Yevamot 121

קירב מיתתו מאי בינייהו

hastened his own death. For instance, if the maimed man convulsed intensely, injuring himself, the perpetrator is not culpable for the death and should not be exiled. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two considerations, that the wind or the victim himself hastened his death?

דשחטיה בביתא דשישא ופרכיס אי נמי דשחטיה בברא ולא פרכיס

The Gemara explains: There is a practical difference between them in a case where one cut someone in a house of marble that was closed on every side, in which there was no wind, and the victim convulsed. Alternatively, there is a difference in a case where one cut the victim outside, where there is wind, and the victim did not convulse at all.

רבי יהודה אומר לא כל וכו׳ איבעיא להו רבי יהודה בן בבא לקולא פליג או לחומרא פליג

§ It was taught in the mishna that one may testify to someone’s death only when he saw the corpse within three days of the individual’s death. However, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: Not every person, nor every place, nor every hour is identical. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava disagree with the Rabbis with the intent to rule more leniently and hold that sometimes one may testify to the identity of one who died even if he did not see the body within three days of his death? Or, did he disagree with the intent to rule more stringently and hold that sometimes one may not testify even if he saw the body within three days of the individual’s death?

תא שמע דההוא גברא דטבע בכרמי ואסקוהו אבי הדיא לבתר תלתא יומין ואנסבה רב דימי מנהרדעא לדביתהו ותו ההוא גברא דאטבע בדגלת ואסקוהו אגישרא דשביסתנא ואנסבה רבא לדביתהו אפומא דשושביני לבתר חמשה יומי

Come and hear a solution: A certain man drowned in a place called Carmi, and they drew him out of the water near Bei Hedya after three days, and Rav Dimi from Neharde’a allowed his wife to marry. And furthermore, a certain man drowned in the Tigris River, and they drew him out of the river onto the Bridge of Shabistana, and Rava allowed his wife to marry based upon his friends’ testimony, although the body was seen only five days after death.

אי אמרת בשלמא לקולא פליג אינהו דעביד כרבי יהודה בן בבא אלא אי אמרת לחומרא פליג אינהו דעביד כמאן שאני מיא דצמתי

Granted, if you say Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava disagreed with the intent to rule more leniently, these Sages who acted here, allowing these women to marry, acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. But if you say he disagreed with the intent to rule more stringently, in accordance with whose opinion did these Sages act? The Gemara answers: Water is different, since it contracts the body, preventing it from bloating and changing shape.

והאמרת מיא מרזו מכה הני מילי היכא דאיכא מכה אבל היכא דליכא מכה מיצמת צמית והני מילי דכי אסקיה חזייה בשעתיה אבל אישתהי מיתפח תפח

The Gemara wonders about this: But didn’t you say (120b) that water aggravates a wound by causing additional swelling? The Gemara answers: This applies when there is a wound, but when there is no wound, the water contracts the body and thereby prevents the shape of the face from changing. The Gemara comments: And this applies only in a case where they drew him out of the water and viewed him at that time. But if the viewing was delayed for some time after the body was drawn from the water, it certainly will have become very bloated, making it impossible to positively identify.

מתני׳ נפל למים בין שיש להן סוף בין שאין להן סוף אשתו אסורה אמר רבי מאיר מעשה באחד שנפל לבור הגדול ועלה לאחר שלשה ימים

MISHNA: If a man fell into the water and did not come out, whether the body of water has a visible end or does not have a visible end, his wife is prohibited from remarrying. There is no absolute proof that the man died, as it is possible that he emerged from the water some distance away. Rabbi Meir said: An incident occurred involving a certain person who fell into the Great Cistern and emerged only after three days. This is evidence that sometimes one may survive a fall into water, even when everyone assumes he is dead.

אמר רבי יוסי מעשה בסומא שירד לטבול במערה וירד מושכו אחריו ושהו כדי שתצא נפשם והשיאו את נשותיהם ושוב מעשה בעסיא באחד ששלשלוהו לים ולא עלתה בידם אלא רגלו אמרו חכמים מן הארכובה ולמעלה תנשא מן הארכובה ולמטה לא תנשא

Rabbi Yosei said: An incident occurred involving a blind man who descended to immerse for ritual purity in a cave, and his guide descended after him, and they disappeared there, and they remained there long enough for their souls to have departed, and the Sages permitted their wives to marry because they had disappeared into the water and not emerged. And there was another incident 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, and 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 did not survive such a wound; if his leg was cut only from the knee and below, she may not marry.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן נפל למים בין שיש להם סוף בין שאין להם סוף אשתו אסורה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים מים שיש להם סוף אשתו מותרת ושאין להם סוף אשתו אסורה

GEMARA: The Sages taught: If a man fell into the water, whether the body of water has a visible end or does not have a visible end, his wife is prohibited from marrying; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: If he fell into a body of water with a visible end, his wife is permitted to marry, but if he fell into a body of water with no end, his wife is prohibited from marrying.

