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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 1, 2015 | 讬状讘 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讛

  • 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)

  • 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 120

诇讗谞住讜讘讬 诇爪专讛 诪拽诪讬 讚讬讚讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 爪专讛 诪注讬讚讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讬谞住讬讘 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诇爪专讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬讗 诇讗 诪拽诇拽诇讗 谞驻砖讛 讗讬谞住讬讘 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诇爪专讛 讗讬 诇讗 讗讬谞住讬讘 诇讗 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛

The Gemara responds that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reasoning could make a practical difference with regard to allowing the rival wife to marry before the woman herself, i.e., the woman who testified that her husband died, remarries. If you say that according to Rabbi Elazar, one rival wife may testify for another, then although the woman who testified that her husband died has not married, we allow her rival wife to marry. Since the woman鈥檚 report is deemed credible with regard to herself, it is also deemed credible with regard to her rival wife. However, if you say that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reasoning is due to the presumption that she would not cause herself injury, then if she has actually married we may allow her rival wife to marry, but if she has not married, we may not allow her rival wife to marry, in case she lied in order to cause harm to her rival wife.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专讜 诇讬讘诪讬谉 讛讜转专讜 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讛讬讗 诇讗 诪拽诇拽诇讗 谞驻砖讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻讬 讗讬谞住讬讘 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛

What is the basis of Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 ruling? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution based upon the wording of the baraita itself: Rabbi Elazar says: Since they were permitted to marry the brothers-in-law, they are now permitted to marry any man. Granted, if you say that his reason is because she would not cause herself injury, this is the reason that if she has actually married, as in this case, where each woman entered into levirate marriage, we may allow her rival wife to marry.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讚爪专讛 诪注讬讚讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讬谞住讬讘 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谞住讬讘 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪拽诇拽诇讗 谞驻砖讛

But if you say the reason is because one rival wife may testify for another, then although she herself has not married, it should still be permitted for her rival wife to marry, and it would be unnecessary for Rabbi Elazar to state his opinion in a case where the women had already entered into levirate marriage. Rather, conclude from this that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reason is because she has already married, and she would not cause herself injury by marrying if her original husband had not died.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 爪专讛 诪注讬讚讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讬谞住讬讘 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谞住讬讘 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬讗 诇讗 诪拽诇拽诇讗 谞驻砖讛 讜专讘谞谉 转诪讜转 谞驻砖讬 注诐 驻诇砖转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽注讘讚讛

The Gemara rejects that and suggests that Rabbi Elazar stated his opinion to the Rabbis in accordance with their own statement, as follows: According to my own opinion, one rival wife may testify for another, and although she, herself, has not married, nevertheless we may allow her rival wife to marry. But even according to your own opinion, admit, in any event, that where she has actually married we may allow her rival wife to marry because she would not cause injury to herself. But the Rabbis, rejecting this, say that she acts upon the premise: 鈥淟et me die with the Philistines鈥 (Judges 16:30), i.e., a woman may even harm herself by remarrying while her original husband is still alive, in order to harm her rival wife by causing her to remarry as well.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗砖讛 砖讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讘讗讛 讜讗诪专讛 诪转 讘注诇讬 转谞砖讗 讜转讟讜诇 讻转讜讘转讛 讜爪专转讛 讗住讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专讛 讛讬讗 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 爪专转讛 讗讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专讛 讜谞砖讗转

The Gemara suggests another solution. Come and hear the following baraita: In the case of a woman who went with her husband to a country overseas, and who later came and said: My husband died, she is permitted to marry and collect the widow鈥檚 compensation from her marriage contract, but her rival wife is prohibited from doing so. Rabbi Elazar says: Since she is permitted to marry, her rival wife is also permitted. This indicates that Rabbi Elazar holds that the rival wife is permitted to marry because the wife who testified that her husband has died is permitted to do so, even if the latter has not actually remarried yet. The Gemara rejects this proof: Say that Rabbi Elazar means: Since she was permitted and has married.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讘讙讬讟讗 讗转讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专讛 讛讻讬 诇拽诇拽诇讗 诇爪专讛 讛讬讗 诪讬讻讜讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reason is that she would not cause herself injury, how can her rival wife be permitted to marry? Let us be concerned that perhaps she, i.e., the woman who claimed that the husband was dead, came with a bill of divorce and is therefore permitted to remarry though the husband is alive. And the fact that she says this, i.e., that her husband is dead, is intended only to injure her rival wife, who will remarry, thinking that the husband is dead, and will suffer the severe consequences of adultery.

