Bava Batra 135a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara brings another case, concerning the husband's credibility to permit his wife from yibbum.

An incident involving

a certain man who was dying,

inclining toward death without sons, and he had brothers who were fit to perform yibbum with his wife.

They said to him: “Your wife—to whom?”

That is, is your wife in need of yibbum, or is she permitted to marry outside?

He said to them: “She is fit for the High Priest,”

[fit for a High Priest]. That is, she does not require yibbum, but is permitted to every man.

Rava said: “What concern is there here?”

That is, for what reason should she be forbidden to marry outside?

For Rav Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: When a husband says,

“I divorced my wife,” he is believed!

And also in our case, certainly his intention is to say, “I divorced her,” and he is believed.

Abaye said to him: But when Rabbi Yitzhak bar Yosef came, he said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: When a husband says, “I divorced my wife,” he is not believed.

It follows that the amoraim differed concerning the view of Rabbi Yohanan, and we must be concerned for the stringent view, and forbid her to marry outside.

He

Rava

said to him: “Did we not distinguish,”

and did we not answer this difficulty above:

“Here it is retroactively, and here

it is from now onward”?!

If so, the amoraim did not differ concerning the view of Rabbi Yohanan, and everyone agrees that it is possible to permit her to marry from now onward.

Abaye returned and challenged him:

“And shall we stand by a refutation and rely upon it?

Is it possible to rely upon this answer and conclude that the amoraim did not differ concerning the view of Rabbi Yohanan? Surely we must be concerned that perhaps they did differ concerning his words, and there are those who forbid her even from now onward?”

Because of this difficulty, Rava retracted his words and

Rava said to Rav Natan bar Ami: “Be concerned for it,”

like Abaye, and let her be forbidden to marry outside.

Another case concerning the same matter:

A certain

man

who was established for us as having no brothers,

and he also had no sons.

And at the time of his death he said that he had no brothers.

Simply understood, his wife is permitted to marry outside, since he has no brothers fit for yibbum?

Rav Yosef said: “What concern is there here?”

For two reasons we should permit her:

One: it is established for us that he has no brothers.

And furthermore, he said at the time of his death that he had no

brothers, and he is believed because he presently has the ability to divorce her.

Abaye said to him: “But the

inhabitants of the city say

that there are witnesses overseas who know that he has brothers.”

And we must be concerned for their words and wait until we hear what is in the mouths of the witnesses.

The Gemara rejects this:

“At present, in any event, they are not here before us,

and the witnesses who are destined to come cannot be a reason to forbid her. For a judge has only what his eyes see! And there is proof for this:

“Is this not the case of Rabbi Hanina?

Is this case not like that case that came before Rabbi Hanina, involving the daughter of Samuel who was captured, and the captors brought her up to the Land of Israel, and she was redeemed there, and she claimed before Rabbi Hanina, “I am pure,” and he permitted her to priestly status, even though there were witnesses overseas that she had become impure?

And his reason was because

Rabbi Hanina said: “Witnesses are beside the northern wind, and she should be forbidden” [are we to forbid her merely because of witnesses who are located in the northern direction and have never been examined] ?!

should we forbid her merely because of witnesses who are in the north and have never been questioned] ?!

If so, also in our case, there is no concern for witnesses who have not come to the court, and she is permitted to marry outside.

Abaye said to him: “If we were lenient in the case of a captive woman,

and established her upon the presumption of permission that she had not committed adultery,

shall we be lenient with regard to a married woman ?!

Because of this argument,

Rava said to Rav Natan bar Ami: “Be concerned for it.”

That is, do not permit her to marry outside until she performs halitza, or until those witnesses come to the court and the matter becomes clear.

We learned in the Mishna: “One who says, ‘This is my son,’ is believed;

‘This is my brother,’ he is not believed.”

And he does not inherit together with his brothers, but takes with him only his share. Nevertheless, if property came to that brother from another place, and he died without sons, all the brothers inherit him equally.

And we raised the question:

“And the other one”

[the other brothers]

“what do they say?”

If they say, ‘He is our brother,’ why should he take with him only his share, and no more,

when he should have divided equally with all his brothers?

Rather,

it certainly refers to a case

where they say, ‘He is not our brother,’

and for this reason he divides only with that brother who acknowledged that he was his brother.

If so, this is difficult:

“Say the latter clause: ‘If property fell to him

from another place, his brothers shall inherit it with him,’”

and if they do not acknowledge that he is their brother, why should they inherit his property?

For they said to him, ‘He is not our brother’?”

The Gemara answers:

“No, it is necessary [to state this] where they say, ‘We do not know.’”

Therefore, he does not take with them in their share, since he must bring proof that he is their brother,

but if he dies, his brothers take a share of his property together with their brother, for he acknowledged to them that he was their brother.

Rava said: “That is to say,”

from this law one can learn that one who says,

“I have a maneh in your possession,” and the other says, “I do not know,” is exempt.

And we do not extract money from him because of uncertainty, even though the claimant makes a definite claim and the defendant makes an uncertain claim, for we say, “The one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.”

And from here there is a proof against Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda, mentioned in tractate Bava Kamma (118a), for according to their view, a definite claim and an uncertain claim—the definite claim is preferable.