היכי דמי מים שיש להם סוף אמר אביי כל שעומד ורואה מארבע רוחותיו

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances defining a body of water with a visible end? Abaye said: Any body of water where one stands in one place and can see the shore in all four directions is considered water with a visible end, since anyone emerging from the water would be seen. However, if the body of water is so large that it is impossible to see its shore on all sides, the individual may have emerged at a place where he could not be seen by others standing at the place where he fell in.

ההוא גברא דטבע באגמא דסמקי אנסבה רב שילא לדביתהו אמר ליה רב לשמואל תא נשמתיה אמר ליה נשלח ליה ברישא

There was a certain man who drowned in the lake in a place called Samkei. Rav Sheila allowed his wife to marry based on the testimony of witnesses who saw that he entered the water and did not emerge. Rav said to Shmuel: Come, let us excommunicate him for having issued this ruling. Shmuel said to him: Let us first send him a message and clarify whether he had a sufficient reason to issue this ruling.

שלחו ליה מים שאין להם סוף אשתו אסורה או מותרת שלח להו אשתו אסורה ואגמא דסמקי מים שיש להם סוף או מים שאין להם סוף שלח להו מים שאין להם סוף הוא ומר מאי טעמא עבד הכי

They sent him the following question: When a man disappears in an endless body of water, is his wife a forbidden or a permitted woman, i.e., may she remarry? He sent back to them: His wife is forbidden. They asked him further: Is the lake of Samkei a body of water with a visible end or an endless body of water? He sent a response to them: It is an endless body of water, since one cannot see the water’s edge on every side. They then asked him: If so, what is the reason that the Master, i.e., Rav Sheila, acted this way, allowing the wife to remarry?

מיטעא טעינא אנא סברי כיון דקוו וקיימי כמים שיש להם סוף דמי ולא היא כיון דאיכא גלי אימור גלי אשפלו

He answered them: I erred in my reasoning. I thought: Since the waters are gathered and stagnant and not flowing like a river, they are considered as a body of water with a visible end. But that is not so. Since there are waves in this body of water, say that the waves carried him away from our sight, allowing him to emerge without being seen.

קרי שמואל עליה דרב לא יאונה לצדיק כל און קרי רב עליה דשמואל ותשועה ברוב יועץ

In light of this response, Shmuel recited this verse about Rav: “No mischief shall befall the righteous” (Proverbs 12:21). Since the righteous Rav waited and did not excommunicate Rav Sheila, he was prevented from causing him injustice. Rav Sheila had been mistaken and had not intentionally violated the decree of the Sages prohibiting a woman from remarrying on the basis of her husband having disappeared into an endless body of water. Rav recited this verse about Shmuel: “But salvation lies in much counsel” (Proverbs 11:14), since it was Shmuel’s advice that caused Rav to wait.

תניא אמר רבי מעשה בשני בני אדם מכמרין מכמורין בירדן ונכנס אחד מהם למחילה של דגים ושקעה חמה ולא ראה פתחה של מחילה ושהה חברו כדי שתצא נפשו ובא והודיע בתוך ביתו למחר זרחה חמה והכיר פתחה של מחילה ובא ומצא הספד גדול בתוך ביתו אמר רבי כמה גדולים דברי חכמים שאמרו מים שיש להם סוף אשתו מותרת שאין להם סוף אשתו אסורה

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: An incident occurred involving two people who were fishing with nets on the Jordan River, and one of them entered a cave containing a pond of fish next to the shore. Meanwhile, the sun set and the one who had entered the cave could not see the cave’s opening and did not exit, so his friend thought he had drowned. His friend waited long enough for his soul to have departed and came and notified the man’s household that he had drowned. The following day the sun rose, and the man in the cave recognized the opening of the cave and exited through it. And he came and found profuse eulogizing in his house. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said about this: How great are the words of the Sages, who said: If a man fell into a body of water with a visible end, his wife is permitted to marry, but in a case of water with no end, his wife is prohibited from marrying.