讗讬 讚讗讬谞住讬讘 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬谞住讬讘 诇讻讛谉

The Gemara then validates this concern. If she actually married an Israelite, which is permitted for a divorced woman, then indeed one must consider the possibility that she is actually divorced and not widowed, and the rival wife is not permitted to marry. However, here we are dealing with a case where she married a priest, who is prohibited from marrying a divorced woman, and therefore she must actually be a widow, as she would not damage herself by entering into a forbidden marriage.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 驻专爪讜祝 驻谞讬诐 注诐 讛讞讜讟诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘讙讜驻讜 讜讘讻诇讬讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗诇讗 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讗讜讛讜 诪讙讜讬讬讚 讜爪诇讜讘 讜讛讞讬讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐

MISHNA: One may testify that a man died only if he can testify about seeing the countenance [partzuf ] of the face with the nose, as this allows one to identify the individual with certainty. Although there are distinguishing marks [simanim] on his body and his personal belongings, which appear to indicate his identity, one may not rely on these as identification. Furthermore, one may not testify that a person died until his soul actually departs. And even if one saw him cut open and severely wounded, or crucified, or with a wild animal eating parts of him, he may not testify that he died. Additionally, one may testify to someone鈥檚 death only when the body was witnessed up to three days following death and not after that, since the appearance may change due to decomposition.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛砖注讜转 砖讜讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: One cannot establish general guidelines for this matter because not every person, nor every place, nor every hour is identical. Decomposition is not uniform. It occurs at different rates in different situations.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讚讞转 讜诇讗 驻专爪讜祝 驻谞讬诐 驻专爪讜祝 驻谞讬诐 讜诇讗 驻讚讞转 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖谞讬讛诐 注诐 讛讞讜讟诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讛讻专转 驻谞讬讛诐 注谞转讛 讘诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If the witnesses saw his forehead but not the countenance of the face, or if they saw the countenance of the face but not his forehead, they may not testify that it is he, until they see both of them with the nose. Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Kahana who said: What is the verse from which it is derived that one may testify that a man died only if one sees his face? The verse is: 鈥淭he show of their face does witness against them鈥 (Isaiah 3:9), which indicates that one clearly recognizes another only upon seeing his face.

讗讘讗 讘专 诪专转讗 讚讛讜讗 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讛讜讛 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 讚讘讬 专讬砖讗 讙诇讜转讗 讝讜讝讬 讗讬讬转讬 拽讬专讗 讚讘拽 讘讘诇讬讬转讗 讚讘拽 讘讗驻讜转讬讛 讞诇祝 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 讘砖拽专讜讛

The Gemara relates that Abba bar Marta, who is also known as Abba bar Minyumi, had been loaned money by members of the Exilarch鈥檚 house. Since he did not want to be seen by these violent people, he brought wax [kira], stuck it to a strip of worn-out fabric, and stuck all of that to his forehead in order to alter his appearance. He passed before them and they did not recognize him [beshakru]. This shows how much a person鈥檚 face changes when the appearance of his forehead is altered.

讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

搂 We learned in the mishna that, although there are distinguishing marks on a dead person鈥檚 body and clothing, one may not rely on these as identification. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that distinguishing marks are not recognized as valid identification by Torah law, and while a rabbinic ordinance allows one to rely upon them to remedy certain situations, for testimony about a person鈥檚 death, the Sages require the stringencies of Torah law?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪爪讗讜 拽砖讜专 讘讻讬住 讜讘讗专谞拽讬 讜讘讟讘注转 讗讜 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 讻诇讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 讻砖专

But the Gemara raises a contradiction, based upon the following baraita: If an agent charged with delivering a bill of divorce to a woman lost it, and then he found it tied to a purse, or a money bag [arnekei], or a ring, or if it was found among his personal belongings, even after a long time, it is valid, i.e., one may rely upon the distinguishing marks on these objects to positively identify the document, and the agent may then deliver it to the woman. This indicates that distinguishing marks are sufficient to identify an object even by Torah law.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 诪讛讘讗讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讛砖讜诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 诪讛讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讬讚讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚专讘谞谉

Abaye said: This is not difficult. That baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, while this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; as it is taught in a baraita: One may not testify about a person鈥檚 identity based upon the position of a mole on his body. Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai says: One may testify based on a mole. What, is it not about this issue that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, holds that distinguishing marks are recognized as valid identification by Torah law, and one Sage, the anonymous first tanna, representing the majority of the Rabbis, holds that distinguishing marks are recognized as a means of identification only by rabbinic law and are therefore insufficient to permit a Torah prohibition?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讻讗 讘砖讜诪讗 诪爪讜讬讛 讘讘谉 讙讬诇讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖讜诪讗 诪爪讜讬讛 讘讘谉 讙讬诇讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讘讘谉 讙讬诇讜

