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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 6, 2022 | 讝壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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 121

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of Judy Tydor Schwartz’s birthday with love from her daughters! “Your care and devotion to our family, daily acts of chesed and endless learning are a true inspiration.”

Today’s daf is dedicated by Becki Goldstein on behalf of her new grandson. “With gratitude to the Almighty for our new grandson Shmuel. Like Shmuel Hanavi ze Shmuel hakaton Shmuel hagadol yihiye, with blessings of chochma, yirat shamayim, anava, love of Torah and ahavat habriot in good health and simcha and nachat to his whole family.”

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava understood that each situation is unique in terms of being able to identify a person after their death and did not accept the other opinion that within three days, one can be identified but not after that. Was he being more stringent or more lenient? If one fell into body of water and we cannot find them, can we presume they are dead and let their wife marry? Do we distinguish between water that “has an end to them” (we can see land on all sides) and water that “has no end to them”? This is a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi (and the rabbis). If it was water that has no visible end, but a leg was found, can he be presumed dead? Rav wanted to excommunicate Rav Shila for permitting a woman whose husband had drowned in a lake. Shmuel convinces him to ask first about the details of the case. Upon questioning him, they realize that Rav Shila made a mistake about the nature of the water of the lake and therefore ruled incorrectly. Rav is pleased that Shmuel preventing him from making a mistake in excommunicating Rav Shila. A story is brought of a man who was presumed dead but ended up being saved in a cave containing a pond of fish. If a person who is well known (a Torah scholar) falls into a body of water that has no visible end, Rav Ashi ruled that their wife can remarry as we can assume that if they got out, we would know about it. However, the Gemara rejects this. stories are told of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Meir who were traveling by boat and almost drowned, but managed to survive. What is the law regarding one who entered a lion’s den, a pit full of snakes and scorpions, a fiery furnace? Is there a difference between one who fell into a vat full of burning oil or one full of wine? Whose testimony is accepted to be able to determine that one has died – children? Gentiles? On what does it depend?

 

 

拽讬专讘 诪讬转转讜 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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?

讚砖讞讟讬讛 讘讘讬转讗 讚砖讬砖讗 讜驻专讻讬住 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚砖讞讟讬讛 讘讘专讗 讜诇讗 驻专讻讬住

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 诇拽讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讗讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 驻诇讬讙

搂 It was taught in the mishna that one may testify to someone鈥檚 death only when he saw the corpse within three days of the individual鈥檚 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鈥檚 death?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讟讘注 讘讻专诪讬 讜讗住拽讜讛讜 讗讘讬 讛讚讬讗 诇讘转专 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬谉 讜讗谞住讘讛 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讜转讜 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讟讘注 讘讚讙诇转 讜讗住拽讜讛讜 讗讙讬砖专讗 讚砖讘讬住转谞讗 讜讗谞住讘讛 专讘讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗驻讜诪讗 讚砖讜砖讘讬谞讬 诇讘转专 讞诪砖讛 讬讜诪讬

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鈥檃 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鈥 testimony, although the body was seen only five days after death.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇拽讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讗讬谞讛讜 讚注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讞讜诪专讗 驻诇讬讙 讗讬谞讛讜 讚注讘讬讚 讻诪讗谉 砖讗谞讬 诪讬讗 讚爪诪转讬

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.

讜讛讗诪专转 诪讬讗 诪专讝讜 诪讻讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讻讛 诪讬爪诪转 爪诪讬转 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讻讬 讗住拽讬讛 讞讝讬讬讛 讘砖注转讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讬砖转讛讬 诪讬转驻讞 转驻讞

The Gemara wonders about this: But didn鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇 诇诪讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 住讜祝 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讜注诇讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘住讜诪讗 砖讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 讘诪注专讛 讜讬专讚 诪讜砖讻讜 讗讞专讬讜 讜砖讛讜 讻讚讬 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖诐 讜讛砖讬讗讜 讗转 谞砖讜转讬讛诐 讜砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘注住讬讗 讘讗讞讚 砖砖诇砖诇讜讛讜 诇讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 讘讬讚诐 讗诇讗 专讙诇讜 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

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞驻诇 诇诪讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专转 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 砖注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛 诪讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转讬讜

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讟讘注 讘讗讙诪讗 讚住诪拽讬 讗谞住讘讛 专讘 砖讬诇讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇砖诪讜讗诇 转讗 谞砖诪转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讘专讬砖讗

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.