אי הכי מים שיש להם סוף נמי ליחוש למחילה של דגים במים שיש להם סוף מחילה של דגים לא שכיחא

The Gemara asks: If so, even in the case of a body of water with a visible end, let us also be concerned about a cave containing a pond of fish. Even if the individual did not emerge for a long period of time, it is possible that he entered a cave and is still alive. The Gemara answers: A cave containing a pond of fish is not common in a body of water with a visible end.

אמר רב אשי הא דאמרו רבנן מים שאין להם סוף אשתו אסורה הני מילי באיניש דעלמא אבל צורבא מרבנן לא אי דסליק קלא אית ליה ולא היא לא שנא איניש דעלמא ולא שנא צורבא מרבנן דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא

Rav Ashi said: That which the Sages said, that if a man fell into an endless body of water, his wife is prohibited from remarrying, applies only to an ordinary person who is not well known and could slip away secretly and live in anonymity, hiding the fact that he survived. But it does not apply to a Torah scholar, because if he would emerge from the water, publicity would be generated and the news of his survival would spread. The Gemara rejects this: That is not so. It is no different for an ordinary man and it is no different for a Torah scholar. After the fact, i.e., if she remarried, yes, she may remain with her new husband, but she may not remarry ab initio.

תניא אמר רבן גמליאל פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בספינה וראיתי ספינה אחת שנשברה והייתי מצטער על תלמיד חכם שבה ומנו רבי עקיבא וכשעליתי ביבשה בא וישב ודן לפני בהלכה אמרתי לו בני מי העלך אמר לי דף של ספינה נזדמן לי וכל גל וגל שבא עלי נענעתי לו ראשי

§ It is taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel said: Once I was traveling on a boat, and from a distance I saw a boat that shattered and sank. And I was grieved over the apparent death of the Torah scholar who was on board. And who was it? Rabbi Akiva. But when I disembarked onto dry land, he came, and sat, and deliberated before me about halakha. I said to him: My son, who brought you up from the water? He said to me: A plank from the boat came to me, and I bent my head before each and every wave that came toward me. The waves did not wash me off of the board, and I reached the shore.

מכאן אמרו חכמים אם יבואו רשעים על אדם ינענע לו ראשו אמרתי באותה שעה כמה גדולים דברי חכמים שאמרו מים שיש להם סוף מותרת מים שאין להם סוף אסורה

From here the Sages stated: If wicked people come upon a person, he should bend his head before them. That is, he should temporarily restrain himself and not fight them, and he will therefore be saved. After this parenthetical statement, the Gemara returns to Rabban Gamliel’s story. I said at that moment: How great are the words of the Sages, who said: If a man fell into a body of water with a visible end, his wife is permitted to remarry. But in a case of an endless body of water, his wife is prohibited from remarrying.

תניא אמר רבי עקיבא פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בספינה וראיתי ספינה אחת שמטרפת בים והייתי מצטער על תלמיד חכם שבה ומנו רבי מאיר כשעליתי למדינת קפוטקיא בא וישב ודן לפני בהלכה אמרתי לו בני מי העלך אמר לי גל טרדני לחברו וחברו לחברו עד שהקיאני ליבשה אמרתי באותה שעה כמה גדולים דברי חכמים שאמרו מים שיש להם סוף אשתו מותרת מים שאין להם סוף אשתו אסורה

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva said: Once I was traveling on a boat, and I saw a certain boat sinking at sea, and I was grieved over the apparent death of the Torah scholar who was on board. And who was it? Rabbi Meir. But when I disembarked at the province of Cappadocia, he came, and sat, and deliberated before me about halakha. I said to him: My son, who brought you up from the water? He said to me: One wave carried me to another, and that other wave to another, until I reached the shore, and a wave cast me up onto dry land. I said at that moment: How great are the words of the Sages, who said: If a man fell into a body of water with a visible end, his wife is permitted to remarry. But in a case of an endless body of water, his wife is prohibited from remarrying.