Rava said: It is possible that everyone agrees that distinguishing marks are recognized as valid identification by Torah law, and here they are disagreeing about whether such a mole is commonly found on his peer, i.e., anyone very similar to him, which would undermine its usefulness as a means of identification. One Sage, the anonymous first tanna, holds that such a mole is commonly found on his peer and therefore is not sufficient for identification. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, holds that it is not commonly found on his peer and is therefore an unambiguous distinguishing mark sufficient for identification.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘砖讜诪讗 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇讛砖转谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛砖转谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛砖转谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

And there are those who say otherwise: Here they are disagreeing about whether a mole is likely to change in appearance and size after death. One Sage, the anonymous first tanna, holds that it is likely to change after death. It is insufficient for identification because it may have looked different when the person was alive. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, holds that it is not likely to change after death and is reliable for identification. This marks the end of one version of the discussion about this issue.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讗 讘砖讜诪讗

And there are those who say that Rava said: Everyone agrees that distinguishing marks are relied upon by rabbinic law. However, this is referring to ordinary distinguishing marks. Marks that are exceptionally unusual may be relied upon even according to Torah law. And here, in the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, it is about whether a mole

住讬诪谉 诪讜讘讛拽 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 住讬诪谉 诪讜讘讛拽 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 住讬诪谉 诪讜讘讛拽

is an unambiguous distinguishing mark that they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, holds that a mole is an unambiguous distinguishing mark and may be relied upon by Torah law. Consequently, if a man鈥檚 corpse was identified in this manner, his wife may remarry. And one Sage, the anonymous first tanna, holds that a mole is not an unambiguous distinguishing mark.

讜诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘讙讜驻讜 讜讘讻诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: According to the first version, that Rava said that distinguishing marks are recognized as valid identification by Torah law, there is a question: Isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: Although there are distinguishing marks on his body and his personal belongings, one may not rely on these as identification, implying that distinguishing marks are not valid identification by Torah law?

讙讜驻讜 讚讗专讜讱 讜讙讜抓 讻诇讬讜 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖讗诇讛 讜讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖讗诇讛 讞诪讜专 讘住讬诪谞讬 讗讜讻祝 讛讬讻讬 诪讛讚专讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: The mishna鈥檚 intent is that ordinary distinguishing marks on one鈥檚 body, which constitute only weak evidence to a person鈥檚 identity, e.g., that he was tall or short, are not valid identification. Additionally, one cannot rely upon distinguishing marks on his personal belongings, as we are concerned about borrowing, i.e., perhaps the deceased had borrowed the clothes he was wearing from someone else. The Gemara asks: But if we are concerned about borrowing, then, with regard to returning lost property, how can we return a donkey based solely upon distinguishing marks on the saddle? Why don鈥檛 we consider the possibility that the saddle was borrowed?

诇讗 砖讬讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讜讻驻讗 讚诪住拽讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讞诪专讗 诪爪讗讜 拽砖讜专 讘讻讬住 讜讘讗专谞拽讬 讜讘讟讘注转 讛讬讻讬 诪讛讚专讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: People do not normally borrow a saddle because it bruises the donkey, as the saddle must fit exactly to the donkey鈥檚 measurements. The Gemara raises further objections based upon the baraita cited earlier: If he found the lost bill of divorce tied to a purse, or a money bag, or a ring, he may rely upon the distinguishing marks on those items and deliver the bill of divorce to the woman. But how can we return it and not be concerned that these belongings may have been lent to someone else whose bill of divorce is tied to them?

讟讘注转 讞讬讬砖 诇讝讬讜驻讬 讻讬住 讜讗专谞拽讬 诪谞讞砖讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讜诇讗 诪讜砖诇讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻诇讬讜 讘讞讬讜专讬 讜住讜诪拽讬

The Gemara answers: The case of the ring is referring to a signet ring, which one does not lend, because he is concerned about forgery, i.e., that the borrower might use it to forge his consent on documents without his knowledge. With regard to a purse or a money bag, people consider it a bad omen to lend them out and do not lend them to others. And if you wish, say that the reason not to permit a woman to remarry and not to accept that her husband is dead based upon the distinguishing marks found on his personal belongings is that the distinguishing marks referred to are only general ones, e.g., he wore white or red clothing, but they are not unambiguous distinguishing marks.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讗讜讛讜 诪讙讜讬讬讚 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪讙讜讬讬讚 讞讬讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讚诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讙讜讬讬讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜住住 讟诪讜讬讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讛讗 诪讬讞讬讬讗 诇讗 讞讬讬