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讗讜 诪讜转专转 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讙诪讗 讚住诪拽讬 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗讜 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讛讜讗 讜诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 讛讻讬

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鈥檚 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?

诪讬讟注讗 讟注讬谞讗 讗谞讗 住讘专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讜讜 讜拽讬讬诪讬 讻诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讙诇讬 讗讬诪讜专 讙诇讬 讗砖驻诇讜

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.

拽专讬 砖诪讜讗诇 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 讬讗讜谞讛 诇爪讚讬拽 讻诇 讗讜谉 拽专讬 专讘 注诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜转砖讜注讛 讘专讜讘 讬讜注抓

In light of this response, Shmuel recited this verse about Rav: 鈥淣o mischief shall befall the righteous鈥 (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: 鈥淏ut salvation lies in much counsel鈥 (Proverbs 11:14), since it was Shmuel鈥檚 advice that caused Rav to wait.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪注砖讛 讘砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讻诪专讬谉 诪讻诪讜专讬谉 讘讬专讚谉 讜谞讻谞住 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诇诪讞讬诇讛 砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讜砖拽注讛 讞诪讛 讜诇讗 专讗讛 驻转讞讛 砖诇 诪讞讬诇讛 讜砖讛讛 讞讘专讜 讻讚讬 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讜 讜讘讗 讜讛讜讚讬注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 诇诪讞专 讝专讞讛 讞诪讛 讜讛讻讬专 驻转讞讛 砖诇 诪讞讬诇讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗 讛住驻讚 讙讚讜诇 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专转 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讜砖 诇诪讞讬诇讛 砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讘诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 诪讞讬诇讛 砖诇 讚讙讬诐 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗讬谞讬砖 讚注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚注诇诪讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

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.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讬讬转讬 诪讛诇讱 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜专讗讬转讬 住驻讬谞讛 讗讞转 砖谞砖讘专讛 讜讛讬讬转讬 诪爪讟注专 注诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖讘讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻砖注诇讬转讬 讘讬讘砖讛 讘讗 讜讬砖讘 讜讚谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诇讻讛 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讘谞讬 诪讬 讛注诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬 讚祝 砖诇 住驻讬谞讛 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讬 讜讻诇 讙诇 讜讙诇 砖讘讗 注诇讬 谞注谞注转讬 诇讜 专讗砖讬

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.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讬讘讜讗讜 专砖注讬诐 注诇 讗讚诐 讬谞注谞注 诇讜 专讗砖讜 讗诪专转讬 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 诪讜转专转 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗住讜专讛

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鈥檚 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.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讬讬转讬 诪讛诇讱 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜专讗讬转讬 住驻讬谞讛 讗讞转 砖诪讟专驻转 讘讬诐 讜讛讬讬转讬 诪爪讟注专 注诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖讘讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻砖注诇讬转讬 诇诪讚讬谞转 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 讘讗 讜讬砖讘 讜讚谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诇讻讛 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讘谞讬 诪讬 讛注诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬 讙诇 讟专讚谞讬 诇讞讘专讜 讜讞讘专讜 诇讞讘专讜 注讚 砖讛拽讬讗谞讬 诇讬讘砖讛 讗诪专转讬 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专转 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞驻诇 诇讙讜讘 讗专讬讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 诇讞驻讜专讛 诪诇讗讛 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讞驻讜专讛 诪诇讗讛 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Sages taught: If an individual fell into a lion鈥檚 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

