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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 1, 2022 | 讘壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讘

  • 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".

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Yevamot 116

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of her granddaughter Avishag Sterman on her Bat Mitzvah!

Today’s daf is sponsored by Susannah & Bernie Goldstein in honor of their children Eliana & Benny who went back to Camp Ramah in the Poconos this week, for the summer. “We鈥檙e so proud of you! Wishing you & all the tzevet and chanichim a fun, safe, & healthy summer.

Does one need to be concerned that there are two people with the same name when accepting testimony that one has died. Rava and Abaye disagree. Rava’s proof was from a case of collecting money from a promissory note. Abaye explains why Rava’s proof is irrelevant as the cases are not comparable. A case is brought regarding a get in which both Rava and Abaye rule in an opposite manner to what they held about the case of testimony regarding death – why? It seems that Rava is concerned in a case where it is known that there are two people with the same name; when it is not known, one need not be concerned. The Mishna had stated that a woman is not believed to testify that her husband died when it is known that there was a disagreement between them. What is considered ‘a disagreement’? If they have a disagreement, is one witness believed to say he has died? Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with the rabbis and believed a woman’s testimony about her husband’s death only if she showed outward signs of mourning, such as crying, rending her garments. The rabbis explain why they think Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is incorrect. What was the case that on account of that case the rabbis realized that they needed to institute a law to accept a woman’s testimony about her own husband’s death? Based on that case, in what situations did they permit it (debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel)? There is a similar debate regarding a rabbinic decree about moving red heifer waters and ashes on a boat that was instituted after a particular event. Is that debate the same as here?

 

诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诇谞驻讬诇讛 诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专 讘讬讛 讗讬 诇驻拽讚讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪讬讛 讻砖诪讬讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬讚 讙讘讬讛

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 person鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇诪讗 诪住专 诇讬讛 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘住讜专讗 讜讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 讘住讜专讗 诪转讗 讗谞讗 注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 谞讛专讚注讗 驻讟专讬转 讜转专讻讬转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讗谞转转讬 讜讘讚拽讜 专讘谞谉 诪住讜专讗 讜注讚 谞讛专讚注讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讘专 诪注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪讞讙专讗 讚讛讜讛 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪讜专 讚讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讻讬 讗讬讻转讘 讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪讞讙专讗 讙讘谉 讛讜讛

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 岣yya of Neharde鈥檃, excused and sent away and divorced my wife, so-and-so. And the Sages examined the area from Sura to Neharde鈥檃, throughout almost all of Babylonia, and there was no other Anan bar 岣yya than the one they knew, apart from an Anan bar 岣yya of 岣gra who was in Neharde鈥檃. And yet witnesses came and said that on that day, when that bill of divorce was written: Anan bar 岣yya of 岣gra was with us in Neharde鈥檃, not in Sura.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 住讛讚讬 讚讘谞讛专讚注讗 讛讜讛 诪讗讬 讘注讗 讘住讜专讗

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 岣yya was in Neharde鈥檃; what, then, is he doing in Sura? Consequently, there is no concern that the bill of divorce was written by the Anan bar 岣yya of 岣gra.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讘讙诪诇讗 驻专讞讗 讗讝诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘拽驻讬爪讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬诇讬 诪住专

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 Neharde鈥檃 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.

讻讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诇住驻专讬 讜讻谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇住驻专讬 讻讬 讗讬转谞讻讜 讘砖讬诇讬 讻转讜讘讜 讘砖讬诇讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬诪住专谉 诪讬诇讬 讘讛讬谞讬 讜讻讬 讗讬转谞讻讜 讘讛讬谞讬 讻转讜讘讜 讘讛讬谞讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬诪住专谉 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讬诇讬

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.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬 专讘 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

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.

拽讟讟讛 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽讟讟讛 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗讜诪专转 诇讘注诇讛 讙专砖讬谞讬 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专讜 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专转 诇讘注诇讛 讙讬专砖转谞讬

搂 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.

讜诇讬讛诪谞讛 诪讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 诇讘注诇讛 讙讬专砖转谞讬 谞讗诪谞转 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪注讬讝讛 驻谞讬讛 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讛

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 isn鈥檛 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.

讘讗讜诪专转 讙讬专砖转谞讬 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜砖讗讬诇谞讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚拽讟讟讛 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖拽专讗 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讛 讘讚讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂 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 岣nina 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?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗专讙讬诇 讛讜讗 拽讟讟讛

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 讗讞讚 讘拽讟讟讛 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 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 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 诪讛讬诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬讗 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 讜讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讟讟讛 诇讗 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 转讬拽讜

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讘专讬讱 驻拽讞转 转谞砖讗 砖讜讟讛 诇讗 转谞砖讗 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 转谞砖讗

搂 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.