搂 We learned in the mishna: And even if one saw him cut open [meguyyad] and severely wounded, one may not testify that he died. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a person who is cut open is fit to live for much time afterward? The Gemara raises a contradiction from what was taught in a mishna (Oholot 1:6): A dead person renders other people and objects impure only when his soul actually departs, even if he is cut open and severely wounded, and even if he is clearly dying. From this we may deduce that he does not yet render others ritually impure, as he still has some life in him, but he is not fit to live for much time afterward.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讛诪讙讜讬讬讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讛爪诇讜讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 讛诪讙讜讬讬讚 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讻讜讜转 讜诇讞讬讜转

Abaye said: The contradiction raised is not difficult: This mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, while that mishna from tractate Oholot is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: One may testify about the death of a person who is cut open, but one may not testify about a crucified person. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even concerning a person who is cut open, one may not testify that he is dead because his wound can be scorched, and this cauterization of the wound may stop the flow of blood and allow him to survive.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诇讗讜拽讜诪讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪注砖讛 讘注住讬讗 讘讗讞讚 砖砖讬诇砖诇讜讛讜 诇讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 讘讬讚诐 讗诇讗 专讙诇讜 讜讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 转谞砖讗 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪讟讛 诇讗 转谞砖讗

The Gemara challenges this: But can you establish the mishna to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Isn鈥檛 it taught in the latter clause (121a): An incident occurred in Asya in which they lowered a certain man into the sea on a rope, and when they pulled the rope back to land only his leg came up in their hands. They were not certain whether he was alive or dead. The Sages said: If his leg was cut from the knee and above, his wife may marry, as he would not survive such a wound; if his leg was cut only from the knee and below, she may not marry. This indicates that someone cut open in the first manner is assumed to be dead. If this follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar鈥檚 opinion, why doesn鈥檛 it say that there is a concern that he might be alive even if the leg was cut from the knee and above?

砖讗谞讬 诪讬讗 讚诪专讝讜 诪讻讛

The Gemara answers: Water is different, as it aggravates the wound. Since he was in the water, it can be assumed that such a wound will certainly lead to death.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讟讬讬注讗 讚砖拽讬诇 住驻住讬专讗 讜讙讬讬讚讬讛 诇讙诪诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗驻住讬拽转讬讛 诇谞注专讜转讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讛讬讗 讻讞讬砖讗 讛讜讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣nna say: I myself saw an Arab who took his sword [safseira] and cut open his camel, and the camel died so quickly that it could not even cease its braying before it died? This indicates that a living being that is cut open has no chance of surviving. Abaye said: That camel was emaciated and weak, causing it to die immediately, but a normal camel would not have died so quickly.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘住讻讬谉 诪诇讜讘谞转 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Rava said a different resolution to the apparent contradiction between the mishna here and the mishna in tractate Oholot: The mishna here is referring to a case where the man was cut open with a white-hot knife, and everyone agrees that one may not testify to the death of a person wounded in such a manner, as the wound would close due to the heat.

讜讛讞讬讛 讗讜讻诇转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讬讜爪讗讛 讗讘诇 诪诪拽讜诐 砖谞驻砖讜 讬讜爪讗讛 诪注讬讚讬谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: Or even if one saw that a wild animal was eating parts of him, one may not testify that he died. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this only where the animal was eating from a place on his body that does not cause his soul to depart, i.e., does not inevitably lead to death, such as his hand or foot. But if the animal was eating from a place on his body that does cause his soul to depart, one may testify to his death.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讞讟 讘讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜讘专讞 诪注讬讚讬谉

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If someone cut a man鈥檚 two passageways, the trachea and the esophagus, or most of the way through the two passageways, and the maimed person fled, one may testify to his death.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讞讟 讘讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜专诪讝 讜讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讞讬 讛讜讗 讜住讜驻讜 诇诪讜转

The Gemara challenges that conclusion: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: If someone cut a man鈥檚 two passageways, or most of the way through the two passageways, and the maimed person gestured and thereby communicated: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, then these onlookers should write it and deliver it to her. Since only a living person may give a bill of divorce, this indicates that the maimed man is considered alive. The Gemara answers: He is still alive at the moment, but he will eventually die from the wound. Consequently, he may appoint an agent to deliver a bill of divorce to his wife, but after a while one may testify that he is dead.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讛讗 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讜 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 砖讞讟 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讛专讜讞 讘诇讘诇转讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖诪讗 讗讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that such a wound is definitely fatal, one who unintentionally wounds another in this manner should be exiled on his account, in accordance with the halakha of one who unintentionally kills another. Why is it taught in a baraita: If one unintentionally cut the two passageways of another person, or most of the thickness of the two, he is not exiled? The Gemara answers: But it was stated with regard to that baraita that Rav Hoshaya said: We are concerned that perhaps the wind aggravated his condition and actually caused his death, in which case the perpetrator is not culpable for the death and should not be exiled. Alternatively, perhaps he, the maimed person,