תנו רבנן נפל לגוב אריות אין מעידין עליו לחפורה מלאה נחשים ועקרבים מעידין עליו רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר אף לחפורה מלאה נחשים ועקרבים אין מעידין עליו חיישינן

§ The Sages taught: If an individual fell into a lion’s den, one may not testify about him that he died, since the lions might not have killed him. If he fell into a pit filled with snakes and scorpions, one may testify about his death, since it is certain that they killed him. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Even if he fell into a pit filled with snakes and scorpions, one may not testify about him that he died, because we are concerned

שמא חבר הוא ותנא קמא אגב איצצא מזקי ליה

that perhaps he is a charmer [ḥabbar] of snakes and scorpions who knows magic or some stratagem to keep them from harming him. And the first tanna holds that we need not be concerned about this possibility, as, due to the pressure of his body falling on top of them, they will harm him, even if he could control them under other circumstances.

תנו רבנן נפל לתוך כבשן האש מעידין עליו ליורה מלאה יין ושמן מעידין עליו משום רבי אחא אמרו של שמן מעידין עליו מפני שהוא מבעיר של יין אין מעידין עליו מפני שהוא מכבה אמרו לו תחלתו מכבה וסופו מבעיר

The Sages taught: If one fell into a blazing furnace, one may testify about him that he has died. If he fell into a boiling cauldron filled with wine or oil, one may also testify about him that he has died. In the name of Rabbi Aḥa, they said: If he fell into a cauldron of oil, one may testify about him that he has died, because this ignites the fire even more. Through the force of his fall, oil will splash into the fire and increase the heat of the cauldron. However, if he fell into a cauldron of wine, one may not testify about him that he has died, because when wine splashes into the fire it extinguishes the fire. They said to him: At first it partially extinguishes the fire but eventually it ignites it even more, and therefore it can be assumed that he has died.

אמר רבי מאיר מעשה באחד שנפל לבור הגדול וכו׳ תניא אמרו לו לרבי מאיר אין מזכירין מעשה נסים מאי מעשה נסים אילימא דלא אכיל ולא אישתי והכתיב וצומו עלי ואל תאכלו ואל תשתו

§ The mishna stated that Rabbi Meir said: An incident occurred involving a certain individual who fell into the Great Cistern and emerged after three days. It is taught in a baraita: They said to Rabbi Meir: One does not mention miraculous acts to teach general halakha. The Gemara asks: What about that story defines it as an example of miraculous acts? If we say the fact that he did not eat or drink for three days and still survived is miraculous, but isn’t it written: “Fast for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day” (Esther 4:16), demonstrating that one may survive this experience naturally?

אלא דלא ניים דאמר רבי יוחנן שבועה שלא אישן שלשה ימים מלקין אותו ויישן לאלתר

The Gemara answers: Rather, the miraculous element is that he did not sleep during those three days, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one says: I hereby take on an oath that I will not sleep for three days, the court flogs him for taking an oath in vain, and he may sleep immediately because it is impossible to remain awake for three consecutive days.

ורבי מאיר מאי טעמא אמר רב כהנא כיפין על גב כיפין הוו ורבנן דשישא הוו ורבי מאיר אי אפשר דלא מסריך וניים פורתא

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, what is the reason this was not a miraculous incident? The Gemara answers that Rav Kahana said: There were several levels of arches built on top of other arches within the Great Cistern, and he supported himself on the arches and slept. And the Rabbis said that they were made of marble and it was impossible to hold onto them and sleep. And Rabbi Meir assumed that it is inconceivable that he didn’t grasp some part of an arch for a short time and sleep a little, and therefore this incident does not qualify as a miracle.

תנו רבנן מעשה בבתו של נחוניא חופר שיחין שנפלה לבור הגדול ובאו והודיעו לרבי חנינא בן דוסא שעה ראשונה אמר להם שלום שניה אמר להם שלום שלישית אמר להם עלתה

The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving the daughter of Neḥunya the well digger, who fell into the Great Cistern, and they came and notified Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and asked that he pray for her. After the first hour, he said to them: She is at peace and unharmed. After the second hour, he said to them: She is at peace. After the third hour he said to them: She has ascended from the cistern.

אמר לה בתי מי העלך אמרה לו זכר של רחלים נזדמן לי וזקן מנהיגו אמרו לו נביא אתה אמר להם לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא אנכי אלא דבר שהצדיק מתעסק בו יכשל בו זרעו

When she came to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, he said to her: My daughter, who pulled you up from the cistern? She said to him: A male sheep, i.e., a ram, happened by and sensed me in that cistern, and there was an old man leading him who pulled me out. They said to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa: Are you a prophet with knowledge of what is happening far away? He said to them, using a figure of speech from the Bible: “I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet am I” (Amos 7:14). Rather, I reasoned as follows: Could it be that concerning the endeavor that the righteous Neḥunya is engaged in, i.e., digging for the benefit of the public, his offspring would stumble upon its fruits and thereby be killed? I therefore knew that God would certainly save her.