讛讛讬讗 讚讗转讬讗 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 诇讛 住驻讚讬 讘注诇讱 拽专注讬 诪讗谞讬讱 住转专讬 诪讝讬讬讱 讗诇驻讜讛 砖讬拽专讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讗诪专讬 转注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖专讬讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讗讛 诪谉 讛拽爪讬专 讜讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讞转 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛拽爪讬专 讜讗讞转 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讝讬转讬诐 讜讗讞转 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讘爪讬专 讜讗讞转 讛讘讗讛 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 诇讗 讚讘专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘拽爪讬专 讗诇讗 讘讛讜讜讛 讞讝专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讛讜专讜转 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 拽爪讬专 讞讟讬诐 拽爪讬专 砖注讜专讬诐 诪谞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 拽讜爪专 讘讜爪专 诪讜住拽 讙讜讚专 注讜讚专 诪谞讬谉

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?

讗诇讗 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘拽爪讬专 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讻讜诇讛讜

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.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讬专转转 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞专转 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讗 诪讬专转转 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讻讬讞讬 砖讬讬专转讗

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.

诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬诇驻讬 拽爪讬专 讞讟讬谉 讛讬讜 讜讛诇讻讜 注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇拽爪讜专 讞讟讬谉 谞砖讻讜 谞讞砖 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜诪转 讜讘讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讛讜讚讬注讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜砖诇讞讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讻讚讘专讬讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 诪转 讘注诇讬 转谞砖讗 诪转 讘注诇讬 转转讬讬讘诐

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.

谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘谞谉 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讜讬注讘讬专诐 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛

搂 The Gemara analyzes this dispute. Let us say that Rabbi 岣nanya 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.

讜诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜讬讝专拽 诇爪讚 讗讞专 讜诇讗 讬砖讬讟诐 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讬专讻讬讘诐 诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讞讘专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讜 专讙诇讬讜 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽专拽注 讗讘诇 诪注讘讬专诐 注诇 讛讙砖专 讗讞讚 讬专讚谉 讜讗讞讚 砖讗专 谞讛专讜转 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

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 岣nanya 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.

诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇

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 岣nanya ben Akiva says in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, that the decree applies only in the exact circumstances as the precedent case.

讗诪专讬 诇讱 专讘谞谉 讗谞谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗祝 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬专转转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 诪讬专转转 讘诪拽讜诐 专讞讜拽 诇讗 诪讬专转转 讛讻讗 诪讛 诇讬 讬专讚谉 诪讛 诇讬 砖讗专 谞讛专讜转

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?

专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗祝 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讛讬 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 诪讛 诇讬 诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 诪讛 诇讬 诪拽讜诐 专讞讜拽 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讚讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讘砖讗专 谞讛专讜转 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 诇讗 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉

Meanwhile, Rabbi 岣nanya 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.

诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 砖讛讬讛 诪注讘讬专 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 转讞讜讘 讘拽专拽注讬转 砖诇 住驻讬谞讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讜讬注讘讬专诐 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转谞砖讗 讜转讟讜诇 讻转讜讘转讛 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 转谞砖讗 讜诇讗 转讟讜诇 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转专转诐 注专讜讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜诇讗 谞转讬专 诪诪讜谉 讛拽诇 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪爪讬谞讜

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

  • 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".

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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

诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诇谞驻讬诇讛 诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专 讘讬讛 讗讬 诇驻拽讚讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪讬讛 讻砖诪讬讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬讚 讙讘讬讛

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 person鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇诪讗 诪住专 诇讬讛 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘住讜专讗 讜讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 讘住讜专讗 诪转讗 讗谞讗 注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 谞讛专讚注讗 驻讟专讬转 讜转专讻讬转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讗谞转转讬 讜讘讚拽讜 专讘谞谉 诪住讜专讗 讜注讚 谞讛专讚注讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讘专 诪注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪讞讙专讗 讚讛讜讛 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪讜专 讚讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讻讬 讗讬讻转讘 讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪讞讙专讗 讙讘谉 讛讜讛

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 岣yya of Neharde鈥檃, excused and sent away and divorced my wife, so-and-so. And the Sages examined the area from Sura to Neharde鈥檃, throughout almost all of Babylonia, and there was no other Anan bar 岣yya than the one they knew, apart from an Anan bar 岣yya of 岣gra who was in Neharde鈥檃. And yet witnesses came and said that on that day, when that bill of divorce was written: Anan bar 岣yya of 岣gra was with us in Neharde鈥檃, not in Sura.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 住讛讚讬 讚讘谞讛专讚注讗 讛讜讛 诪讗讬 讘注讗 讘住讜专讗

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 岣yya was in Neharde鈥檃; what, then, is he doing in Sura? Consequently, there is no concern that the bill of divorce was written by the Anan bar 岣yya of 岣gra.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讘讙诪诇讗 驻专讞讗 讗讝诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘拽驻讬爪讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬诇讬 诪住专

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 Neharde鈥檃 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.