砖诪讗 讞讘专 讛讜讗 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讙讘 讗讬爪爪讗 诪讝拽讬 诇讬讛

that perhaps he is a charmer [岣bbar] 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讻讘砖谉 讛讗砖 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 诇讬讜专讛 诪诇讗讛 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗诪专讜 砖诇 砖诪谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讘注讬专 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讻讘讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转讞诇转讜 诪讻讘讛 讜住讜驻讜 诪讘注讬专

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 A岣, 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 诪注砖讛 谞住讬诐 诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 谞住讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜爪讜诪讜 注诇讬 讜讗诇 转讗讻诇讜 讜讗诇 转砖转讜

搂 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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔ast for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day鈥 (Esther 4:16), demonstrating that one may survive this experience naturally?

讗诇讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讬诐 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讬砖谉 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 诪诇拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬讬砖谉 诇讗诇转专

The Gemara answers: Rather, the miraculous element is that he did not sleep during those three days, as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讻讬驻讬谉 注诇 讙讘 讻讬驻讬谉 讛讜讜 讜专讘谞谉 讚砖讬砖讗 讛讜讜 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 诪住专讬讱 讜谞讬讬诐 驻讜专转讗

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鈥檛 grasp some part of an arch for a short time and sleep a little, and therefore this incident does not qualify as a miracle.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讘转讜 砖诇 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讞讜驻专 砖讬讞讬谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讘讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讘讗讜 讜讛讜讚讬注讜 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讚讜住讗 砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖诇讜诐 砖谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖诇讜诐 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 注诇转讛

The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving the daughter of Ne岣nya the well digger, who fell into the Great Cistern, and they came and notified Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讗诪专 诇讛 讘转讬 诪讬 讛注诇讱 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讝讻专 砖诇 专讞诇讬诐 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讬 讜讝拽谉 诪谞讛讬讙讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讘讬讗 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 谞讘讬讗 讗谞讻讬 讜诇讗 讘谉 谞讘讬讗 讗谞讻讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专 砖讛爪讚讬拽 诪转注住拽 讘讜 讬讻砖诇 讘讜 讝专注讜

When she came to Rabbi 岣nina 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 岣nina 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: 鈥淚 am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet am I鈥 (Amos 7:14). Rather, I reasoned as follows: Could it be that concerning the endeavor that the righteous Ne岣nya 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 诪转 讘谞讜 讘爪诪讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜住讘讬讘讬讜 谞砖注专讛 诪讗讚 诪诇诪讚 砖讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讚拽讚拽 注诐 住讘讬讘讬讜 讻讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讗诇 谞注专抓 讘住讜讚 拽讚讜砖讬诐 专讘讛 讜谞讜专讗 注诇 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜

Rabbi Abba said: Even so, the son of Ne岣nya 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: 鈥淎nd around Him it storms [nisara] mightily鈥 (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鈥檃ra], so that even slight deviations can elicit severe punishment. Rabbi 岣nina said: This idea is derived from here: 鈥淎 God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared by all that are about Him鈥 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诪注 诪谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讗讜诪专讜转 诪转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讚讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诪注 诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讗谞讜 讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇住驻讜讚 讜诇拽讘讜专 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬谉 砖讛讜讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讻讜讬谉

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鈥檚 wife to remarry or whether he does not intend to offer formal testimony.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讜讘讙讜讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗讬谉 注讚讜转讜 注讚讜转

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.

讙诪壮 讜讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗讝诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚拽讗诪专讬 讛专讬谞讜 讘讗讬谉 诪诇住驻讜讚 讜诪诇拽讘讜专 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬

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鈥檛. 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.

讜讚诇诪讗 拽诪爪讗 讘注诇诪讗 砖讻讬讘 诇讬讛 讜讗住讬拽讜 诇讬讛 注诇 砖诪讬讛 讚拽讗诪专讬 讻谉 讜讻谉 专讘谞谉 讛讜讜 讛转诐 讻谉 讜讻谉 住驻讚谞讬 讛讜讜 讛转诐

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.