  • 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)

  • 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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Yevamot 120

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 120

诇讗谞住讜讘讬 诇爪专讛 诪拽诪讬 讚讬讚讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 爪专讛 诪注讬讚讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讬谞住讬讘 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诇爪专讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬讗 诇讗 诪拽诇拽诇讗 谞驻砖讛 讗讬谞住讬讘 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诇爪专讛 讗讬 诇讗 讗讬谞住讬讘 诇讗 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛

The Gemara responds that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reasoning could make a practical difference with regard to allowing the rival wife to marry before the woman herself, i.e., the woman who testified that her husband died, remarries. If you say that according to Rabbi Elazar, one rival wife may testify for another, then although the woman who testified that her husband died has not married, we allow her rival wife to marry. Since the woman鈥檚 report is deemed credible with regard to herself, it is also deemed credible with regard to her rival wife. However, if you say that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reasoning is due to the presumption that she would not cause herself injury, then if she has actually married we may allow her rival wife to marry, but if she has not married, we may not allow her rival wife to marry, in case she lied in order to cause harm to her rival wife.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专讜 诇讬讘诪讬谉 讛讜转专讜 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讛讬讗 诇讗 诪拽诇拽诇讗 谞驻砖讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻讬 讗讬谞住讬讘 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛

What is the basis of Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 ruling? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution based upon the wording of the baraita itself: Rabbi Elazar says: Since they were permitted to marry the brothers-in-law, they are now permitted to marry any man. Granted, if you say that his reason is because she would not cause herself injury, this is the reason that if she has actually married, as in this case, where each woman entered into levirate marriage, we may allow her rival wife to marry.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讚爪专讛 诪注讬讚讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讬谞住讬讘 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谞住讬讘 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪拽诇拽诇讗 谞驻砖讛

But if you say the reason is because one rival wife may testify for another, then although she herself has not married, it should still be permitted for her rival wife to marry, and it would be unnecessary for Rabbi Elazar to state his opinion in a case where the women had already entered into levirate marriage. Rather, conclude from this that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reason is because she has already married, and she would not cause herself injury by marrying if her original husband had not died.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 爪专讛 诪注讬讚讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讬谞住讬讘 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谞住讬讘 诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬讗 诇讗 诪拽诇拽诇讗 谞驻砖讛 讜专讘谞谉 转诪讜转 谞驻砖讬 注诐 驻诇砖转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽注讘讚讛

The Gemara rejects that and suggests that Rabbi Elazar stated his opinion to the Rabbis in accordance with their own statement, as follows: According to my own opinion, one rival wife may testify for another, and although she, herself, has not married, nevertheless we may allow her rival wife to marry. But even according to your own opinion, admit, in any event, that where she has actually married we may allow her rival wife to marry because she would not cause injury to herself. But the Rabbis, rejecting this, say that she acts upon the premise: 鈥淟et me die with the Philistines鈥 (Judges 16:30), i.e., a woman may even harm herself by remarrying while her original husband is still alive, in order to harm her rival wife by causing her to remarry as well.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗砖讛 砖讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讘讗讛 讜讗诪专讛 诪转 讘注诇讬 转谞砖讗 讜转讟讜诇 讻转讜讘转讛 讜爪专转讛 讗住讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专讛 讛讬讗 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 爪专转讛 讗讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专讛 讜谞砖讗转

The Gemara suggests another solution. Come and hear the following baraita: In the case of a woman who went with her husband to a country overseas, and who later came and said: My husband died, she is permitted to marry and collect the widow鈥檚 compensation from her marriage contract, but her rival wife is prohibited from doing so. Rabbi Elazar says: Since she is permitted to marry, her rival wife is also permitted. This indicates that Rabbi Elazar holds that the rival wife is permitted to marry because the wife who testified that her husband has died is permitted to do so, even if the latter has not actually remarried yet. The Gemara rejects this proof: Say that Rabbi Elazar means: Since she was permitted and has married.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讘讙讬讟讗 讗转讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专讛 讛讻讬 诇拽诇拽诇讗 诇爪专讛 讛讬讗 诪讬讻讜讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reason is that she would not cause herself injury, how can her rival wife be permitted to marry? Let us be concerned that perhaps she, i.e., the woman who claimed that the husband was dead, came with a bill of divorce and is therefore permitted to remarry though the husband is alive. And the fact that she says this, i.e., that her husband is dead, is intended only to injure her rival wife, who will remarry, thinking that the husband is dead, and will suffer the severe consequences of adultery.

