Yevamot 115a (קטו.) — the Talmud in English

Do we say

that she has a migo,

“What could she have gained by lying,”

since

if she wished

she could have

said, “There is peace in the world,”

and she would have been deemed credible, for it had not become established that there was war in the world; now, too, when she says that there is war, we say that she is not lying, and she is deemed credible?

Or perhaps,

here we cannot say that she is deemed credible by virtue of a migo of “What could she have gained by lying,” for she herself did not intend to lie. Rather,

since it had become established

that there was war,

she said it based on an assumption

and believes that he died,

and

therefore

“What could she have gained by lying” does not come and undermine

and nullify

her presumption,

for the credibility resulting from the fact that she is not lying is not sufficient to nullify the presumption that she is speaking based on an estimation in her heart .

Come and hear:

A woman came to court and said:

“The house burned

down

upon us; the cave burned

down

upon us,”

meaning that they set fire to the house or cave where she and her husband had been, and it filled with smoke.

And

he

remained there and

died, while I

fled

and was saved; she is not deemed credible.

Here, she herself established this warlike circumstance, and it teaches that she is not deemed credible; we do not say, “What could she have gained by lying,” since if she wished she could have said simply, “He died.”

And we reject this proof:

That case is different,

for when the place filled with smoke, she fled and did not wait until she saw him dead.

And if the reason is the smoke,

so that

the court

might say to her,

“Just as a miracle occurred for you, a miracle also occurred for him,”

but concerning war it may be said that she would not have said it if she had not seen him dead, for if she wished to lie, she would not have established that there was war in the world.

Come and hear:

A woman came to court and said:

“Foreigners attacked us; bandits attacked us;

he

my husband

died, and

I

was saved; she is deemed credible.”

Here, too, she herself established the war, yet it teaches that she is deemed credible. This proves that we say, “What could she have gained by lying?”

And we reject this proof:

There

the war was a minor one, since she was with him during it. She did not speak based on an assumption, because a woman is not afraid of bandits. Where she is not afraid, it is the woman’s way to remain with her husband until he dies, and this is

in accordance with Rav Idi,

who said that a woman is not afraid of bandits.

For Rav Idi said: “A woman—

her weapon is upon her!”

For they do not kill her; rather, they assault her, and after they assault her, they no longer kill her [Rashi in Avoda Zara 25b].

The dilemma concerning a case where she herself established that there was war in the world remains unresolved.

A certain man, at the end of his wedding celebration,

at the conclusion of his wedding,

had a fire break out in the wedding canopy,

the fire took hold of the bridal house.

His wife said to them,

she said to the people who were there,

“Look at my husband, look at my husband,”

meaning: See my husband, whom the fire is consuming.

They came and saw

and found

a burned man, with

a charred person whose identity could not be recognized,

and a piece of a hand lying there,

and nearby they found a severed, burned hand lying there.

Rav Hiyya bar Avin thought to say: This is the same as “The house burned upon us; the cave burned upon us,”

which we stated above, that just as a miracle occurred for you, a miracle also occurred for him.

And we reject this:

Rava said: Are the cases comparable? There,

in the case of “The house burned upon us,”

she did not say, “Look at my husband, look at my husband.”

Furthermore,

there they did not see

a burned man lying there and a piece of a hand lying there,

and therefore we are concerned that she spoke based on an assumption, and we say that perhaps a miracle occurred for him; but here, this cannot be said.

The Gemara explains:

And as for Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin,

why did he not accept her testimony? After all, they saw

a burned man lying there!?

And we explain: Here, too, it is possible that she spoke based on an assumption, for

say

a person

who came to rescue him was consumed by the fire,

the one who came to rescue him was burned,

and the piece of the hand lying there

belonged to another man, and

the fire took hold

of her husband

and a defect developed in him; and because of his shame,

because he had become disfigured,

he went away and fled into the world.

We learned in the Mishna that a woman is not deemed credible to testify that her husband died in a war.

The Gemara raises a question:

They raised a dilemma: What is the halakha concerning one witness

who testified that her husband died

during

a time when

there was war

in the world—

what is the halakha? Do we deem him credible or not?

The two sides of the dilemma are as follows:

Do we say

that the

reason

the Sages were lenient because of the plight of a woman whose husband’s whereabouts are unknown is

that one witness is deemed credible

to testify that her husband died

because it is a matter that will ultimately be revealed

and

he does not lie,

so here too,

although there is war in the world,

he does not lie .

Or perhaps the reason one witness is deemed credible is

because

we rely on the woman,

for she herself investigates carefully and then marries,

meaning that she thoroughly examines the circumstances and all the facts that establish what happened, until she reaches a conclusion upon which it is appropriate to rely .

But here,

since there is war in the world, both of them speak based on an assumption, and

she does not investigate carefully and then marry.

Rami bar Hama said: Come and hear:

Come and hear: For

Rabbi Akiva said: When I descended

from the Land of Israel

to Nehardea

in Babylonia

to intercalate

the

year, I found

the

man named Nehemiah of Beit Deli, and he said to me: I heard that

the Sages in the Land of Israel

do not permit a woman to marry in the Land of Israel on the basis of one witness, except

that only one Sage permits it, and

his name is Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava.

And I said

to him: Yes, these are the facts.

and confirmed

to him that this was indeed the case.

He said to me: Tell them

the Sages in the Land of Israel

in my name: You know that

this country

the Land of Israel

is overrun with armies. This is what I have received from Rabban Gamliel the Elder: They permit

the

woman to marry on the basis of one witness.

And we inquire:

What does “a country overrun with armies” mean? Is it not that although this country

the Land of Israel

is overrun

with wars,

and despite all this,

this is what I have received: They permit her to marry on the basis of one witness.

Apparently,

this proves that

one witness is deemed credible

when there is war.

And we reject this:

Rava said: If so, why specifically

did he say

“this country”?

He should have said, “Every place where there are armies.”

Rather, Rava said: This is what

Nehemiah of Beit Deli said to Rabbi Akiva:

You know that this country

the Land of Israel

is overrun with armies, and it is not possible for me to leave

my

family members and come

to the Land of Israel

before the Sages.

Therefore, tell them in my name:

This is what I have received from Rabban Gamliel: They permit a woman to marry on the basis of one witness.

Come and hear:

There was an incident involving two Torah scholars who were traveling with Abba Yosei ben Simai on a ship. It sank, and Rabbi permitted their wives to marry on the basis of

the testimony of several

women.

And we inquire:

But water is comparable to war,

for it is possible that they spoke based on an assumption: Once they saw him drowning, they did not expect him to emerge, and they did not wait to see whether he would emerge, even though in water whose end is visible one can see the entire perimeter.

And women, even a hundred

who testified,

are comparable to one witness.

And it teaches: He permitted them to marry!

Apparently, one witness is deemed credible in a case of war, and we are not concerned that he spoke based on an assumption.

And we reject this:

Can you really understand that

testimony of drowning is sufficient?

After all, here they were traveling on a ship,

and these were waters whose end is not visible!

For he cannot see the end of the water from all four directions.

And in waters whose end is not visible,

his wife is forbidden

even where two valid witnesses testified that he drowned, since we are concerned that perhaps he floated beneath the water and emerged in a place beyond this person’s sight.

Rather,

it must be the case that

what are the circumstances? They testified

that they testified as follows:

“They brought them up before us,

they brought them out of the water before us,