讜讘讙讜讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪转讻讜讬谉 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 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛转讬专 讗讘诇 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 注讚讜转讜 注讚讜转 讛讬讻讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪转 讛砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 讝讛讜 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛转讬专 诪转 住转诐 讝讛讜 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇注讚讜转

搂 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鈥檚 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.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛转讬专 讗讘诇 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 注讚讜转讜 注讚讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗讜砖注讬讗 讘专讘讬 砖讛转讬专诐 注诐 砖诪谞讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛转讬专 讗讘诇 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 注讚讜转讜 注讚讜转 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐

This was also stated by other amora鈥檌m. 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鈥檚 death, his testimony is considered valid testimony. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 testimony only when he intended to permit the woman to remarry, but if he merely intended to testify about the man鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讜讘讙讜讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗讬谉 注讚讜转讜 注讚讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讻讬 讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗诪专 讜讗讝讬诇 诪讗谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讞讬讜讗讬 诪讗谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讞讬讜讗讬 砖讻讬讘 讞讬讜讗讬 讜讗谞住讘讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗诪专 讜讗讝讬诇 讜讜讬 诇讬讛 诇驻专砖讗 讝专讬讝讗 讚讛讜讛 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讚砖讻讬讘 讜讗谞住讘讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜

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鈥檚 statement when he speaks offhandedly, without any intention to testify. Like that gentile who was going around saying: Who is from the house of 岣vvai; who is from the house of 岣vvai? 岣vvai has died. And based upon this report, Rav Yosef allowed 岣vvai鈥檚 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗诪专 讜讗讝讬诇 诪讗谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讞住讗 讟讘注 讞住讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗诇拽讬诐 讗讻诇讜 讻讜讜专讬 诇讞住讗 诪讚讬讘讜专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讝诇讗 讚讘讬转讛讜 讚讞住讗 讜讗讬谞住讘讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讘诇 讗讬 谞住讬讘 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛

搂 There was also a certain gentile who was going around saying: Who is from the house of 岣sa? 岣sa has drowned. Rav Na岣an said: By God! The fish have eaten 岣sa. The Gemara relates: Due to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement, although he did not issue a court ruling permitting it, 岣sa鈥檚 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞住讘讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗诪专 讞住讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗讬转讬讛 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚住诇讬拽 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇转讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗讜 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

There are those who say that Rav Na岣an actually issued a ruling and allowed his wife to marry. He said: 岣sa 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 岣sa 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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 拽讟讜诇 讗住驻住转讗 讜砖讚讬 诇讞讬讜讗讬 讘砖讘转讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇讱 讻讚拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讘砖讬诇 诇讬 拽讚讬专讛 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 讘砖讬诇 诇讬 讜拽讟讬诇转讬讛 砖诪注讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讜讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 砖讛讬转讗

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鈥檛 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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

Yevamot 121: Not Learning Halakhah from a Miracle

Opening with another mishnah on the identification of bodies - specifically, if one fell into water. Depending on the conditions,...
come sail away

Come Sail Away

The final two chapters of Yevamot move away from the headsplitting puzzles of brothers and sisters and children and mothers...

Yevamot 121

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 121

拽讬专讘 诪讬转转讜 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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?

讚砖讞讟讬讛 讘讘讬转讗 讚砖讬砖讗 讜驻专讻讬住 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚砖讞讟讬讛 讘讘专讗 讜诇讗 驻专讻讬住

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 诇拽讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讗讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 驻诇讬讙

搂 It was taught in the mishna that one may testify to someone鈥檚 death only when he saw the corpse within three days of the individual鈥檚 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鈥檚 death?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讟讘注 讘讻专诪讬 讜讗住拽讜讛讜 讗讘讬 讛讚讬讗 诇讘转专 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬谉 讜讗谞住讘讛 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讜转讜 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讟讘注 讘讚讙诇转 讜讗住拽讜讛讜 讗讙讬砖专讗 讚砖讘讬住转谞讗 讜讗谞住讘讛 专讘讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗驻讜诪讗 讚砖讜砖讘讬谞讬 诇讘转专 讞诪砖讛 讬讜诪讬

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鈥檃 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鈥 testimony, although the body was seen only five days after death.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇拽讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讗讬谞讛讜 讚注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讞讜诪专讗 驻诇讬讙 讗讬谞讛讜 讚注讘讬讚 讻诪讗谉 砖讗谞讬 诪讬讗 讚爪诪转讬

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.