讗讬 讚讗讬谞住讬讘 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬谞住讬讘 诇讻讛谉

The Gemara then validates this concern. If she actually married an Israelite, which is permitted for a divorced woman, then indeed one must consider the possibility that she is actually divorced and not widowed, and the rival wife is not permitted to marry. However, here we are dealing with a case where she married a priest, who is prohibited from marrying a divorced woman, and therefore she must actually be a widow, as she would not damage herself by entering into a forbidden marriage.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 驻专爪讜祝 驻谞讬诐 注诐 讛讞讜讟诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘讙讜驻讜 讜讘讻诇讬讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗诇讗 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讗讜讛讜 诪讙讜讬讬讚 讜爪诇讜讘 讜讛讞讬讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐

MISHNA: One may testify that a man died only if he can testify about seeing the countenance [partzuf ] of the face with the nose, as this allows one to identify the individual with certainty. Although there are distinguishing marks [simanim] on his body and his personal belongings, which appear to indicate his identity, one may not rely on these as identification. Furthermore, one may not testify that a person died until his soul actually departs. And even if one saw him cut open and severely wounded, or crucified, or with a wild animal eating parts of him, he may not testify that he died. Additionally, one may testify to someone鈥檚 death only when the body was witnessed up to three days following death and not after that, since the appearance may change due to decomposition.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛砖注讜转 砖讜讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: One cannot establish general guidelines for this matter because not every person, nor every place, nor every hour is identical. Decomposition is not uniform. It occurs at different rates in different situations.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讚讞转 讜诇讗 驻专爪讜祝 驻谞讬诐 驻专爪讜祝 驻谞讬诐 讜诇讗 驻讚讞转 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖谞讬讛诐 注诐 讛讞讜讟诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讛讻专转 驻谞讬讛诐 注谞转讛 讘诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If the witnesses saw his forehead but not the countenance of the face, or if they saw the countenance of the face but not his forehead, they may not testify that it is he, until they see both of them with the nose. Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Kahana who said: What is the verse from which it is derived that one may testify that a man died only if one sees his face? The verse is: 鈥淭he show of their face does witness against them鈥 (Isaiah 3:9), which indicates that one clearly recognizes another only upon seeing his face.

讗讘讗 讘专 诪专转讗 讚讛讜讗 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讛讜讛 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 讚讘讬 专讬砖讗 讙诇讜转讗 讝讜讝讬 讗讬讬转讬 拽讬专讗 讚讘拽 讘讘诇讬讬转讗 讚讘拽 讘讗驻讜转讬讛 讞诇祝 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 讘砖拽专讜讛

The Gemara relates that Abba bar Marta, who is also known as Abba bar Minyumi, had been loaned money by members of the Exilarch鈥檚 house. Since he did not want to be seen by these violent people, he brought wax [kira], stuck it to a strip of worn-out fabric, and stuck all of that to his forehead in order to alter his appearance. He passed before them and they did not recognize him [beshakru]. This shows how much a person鈥檚 face changes when the appearance of his forehead is altered.

讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

搂 We learned in the mishna that, although there are distinguishing marks on a dead person鈥檚 body and clothing, one may not rely on these as identification. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that distinguishing marks are not recognized as valid identification by Torah law, and while a rabbinic ordinance allows one to rely upon them to remedy certain situations, for testimony about a person鈥檚 death, the Sages require the stringencies of Torah law?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪爪讗讜 拽砖讜专 讘讻讬住 讜讘讗专谞拽讬 讜讘讟讘注转 讗讜 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 讻诇讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 讻砖专

But the Gemara raises a contradiction, based upon the following baraita: If an agent charged with delivering a bill of divorce to a woman lost it, and then he found it tied to a purse, or a money bag [arnekei], or a ring, or if it was found among his personal belongings, even after a long time, it is valid, i.e., one may rely upon the distinguishing marks on these objects to positively identify the document, and the agent may then deliver it to the woman. This indicates that distinguishing marks are sufficient to identify an object even by Torah law.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 诪讛讘讗讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讛砖讜诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 诪讛讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讬讚讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚专讘谞谉

Abaye said: This is not difficult. That baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, while this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; as it is taught in a baraita: One may not testify about a person鈥檚 identity based upon the position of a mole on his body. Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai says: One may testify based on a mole. What, is it not about this issue that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, holds that distinguishing marks are recognized as valid identification by Torah law, and one Sage, the anonymous first tanna, representing the majority of the Rabbis, holds that distinguishing marks are recognized as a means of identification only by rabbinic law and are therefore insufficient to permit a Torah prohibition?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讻讗 讘砖讜诪讗 诪爪讜讬讛 讘讘谉 讙讬诇讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖讜诪讗 诪爪讜讬讛 讘讘谉 讙讬诇讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讘讘谉 讙讬诇讜

