื•ืกืง ื’ื•ื“ืจ ืขื•ื“ืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: According to your statement that this halakha applies solely in circumstances similar to the incident that occurred, if so, I have derived only that it applies in the wheat harvest. From where do I derive that the same applies in the barley harvest? And I have derived only that it applies to one who reaps grain. From where do I derive that this halakha includes someone who harvests grapes, or harvests olives, or harvests dates, or harvests figs?

ืืœื ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืงืฆื™ืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืžื“ื™ื ื” ื•ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื•

Rather, that incident which occurred during the grain harvest, and the same is true of all these other circumstances. Here too, concerning a woman who comes from another country, and other, similar cases, the incident that occurred took place in that country, but the same is true of all these other cases.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืžื“ื™ื ื” ื“ืฉื›ื™ื—ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ืžื™ืจืชืช ืžืžื“ื™ื ื” ืœืžื“ื™ื ื” ืื—ืจืช ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื—ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ืœื ืžื™ืจืชืช ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืฉื›ื™ื—ื™ ืฉื™ื™ืจืชื

And Beit Hillel, how did they respond to this argument? In that same country, where people are commonly found moving from place to place, she is scared to lie, lest her account be contradicted. However, between one country and another country, where people are not commonly found moving back and forth, she is not scared, and therefore she might be lying when she says he died. And Beit Shammai reason: Here too caravans are found, and if he was alive the truth would eventually be revealed.

ืžืื™ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉื™ืœืคื™ ืงืฆื™ืจ ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ื•ื”ืœื›ื• ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืœืงืฆื•ืจ ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื ืฉื›ื• ื ื—ืฉ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืžืช ื•ื‘ืืช ืืฉืชื• ื•ื”ื•ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืœื—ื• ื•ืžืฆืื• ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืฉืขื” ืืžืจื• ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื™ ืชื ืฉื ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื™ ืชืชื™ื™ื‘ื

The Gemara asks: What was this incident that occurred? As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It was at the end [shilfei] of the wheat harvest, and ten people went to harvest wheat. A snake bit one of them and he died, and his wife came and told the court that her husband died. And they sent messengers, who discovered that it happened in accordance with her statement. At that time they said: The woman who says: My husband died, may marry on the basis of this testimony. Furthermore, if she says: My husband died without children, and he has a brother, she enters into levirate marriage. This is the case to which Beit Hillel referred.

ื ื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื ื™ืฉื ืื“ื ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืคืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื™ืขื‘ื™ืจื ื‘ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื”

ยง The Gemara analyzes this dispute. Let us say that Rabbi แธคananya ben Akiva and the Rabbis, who argued in this case, disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. As it is taught in a baraita: A person may not carry the waters of purification, i.e., the water containing the ashes of the red heifer for the ritual purification of one who became impure through contact with a corpse, and the ashes of purification, of the red heifer, and transport them on the Jordan River. And one may not transfer them across the river in a boat.

ื•ืœื ื™ืขืžื•ื“ ื‘ืฆื“ ื–ื” ื•ื™ื–ืจืง ืœืฆื“ ืื—ืจ ื•ืœื ื™ืฉื™ื˜ื ืขืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื™ื ื•ืœื ื™ืจื›ื™ื‘ื ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ืจื• ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืจืงืข ืื‘ืœ ืžืขื‘ื™ืจื ืขืœ ื”ื’ืฉืจ ืื—ื“ ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืืจ ื ื”ืจื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจื• ืืœื ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ื•ื›ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื”

And one may not stand on one side of the river and throw the ashes to the other side, nor float them upon the water as he crosses, nor ride with them across the river, neither on the back of an animal nor on the back of another person, as this is similar to a boat that passes over the water, unless the legs of the rider were touching the ground. However, one may transport them across the water over a bridge. This prohibition applies to both the Jordan River and all other rivers. Rabbi แธคananya ben Akiva says: They said this prohibition only with regard to the Jordan, and transporting in a boat, and in circumstances similar to the incident that occurred, when ritual impurity was found in a boat on the Jordan River.

ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ื›ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ

Let us say that the Rabbis say in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, that when a decree is enacted due to a specific case that occurred, this halakha applies to all similar circumstances. And Rabbi แธคananya ben Akiva says in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, that the decree applies only in the exact circumstances as the precedent case.

ืืžืจื™ ืœืš ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื”ืชื ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื™ืจืชืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงืจื•ื‘ ืžื™ืจืชืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืจื—ื•ืง ืœื ืžื™ืจืชืช ื”ื›ื ืžื” ืœื™ ื™ืจื“ืŸ ืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืืจ ื ื”ืจื•ืช

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. The Rabbis could say to you: We stated our ruling even in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, as there is a difference between the two cases. Beit Hillel state their opinion, that she is not deemed credible when she comes from one country to another, only in that case there, because she is scared. In a nearby place she is scared to give false testimony, as her lie can easily be discovered, whereas in a distant place she is not scared. However, here, concerning the ashes of the red heifer, what difference does it make to me if it is the Jordan River, and what difference does it make to me if it is one of the many other rivers?

ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœืš ืื ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืฃ ืœื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ืชื ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื”ื™ ื“ื™ื™ืงื ื•ืžื™ื ืกื‘ื ืžื” ืœื™ ืžืงื•ื ืงืจื•ื‘ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžืงื•ื ืจื—ื•ืง ื”ื›ื ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื’ื–ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืืจ ื ื”ืจื•ืช ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืฉื” ืœื ื’ื–ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ

Meanwhile, Rabbi แธคananya ben Akiva could have said to you: I stated my ruling even in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as Beit Shammai state their opinion only there, because she herself is exacting in her investigation before she marries again. Since this is the decisive consideration, what difference does it make to me if the place is near, and what difference does it make to me if the place is far? Here, however, the Sages issued their decree due to a specific incident that occurred. And therefore the Sages issued their decree with regard to the Jordan River and in a boat, the circumstances in which the incident occurred. Conversely, the Sages did not issue the decree with regard to other rivers, where the incident did not occur.

ืžืื™ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื“ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืคืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ื•ื ืžืฆื ื›ื–ื™ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืžืช ืชื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ืงืจืงืขื™ืช ืฉืœ ืกืคื™ื ื” ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืฉืขื” ืืžืจื• ืœื ื™ืฉื ืื“ื ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืคืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื™ืขื‘ื™ืจื ื‘ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื”

The Gemara explains: What is this incident that occurred, involving the ashes of the red heifer? As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: An incident occurred involving a person who was transporting waters of purification and ashes of purification on the Jordan River, and in a boat, and an olive-bulk of a corpse was found stuck to the bottom of the boat, which rendered the waters and ashes ritually impure. At that time they said: A person may not carry waters of purification and ashes of purification and transport them on the Jordan River, and in a boat. Later Sages dispute whether this decree applies to similar cases, or only to the exact circumstances of this specific incident.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืชื ืฉื ื•ืชื˜ื•ืœ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืชื ืฉื ื•ืœื ืชื˜ื•ืœ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ืชืจืชื ืขืจื•ื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ื•ืœื ื ืชื™ืจ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืงืœ ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืžืฆื™ื ื•

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A woman who testifies that her husband died may marry, and take the money guaranteed in her marriage contract. Beit Hillel say: She may marry, but she may not take her marriage contract, as qualified witnesses are required for monetary matters. Beit Shammai said to them: If you have permitted a woman potentially forbidden to him, which is a relatively stringent prohibition, based merely upon her own testimony, will we not permit a monetary matter, which is more lenient, as the money can be returned and this sin does not entail such a severe punishment? Beit Hillel said to them: This is no proof, as we find

Scroll To Top