讜讛讗诪专转 诪讬讗 诪专讝讜 诪讻讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讻讛 诪讬爪诪转 爪诪讬转 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讻讬 讗住拽讬讛 讞讝讬讬讛 讘砖注转讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讬砖转讛讬 诪讬转驻讞 转驻讞

The Gemara wonders about this: But didn鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇 诇诪讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 住讜祝 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讜注诇讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘住讜诪讗 砖讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 讘诪注专讛 讜讬专讚 诪讜砖讻讜 讗讞专讬讜 讜砖讛讜 讻讚讬 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖诐 讜讛砖讬讗讜 讗转 谞砖讜转讬讛诐 讜砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘注住讬讗 讘讗讞讚 砖砖诇砖诇讜讛讜 诇讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 讘讬讚诐 讗诇讗 专讙诇讜 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

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞驻诇 诇诪讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专转 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 砖注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛 诪讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转讬讜

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讟讘注 讘讗讙诪讗 讚住诪拽讬 讗谞住讘讛 专讘 砖讬诇讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇砖诪讜讗诇 转讗 谞砖诪转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讘专讬砖讗

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.

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讗讜 诪讜转专转 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讙诪讗 讚住诪拽讬 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗讜 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讛讜讗 讜诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 讛讻讬

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鈥檚 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?

诪讬讟注讗 讟注讬谞讗 讗谞讗 住讘专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讜讜 讜拽讬讬诪讬 讻诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讙诇讬 讗讬诪讜专 讙诇讬 讗砖驻诇讜

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.

拽专讬 砖诪讜讗诇 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 讬讗讜谞讛 诇爪讚讬拽 讻诇 讗讜谉 拽专讬 专讘 注诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜转砖讜注讛 讘专讜讘 讬讜注抓

In light of this response, Shmuel recited this verse about Rav: 鈥淣o mischief shall befall the righteous鈥 (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: 鈥淏ut salvation lies in much counsel鈥 (Proverbs 11:14), since it was Shmuel鈥檚 advice that caused Rav to wait.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪注砖讛 讘砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讻诪专讬谉 诪讻诪讜专讬谉 讘讬专讚谉 讜谞讻谞住 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诇诪讞讬诇讛 砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讜砖拽注讛 讞诪讛 讜诇讗 专讗讛 驻转讞讛 砖诇 诪讞讬诇讛 讜砖讛讛 讞讘专讜 讻讚讬 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讜 讜讘讗 讜讛讜讚讬注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 诇诪讞专 讝专讞讛 讞诪讛 讜讛讻讬专 驻转讞讛 砖诇 诪讞讬诇讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗 讛住驻讚 讙讚讜诇 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专转 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讜砖 诇诪讞讬诇讛 砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讘诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 诪讞讬诇讛 砖诇 讚讙讬诐 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗讬谞讬砖 讚注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚注诇诪讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

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.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讬讬转讬 诪讛诇讱 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜专讗讬转讬 住驻讬谞讛 讗讞转 砖谞砖讘专讛 讜讛讬讬转讬 诪爪讟注专 注诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖讘讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻砖注诇讬转讬 讘讬讘砖讛 讘讗 讜讬砖讘 讜讚谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诇讻讛 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讘谞讬 诪讬 讛注诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬 讚祝 砖诇 住驻讬谞讛 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讬 讜讻诇 讙诇 讜讙诇 砖讘讗 注诇讬 谞注谞注转讬 诇讜 专讗砖讬