Rava said: It is possible that everyone agrees that distinguishing marks are recognized as valid identification by Torah law, and here they are disagreeing about whether such a mole is commonly found on his peer, i.e., anyone very similar to him, which would undermine its usefulness as a means of identification. One Sage, the anonymous first tanna, holds that such a mole is commonly found on his peer and therefore is not sufficient for identification. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, holds that it is not commonly found on his peer and is therefore an unambiguous distinguishing mark sufficient for identification.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘砖讜诪讗 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇讛砖转谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛砖转谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛砖转谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

And there are those who say otherwise: Here they are disagreeing about whether a mole is likely to change in appearance and size after death. One Sage, the anonymous first tanna, holds that it is likely to change after death. It is insufficient for identification because it may have looked different when the person was alive. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, holds that it is not likely to change after death and is reliable for identification. This marks the end of one version of the discussion about this issue.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讗 讘砖讜诪讗

And there are those who say that Rava said: Everyone agrees that distinguishing marks are relied upon by rabbinic law. However, this is referring to ordinary distinguishing marks. Marks that are exceptionally unusual may be relied upon even according to Torah law. And here, in the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, it is about whether a mole

住讬诪谉 诪讜讘讛拽 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 住讬诪谉 诪讜讘讛拽 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 住讬诪谉 诪讜讘讛拽

is an unambiguous distinguishing mark that they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, holds that a mole is an unambiguous distinguishing mark and may be relied upon by Torah law. Consequently, if a man鈥檚 corpse was identified in this manner, his wife may remarry. And one Sage, the anonymous first tanna, holds that a mole is not an unambiguous distinguishing mark.

讜诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘讙讜驻讜 讜讘讻诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: According to the first version, that Rava said that distinguishing marks are recognized as valid identification by Torah law, there is a question: Isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: Although there are distinguishing marks on his body and his personal belongings, one may not rely on these as identification, implying that distinguishing marks are not valid identification by Torah law?

讙讜驻讜 讚讗专讜讱 讜讙讜抓 讻诇讬讜 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖讗诇讛 讜讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖讗诇讛 讞诪讜专 讘住讬诪谞讬 讗讜讻祝 讛讬讻讬 诪讛讚专讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: The mishna鈥檚 intent is that ordinary distinguishing marks on one鈥檚 body, which constitute only weak evidence to a person鈥檚 identity, e.g., that he was tall or short, are not valid identification. Additionally, one cannot rely upon distinguishing marks on his personal belongings, as we are concerned about borrowing, i.e., perhaps the deceased had borrowed the clothes he was wearing from someone else. The Gemara asks: But if we are concerned about borrowing, then, with regard to returning lost property, how can we return a donkey based solely upon distinguishing marks on the saddle? Why don鈥檛 we consider the possibility that the saddle was borrowed?

诇讗 砖讬讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讜讻驻讗 讚诪住拽讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讞诪专讗 诪爪讗讜 拽砖讜专 讘讻讬住 讜讘讗专谞拽讬 讜讘讟讘注转 讛讬讻讬 诪讛讚专讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: People do not normally borrow a saddle because it bruises the donkey, as the saddle must fit exactly to the donkey鈥檚 measurements. The Gemara raises further objections based upon the baraita cited earlier: If he found the lost bill of divorce tied to a purse, or a money bag, or a ring, he may rely upon the distinguishing marks on those items and deliver the bill of divorce to the woman. But how can we return it and not be concerned that these belongings may have been lent to someone else whose bill of divorce is tied to them?

讟讘注转 讞讬讬砖 诇讝讬讜驻讬 讻讬住 讜讗专谞拽讬 诪谞讞砖讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讜诇讗 诪讜砖诇讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻诇讬讜 讘讞讬讜专讬 讜住讜诪拽讬

The Gemara answers: The case of the ring is referring to a signet ring, which one does not lend, because he is concerned about forgery, i.e., that the borrower might use it to forge his consent on documents without his knowledge. With regard to a purse or a money bag, people consider it a bad omen to lend them out and do not lend them to others. And if you wish, say that the reason not to permit a woman to remarry and not to accept that her husband is dead based upon the distinguishing marks found on his personal belongings is that the distinguishing marks referred to are only general ones, e.g., he wore white or red clothing, but they are not unambiguous distinguishing marks.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讗讜讛讜 诪讙讜讬讬讚 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪讙讜讬讬讚 讞讬讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讚诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讙讜讬讬讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜住住 讟诪讜讬讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讛讗 诪讬讞讬讬讗 诇讗 讞讬讬