אמר רבי אבא אף על פי כן מת בנו בצמא שנאמר וסביביו נשערה מאד מלמד שהקדוש ברוך הוא מדקדק עם סביביו כחוט השערה רבי חנינא אמר מהכא אל נערץ בסוד קדושים רבה ונורא על כל סביביו

Rabbi Abba said: Even so, the son of Neḥunya the well digger died of thirst, and the merit of his father, who attended to the water supply, did not protect him, as is stated: “And around Him it storms [nisara] mightily” (Psalms 50:3), which teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is exacting with His surroundings, i.e., the righteous who are close to Him, up to a hairsbreadth [sa’ara], so that even slight deviations can elicit severe punishment. Rabbi Ḥanina said: This idea is derived from here: “A God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared by all that are about Him” (Psalms 89:8). This indicates that God is most feared by those that are nearest to Him, i.e., the righteous, because He is more exacting of them.

מתני׳ אפילו שמע מן הנשים אומרות מת איש פלוני דיו רבי יהודה אומר אפילו שמע מן התינוקות אומרים הרי אנו הולכין לספוד ולקבור את איש פלוני בין שהוא מתכוין ובין שאינו מתכוין

MISHNA: Even if one heard from the women, who were saying: So-and-so died, this is sufficient in order to testify to his death. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if one heard from the children, who were saying: We are going to eulogize and bury so-and-so, that is also sufficient. Furthermore, one may rely upon someone mentioning that a man died, regardless of whether the speaker intends to testify and thereby allow the man’s wife to remarry or whether he does not intend to offer formal testimony.

רבי יהודה בן בבא אומר בישראל אף על פי שהוא מתכוין ובגוי אם היה מתכוין אין עדותו עדות

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: With regard to a Jew who offers this information, it may be relied upon even if he intends for his statement to be considered formal testimony. However, with regard to a gentile, if he intended to testify, his testimony is not considered valid testimony. His statement is relied upon only when he does not intend to state it as formal testimony.

גמ׳ ודלמא לא אזלי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל דקאמרי הרינו באין מלספוד ומלקבור את איש פלוני

GEMARA: With regard to relying on what children said, that they are going to eulogize and bury so-and-so, the Gemara asks: Perhaps they will not go; perhaps they only assumed that the individual would die, but in the end he didn’t. The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is referring to a situation where the children say: We are coming from eulogizing and burying so-and-so.

ודלמא קמצא בעלמא שכיב ליה ואסיקו ליה על שמיה דקאמרי כן וכן רבנן הוו התם כן וכן ספדני הוו התם

The Gemara asks: Since they are children, perhaps it was merely a grasshopper with which they played that died, and they brought iShe t out as if to its funeral, calling it by the name of the individual suspected to be dead, and their statement should not be considered valid proof of his death. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a situation where the children say: Such and such rabbis were there; such and such eulogizers were there, so that it is clear that they were referring to an event that truly occurred.

ובגוי אם היה מתכוין וכו׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא שנתכוין להתיר אבל נתכוין להעיד עדותו עדות היכי ידעינן אמר רב יוסף בא לבית דין ואמר איש פלוני מת השיאו את אשתו זהו נתכוין להתיר מת סתם זהו נתכוין לעדות

§ It was taught in the mishna: With regard to a gentile, if he intended to testify, his testimony is not considered valid testimony. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this only in a case where he intended to permit the woman to remarry through his testimony, but if he merely intended to testify about the man’s death, his testimony is considered testimony. The Gemara asks: How do we know the intention of the gentile? Rav Yosef said: If he came to the court and said: So-and-so died, allow his wife to marry, this is an instance of intending to permit her to remarry. If he said simply: He died, this is an instance of merely intending to testify.