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.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讬讘讜讗讜 专砖注讬诐 注诇 讗讚诐 讬谞注谞注 诇讜 专讗砖讜 讗诪专转讬 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 诪讜转专转 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗住讜专讛

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鈥檚 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.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讬讬转讬 诪讛诇讱 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜专讗讬转讬 住驻讬谞讛 讗讞转 砖诪讟专驻转 讘讬诐 讜讛讬讬转讬 诪爪讟注专 注诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖讘讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻砖注诇讬转讬 诇诪讚讬谞转 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 讘讗 讜讬砖讘 讜讚谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诇讻讛 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讘谞讬 诪讬 讛注诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬 讙诇 讟专讚谞讬 诇讞讘专讜 讜讞讘专讜 诇讞讘专讜 注讚 砖讛拽讬讗谞讬 诇讬讘砖讛 讗诪专转讬 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专转 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞驻诇 诇讙讜讘 讗专讬讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 诇讞驻讜专讛 诪诇讗讛 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讞驻讜专讛 诪诇讗讛 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Sages taught: If an individual fell into a lion鈥檚 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

砖诪讗 讞讘专 讛讜讗 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讙讘 讗讬爪爪讗 诪讝拽讬 诇讬讛

that perhaps he is a charmer [岣bbar] 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讻讘砖谉 讛讗砖 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 诇讬讜专讛 诪诇讗讛 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗诪专讜 砖诇 砖诪谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讘注讬专 砖诇 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讻讘讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转讞诇转讜 诪讻讘讛 讜住讜驻讜 诪讘注讬专

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 A岣, 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 诪注砖讛 谞住讬诐 诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 谞住讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜爪讜诪讜 注诇讬 讜讗诇 转讗讻诇讜 讜讗诇 转砖转讜

搂 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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔ast for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day鈥 (Esther 4:16), demonstrating that one may survive this experience naturally?

讗诇讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讬诐 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讬砖谉 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 诪诇拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬讬砖谉 诇讗诇转专

The Gemara answers: Rather, the miraculous element is that he did not sleep during those three days, as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讻讬驻讬谉 注诇 讙讘 讻讬驻讬谉 讛讜讜 讜专讘谞谉 讚砖讬砖讗 讛讜讜 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 诪住专讬讱 讜谞讬讬诐 驻讜专转讗

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鈥檛 grasp some part of an arch for a short time and sleep a little, and therefore this incident does not qualify as a miracle.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讘转讜 砖诇 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讞讜驻专 砖讬讞讬谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讘讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讘讗讜 讜讛讜讚讬注讜 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讚讜住讗 砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖诇讜诐 砖谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖诇讜诐 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 注诇转讛

The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving the daughter of Ne岣nya the well digger, who fell into the Great Cistern, and they came and notified Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讗诪专 诇讛 讘转讬 诪讬 讛注诇讱 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讝讻专 砖诇 专讞诇讬诐 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讬 讜讝拽谉 诪谞讛讬讙讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讘讬讗 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 谞讘讬讗 讗谞讻讬 讜诇讗 讘谉 谞讘讬讗 讗谞讻讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专 砖讛爪讚讬拽 诪转注住拽 讘讜 讬讻砖诇 讘讜 讝专注讜

When she came to Rabbi 岣nina 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 岣nina 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: 鈥淚 am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet am I鈥 (Amos 7:14). Rather, I reasoned as follows: Could it be that concerning the endeavor that the righteous Ne岣nya 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 诪转 讘谞讜 讘爪诪讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜住讘讬讘讬讜 谞砖注专讛 诪讗讚 诪诇诪讚 砖讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讚拽讚拽 注诐 住讘讬讘讬讜 讻讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讗诇 谞注专抓 讘住讜讚 拽讚讜砖讬诐 专讘讛 讜谞讜专讗 注诇 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜

Rabbi Abba said: Even so, the son of Ne岣nya 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: 鈥淎nd around Him it storms [nisara] mightily鈥 (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鈥檃ra], so that even slight deviations can elicit severe punishment. Rabbi 岣nina said: This idea is derived from here: 鈥淎 God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared by all that are about Him鈥 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诪注 诪谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讗讜诪专讜转 诪转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讚讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诪注 诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讗谞讜 讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇住驻讜讚 讜诇拽讘讜专 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬谉 砖讛讜讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讻讜讬谉

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鈥檚 wife to remarry or whether he does not intend to offer formal testimony.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讜讘讙讜讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗讬谉 注讚讜转讜 注讚讜转

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.