搂 We learned in the mishna: And even if one saw him cut open [meguyyad] and severely wounded, one may not testify that he died. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a person who is cut open is fit to live for much time afterward? The Gemara raises a contradiction from what was taught in a mishna (Oholot 1:6): A dead person renders other people and objects impure only when his soul actually departs, even if he is cut open and severely wounded, and even if he is clearly dying. From this we may deduce that he does not yet render others ritually impure, as he still has some life in him, but he is not fit to live for much time afterward.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讛诪讙讜讬讬讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讛爪诇讜讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 讛诪讙讜讬讬讚 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讻讜讜转 讜诇讞讬讜转

Abaye said: The contradiction raised is not difficult: This mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, while that mishna from tractate Oholot is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: One may testify about the death of a person who is cut open, but one may not testify about a crucified person. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even concerning a person who is cut open, one may not testify that he is dead because his wound can be scorched, and this cauterization of the wound may stop the flow of blood and allow him to survive.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诇讗讜拽讜诪讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪注砖讛 讘注住讬讗 讘讗讞讚 砖砖讬诇砖诇讜讛讜 诇讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 讘讬讚诐 讗诇讗 专讙诇讜 讜讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 转谞砖讗 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪讟讛 诇讗 转谞砖讗

The Gemara challenges this: But can you establish the mishna to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Isn鈥檛 it taught in the latter clause (121a): An incident occurred in Asya in which they lowered a certain man into the sea on a rope, and when they pulled the rope back to land only his leg came up in their hands. They were not certain whether he was alive or dead. The Sages said: If his leg was cut from the knee and above, his wife may marry, as he would not survive such a wound; if his leg was cut only from the knee and below, she may not marry. This indicates that someone cut open in the first manner is assumed to be dead. If this follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar鈥檚 opinion, why doesn鈥檛 it say that there is a concern that he might be alive even if the leg was cut from the knee and above?

砖讗谞讬 诪讬讗 讚诪专讝讜 诪讻讛

The Gemara answers: Water is different, as it aggravates the wound. Since he was in the water, it can be assumed that such a wound will certainly lead to death.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讟讬讬注讗 讚砖拽讬诇 住驻住讬专讗 讜讙讬讬讚讬讛 诇讙诪诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗驻住讬拽转讬讛 诇谞注专讜转讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讛讬讗 讻讞讬砖讗 讛讜讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣nna say: I myself saw an Arab who took his sword [safseira] and cut open his camel, and the camel died so quickly that it could not even cease its braying before it died? This indicates that a living being that is cut open has no chance of surviving. Abaye said: That camel was emaciated and weak, causing it to die immediately, but a normal camel would not have died so quickly.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘住讻讬谉 诪诇讜讘谞转 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Rava said a different resolution to the apparent contradiction between the mishna here and the mishna in tractate Oholot: The mishna here is referring to a case where the man was cut open with a white-hot knife, and everyone agrees that one may not testify to the death of a person wounded in such a manner, as the wound would close due to the heat.

讜讛讞讬讛 讗讜讻诇转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讬讜爪讗讛 讗讘诇 诪诪拽讜诐 砖谞驻砖讜 讬讜爪讗讛 诪注讬讚讬谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: Or even if one saw that a wild animal was eating parts of him, one may not testify that he died. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this only where the animal was eating from a place on his body that does not cause his soul to depart, i.e., does not inevitably lead to death, such as his hand or foot. But if the animal was eating from a place on his body that does cause his soul to depart, one may testify to his death.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讞讟 讘讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜讘专讞 诪注讬讚讬谉

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If someone cut a man鈥檚 two passageways, the trachea and the esophagus, or most of the way through the two passageways, and the maimed person fled, one may testify to his death.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讞讟 讘讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜专诪讝 讜讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讞讬 讛讜讗 讜住讜驻讜 诇诪讜转

The Gemara challenges that conclusion: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: If someone cut a man鈥檚 two passageways, or most of the way through the two passageways, and the maimed person gestured and thereby communicated: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, then these onlookers should write it and deliver it to her. Since only a living person may give a bill of divorce, this indicates that the maimed man is considered alive. The Gemara answers: He is still alive at the moment, but he will eventually die from the wound. Consequently, he may appoint an agent to deliver a bill of divorce to his wife, but after a while one may testify that he is dead.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讛讗 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讜 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 砖讞讟 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讛专讜讞 讘诇讘诇转讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖诪讗 讗讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that such a wound is definitely fatal, one who unintentionally wounds another in this manner should be exiled on his account, in accordance with the halakha of one who unintentionally kills another. Why is it taught in a baraita: If one unintentionally cut the two passageways of another person, or most of the thickness of the two, he is not exiled? The Gemara answers: But it was stated with regard to that baraita that Rav Hoshaya said: We are concerned that perhaps the wind aggravated his condition and actually caused his death, in which case the perpetrator is not culpable for the death and should not be exiled. Alternatively, perhaps he, the maimed person,

Scroll To Top