讻讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诇住驻专讬 讜讻谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇住驻专讬 讻讬 讗讬转谞讻讜 讘砖讬诇讬 讻转讜讘讜 讘砖讬诇讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬诪住专谉 诪讬诇讬 讘讛讬谞讬 讜讻讬 讗讬转谞讻讜 讘讛讬谞讬 讻转讜讘讜 讘讛讬谞讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬诪住专谉 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讬诇讬

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.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬 专讘 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

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.

拽讟讟讛 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽讟讟讛 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗讜诪专转 诇讘注诇讛 讙专砖讬谞讬 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专讜 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专转 诇讘注诇讛 讙讬专砖转谞讬

搂 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.

讜诇讬讛诪谞讛 诪讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 诇讘注诇讛 讙讬专砖转谞讬 谞讗诪谞转 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪注讬讝讛 驻谞讬讛 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讛

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 isn鈥檛 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.

讘讗讜诪专转 讙讬专砖转谞讬 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜砖讗讬诇谞讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚拽讟讟讛 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖拽专讗 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讛 讘讚讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂 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 岣nina 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?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗专讙讬诇 讛讜讗 拽讟讟讛

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 讗讞讚 讘拽讟讟讛 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 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 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 诪讛讬诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬讗 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 讜讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讟讟讛 诇讗 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 转讬拽讜

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讘专讬讱 驻拽讞转 转谞砖讗 砖讜讟讛 诇讗 转谞砖讗 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 转谞砖讗

搂 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.

讛讛讬讗 讚讗转讬讗 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 诇讛 住驻讚讬 讘注诇讱 拽专注讬 诪讗谞讬讱 住转专讬 诪讝讬讬讱 讗诇驻讜讛 砖讬拽专讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讗诪专讬 转注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖专讬讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讗讛 诪谉 讛拽爪讬专 讜讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讞转 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛拽爪讬专 讜讗讞转 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讝讬转讬诐 讜讗讞转 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讘爪讬专 讜讗讞转 讛讘讗讛 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 诇讗 讚讘专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘拽爪讬专 讗诇讗 讘讛讜讜讛 讞讝专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讛讜专讜转 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 拽爪讬专 讞讟讬诐 拽爪讬专 砖注讜专讬诐 诪谞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 拽讜爪专 讘讜爪专 诪讜住拽 讙讜讚专 注讜讚专 诪谞讬谉

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?

讗诇讗 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘拽爪讬专 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讻讜诇讛讜

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.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讬专转转 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞专转 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讗 诪讬专转转 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讻讬讞讬 砖讬讬专转讗

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.

诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬诇驻讬 拽爪讬专 讞讟讬谉 讛讬讜 讜讛诇讻讜 注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇拽爪讜专 讞讟讬谉 谞砖讻讜 谞讞砖 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜诪转 讜讘讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讛讜讚讬注讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜砖诇讞讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讻讚讘专讬讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 诪转 讘注诇讬 转谞砖讗 诪转 讘注诇讬 转转讬讬讘诐

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.

谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘谞谉 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讜讬注讘讬专诐 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛

搂 The Gemara analyzes this dispute. Let us say that Rabbi 岣nanya 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.

讜诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜讬讝专拽 诇爪讚 讗讞专 讜诇讗 讬砖讬讟诐 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讬专讻讬讘诐 诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讞讘专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讜 专讙诇讬讜 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽专拽注 讗讘诇 诪注讘讬专诐 注诇 讛讙砖专 讗讞讚 讬专讚谉 讜讗讞讚 砖讗专 谞讛专讜转 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

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 岣nanya 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.

诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇

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 岣nanya ben Akiva says in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, that the decree applies only in the exact circumstances as the precedent case.

讗诪专讬 诇讱 专讘谞谉 讗谞谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗祝 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬专转转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 诪讬专转转 讘诪拽讜诐 专讞讜拽 诇讗 诪讬专转转 讛讻讗 诪讛 诇讬 讬专讚谉 诪讛 诇讬 砖讗专 谞讛专讜转

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?

专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗祝 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讛讬 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 诪讛 诇讬 诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 诪讛 诇讬 诪拽讜诐 专讞讜拽 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讚讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讘砖讗专 谞讛专讜转 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 诇讗 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉

Meanwhile, Rabbi 岣nanya 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.

诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 砖讛讬讛 诪注讘讬专 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 转讞讜讘 讘拽专拽注讬转 砖诇 住驻讬谞讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讜讬注讘讬专诐 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转谞砖讗 讜转讟讜诇 讻转讜讘转讛 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 转谞砖讗 讜诇讗 转讟讜诇 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转专转诐 注专讜讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜诇讗 谞转讬专 诪诪讜谉 讛拽诇 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪爪讬谞讜

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