讙诪壮 讜讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗讝诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚拽讗诪专讬 讛专讬谞讜 讘讗讬谉 诪诇住驻讜讚 讜诪诇拽讘讜专 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬

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鈥檛. 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.

讜讚诇诪讗 拽诪爪讗 讘注诇诪讗 砖讻讬讘 诇讬讛 讜讗住讬拽讜 诇讬讛 注诇 砖诪讬讛 讚拽讗诪专讬 讻谉 讜讻谉 专讘谞谉 讛讜讜 讛转诐 讻谉 讜讻谉 住驻讚谞讬 讛讜讜 讛转诐

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.

讜讘讙讜讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪转讻讜讬谉 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 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛转讬专 讗讘诇 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 注讚讜转讜 注讚讜转 讛讬讻讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪转 讛砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 讝讛讜 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛转讬专 诪转 住转诐 讝讛讜 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇注讚讜转

搂 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鈥檚 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.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛转讬专 讗讘诇 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 注讚讜转讜 注讚讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗讜砖注讬讗 讘专讘讬 砖讛转讬专诐 注诐 砖诪谞讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛转讬专 讗讘诇 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 注讚讜转讜 注讚讜转 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐

This was also stated by other amora鈥檌m. 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鈥檚 death, his testimony is considered valid testimony. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 testimony only when he intended to permit the woman to remarry, but if he merely intended to testify about the man鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讜讘讙讜讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗讬谉 注讚讜转讜 注讚讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讻讬 讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗诪专 讜讗讝讬诇 诪讗谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讞讬讜讗讬 诪讗谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讞讬讜讗讬 砖讻讬讘 讞讬讜讗讬 讜讗谞住讘讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗诪专 讜讗讝讬诇 讜讜讬 诇讬讛 诇驻专砖讗 讝专讬讝讗 讚讛讜讛 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讚砖讻讬讘 讜讗谞住讘讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜

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鈥檚 statement when he speaks offhandedly, without any intention to testify. Like that gentile who was going around saying: Who is from the house of 岣vvai; who is from the house of 岣vvai? 岣vvai has died. And based upon this report, Rav Yosef allowed 岣vvai鈥檚 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗诪专 讜讗讝讬诇 诪讗谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讞住讗 讟讘注 讞住讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗诇拽讬诐 讗讻诇讜 讻讜讜专讬 诇讞住讗 诪讚讬讘讜专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讝诇讗 讚讘讬转讛讜 讚讞住讗 讜讗讬谞住讘讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 住讜祝 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讘诇 讗讬 谞住讬讘 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛

搂 There was also a certain gentile who was going around saying: Who is from the house of 岣sa? 岣sa has drowned. Rav Na岣an said: By God! The fish have eaten 岣sa. The Gemara relates: Due to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement, although he did not issue a court ruling permitting it, 岣sa鈥檚 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞住讘讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗诪专 讞住讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗讬转讬讛 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚住诇讬拽 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇转讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗讜 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

There are those who say that Rav Na岣an actually issued a ruling and allowed his wife to marry. He said: 岣sa 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 岣sa 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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 拽讟讜诇 讗住驻住转讗 讜砖讚讬 诇讞讬讜讗讬 讘砖讘转讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇讱 讻讚拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讘砖讬诇 诇讬 拽讚讬专讛 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 讘砖讬诇 诇讬 讜拽讟讬诇转讬讛 砖诪注讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讜讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 砖讛讬转讗

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鈥檛 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

Scroll To Top