איתמר נמי אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא שנתכוין להתיר אבל נתכוין להעיד עדותו עדות אמר ליה רבי יוחנן לא כך היה מעשה באושעיא ברבי שהתירם עם שמנים וחמשה זקנים אמר להם לא שנו אלא שנתכוין להתיר אבל נתכוין להעיד עדותו עדות ולא הודו לו חכמים

This was also stated by other amora’im. Reish Lakish said: They taught this only when one intended to permit the woman to remarry, but if he merely intended to testify about the man’s death, his testimony is considered valid testimony. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Didn’t such an incident occur involving Rabbi Oshaya the Distinguished, who permitted women to marry based upon the testimony of gentiles while he was with eighty-five Elders? He said to the Elders: They taught that one may not rely upon a gentile’s testimony only when he intended to permit the woman to remarry, but if he merely intended to testify about the man’s death, his testimony is considered valid testimony. But the Rabbis did not concur with him on this, and they maintained that one may not rely upon the testimony of a gentile at all.

אלא מתניתין דקתני ובגוי אם היה מתכוין אין עדותו עדות היכי משכחת לה במסיח לפי תומו כי ההוא דהוה קאמר ואזיל מאן איכא בי חיואי מאן איכא בי חיואי שכיב חיואי ואנסבה רב יוסף לדביתהו ההוא דהוה קאמר ואזיל ווי ליה לפרשא זריזא דהוה בפומבדיתא דשכיב ואנסבה רב יוסף ואיתימא רבא לדביתהו

The Gemara asks: But, if that is so, what about that which is taught in the mishna: With regard to a gentile, if he intended to testify, his testimony is not considered valid testimony, which implies that if the gentile does not intend to testify, his statement may be relied upon? How can you find a case where one would rely on his statement? The Gemara answers: One may rely on a gentile’s statement when he speaks offhandedly, without any intention to testify. Like that gentile who was going around saying: Who is from the house of Ḥivvai; who is from the house of Ḥivvai? Ḥivvai has died. And based upon this report, Rav Yosef allowed Ḥivvai’s wife to marry. There was also a certain gentile who was going around saying: Alas for the brave horseman who was in Pumbedita, for he is dead. And Rav Yosef, and some say Rava, allowed his wife to marry.

ההוא דהוה קאמר ואזיל מאן איכא בי חסא טבע חסא אמר רב נחמן האלקים אכלו כוורי לחסא מדיבוריה דרב נחמן אזלא דביתהו דחסא ואינסבא ולא אמרו לה ולא מידי אמר רב אשי שמע מינה הא דאמור רבנן מים שאין להם סוף אשתו אסורה הני מילי לכתחלה אבל אי נסיב לא מפקינן לה מיניה

§ There was also a certain gentile who was going around saying: Who is from the house of Ḥasa? Ḥasa has drowned. Rav Naḥman said: By God! The fish have eaten Ḥasa. The Gemara relates: Due to Rav Naḥman’s statement, although he did not issue a court ruling permitting it, Ḥasa’s wife went and married, and no one said anything to her to protest this action. Rav Ashi said: Learn the following from this incident: That which the Sages said, that if a man fell into an endless body of water, his wife is prohibited from remarrying, this applies only ab initio, but if someone married her, we do not take her away from him.

איכא דאמרי אנסבה רב נחמן לדביתהו אמר חסא גברא רבה איתיה אם איתא דסליק קלא אית ליה למילתא ולא היא לא שנא גברא רבה לא שנא לאו גברא רבה דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא

There are those who say that Rav Naḥman actually issued a ruling and allowed his wife to marry. He said: Ḥasa is a great man; if it was so that he emerged from the water the incident would have generated publicity. Since nothing was heard from Ḥasa in a long while, it can be assumed that he died. The Gemara comments: That is not so. It is not different if he is a great man and it is not different if he is not a great man. If a woman remarried based on testimony that her husband drowned in an endless body of water, after the fact, yes, she may remain married, but she may not remarry ab initio.

ההוא גוי דהוה קאמר ליה לישראל קטול אספסתא ושדי לחיואי בשבתא ואי לא קטילנא לך כדקטילנא לפלוני בר ישראל דאמרי ליה בשיל לי קדירה בשבת ולא בשיל לי וקטילתיה שמעה דביתהו ואתאי לקמיה דאביי שהיתא

The Gemara relates that a certain gentile said to a Jew: Harvest the fodder and give it to my animals on Shabbat, and if not, I will kill you like I killed so-and-so the Jew, for I said to him: Cook me a pot of food on Shabbat, and he didn’t cook it for me, so I killed him. The wife of the missing Jew heard the gentile say that he killed her husband, and she came before Abaye to ask if she was permitted to remarry. He deferred the ruling in her case