Yevamot 115a — the Talmud in English

Do we say

that she has a migo of

“What could she have lied about?”

if she wanted

she could have

said, “There is peace in the world,”

and she would have been trusted, for it had not become established that there was war in the world; now also, when she says that there is war, we say that she is not lying, and she is trusted.

Or perhaps,

here it is not possible to say that she is trusted on the basis of a migo of “What could she have lied about?”, for she herself does not intend to lie; rather,

since it became established

that there was war,

she said it according to what appeared to her

and she thinks that he died,

and

therefore

“What could she have lied about?” does not come and undermine

and nullify

her established presumption,

for the trustworthiness that she is not lying is not effective to nullify the presumption that she is speaking from an estimate of her heart .

Come and hear:

The woman came to court and said:

“Ruins

s

fell upon us; ruins

s

fell upon us,”

they set fire to the house or to the cave where my husband and I were, and it became filled with smoke.

And

he

remained and

died, while I

fled

and was saved; she is not trusted.

But here she established this war, and it teaches that she is not trusted; and we do not say, “What could she have lied about?”, for if she wanted, she could have said merely, “He died.”

And we reject this:

That case is different,

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

And if it is because of the smoke,

that the court said to her

the court

“Just as

a miracle occurred for you, a miracle also occurred for him.”

But concerning war, it is possible to say that she would not have said this if she had not seen him dead, for if she wanted to lie, she would not have established that there was war in the world.

Come and hear:

The woman came to court and said:

“Gentiles attacked us; bandits attacked us.”

He,

my husband,

died, and

I

was saved; she is trusted.

And here, after all, she established the war, and it teaches that she is trusted. It is demonstrated that we say, “What could she have lied about?”

And we reject this:

There,

since it was a small war, for she was together with him, she did not say it according to what appeared to her, because a woman is not afraid of bandits. And in a place where she is not afraid, it is the woman’s way to remain beside her husband until he dies,

in accordance with Rav Idi,

who said: 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 come upon her, and after they come upon her, they no longer kill her [Rashi in Avoda Zara 25b].

And the question of whether, when she established that there was war in the world, she is trusted was not resolved.

There was a certain man who, at the end of his wedding,

at the end of his wedding,

a fire caught in the wedding canopy.

The fire caught in the canopy house.

His wife said to them,

she said to the people who were there,

“Look at my husband! Look at my husband!”

See my husband, whom the fire is consuming.

They came and saw

they went and found

a burned man, that was lying,

a burned man whose identity could not be recognized,

and a piece of a hand that was lying

and nearby there was a severed, burned hand lying.

Rav Hiyya bar Avin thought to say: This is the same as “Ruins fell upon us; ruins fell upon us,”

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

And we reject this:

Rava said: Are these comparable? There,

in the case of “Ruins fell upon us,”

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

Furthermore,

there they did not see

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

and therefore we are concerned that she said it according to what appeared to her, and we say that perhaps a miracle occurred for him; but here it is not possible to say so.

And we explain:

And Rav Hiyya bar Avin,

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

a burned man lying!?

And we explain: Even here it is possible that she said it according to what appeared to her, for

say

a person

another came to rescue him and the fire consumed him,

this one who came to rescue him was burned,

and the piece of the hand that was lying

was from another man and

the fire caught

on her husband

and a blemish developed in him, and because of shame

and because of the shame that he had become blemished

he went and fled to the world.

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

And the Gemara is uncertain:

It was asked of them: What is the law concerning one witness

who testified that her husband died

during

the time when there was

war

in the world —

what is it?

Do we believe him or not?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say that the

reason

for which the Sages were lenient, because of the plight of a deserted woman,

is that one witness is believed

to testify that her husband died

because it is a matter destined to become revealed

and

he does not lie;

here too,

although there is war in the world,

he does not lie .

Or perhaps the reason that one witness is believed

is because

we rely on the woman,

for she herself investigates carefully and marries,

so that she investigates well, through indications and all the matters that prove the facts, to know how the matter was, until she reaches something suitable to rely upon .

But here

since there is war in the world, both of them say it according to what appears to them, and

she does not investigate carefully, yet marries.

Rami bar Hama said:

Come and hear: For

Rabbi Akiva said: “When I descended

from the Land of Israel

to Nehardea,

which is in Babylonia,

to intercalate

the

year, I found

the

Nahum the man of Beit Deli, and he said to me: I heard that

the Sages in the Land of Israel

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

that only one Sage permits this, and

his name is Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava.

”

And I said

and confirmed

to him: “These are indeed the facts.”

He said to me: “Tell them

to the Sages in the Land of Israel

in my name: You know that

this country

the Land of Israel

is troubled by troops; this is what I received from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, that they allow

the

woman to marry on the basis of one witness.”

And we discuss it:

What does “a country troubled by troops” mean? Is it not that although this country

the Land of Israel

is troubled

by wars,

even so,

“This is what I received: They allow her to marry on the basis of one witness.”

Apparently,

it is demonstrated from here that

one witness is believed

when there is war.

And we reject this:

Rava said: If so, what is different

about his saying

“this country”?

He should have needed to say: “Every place where there are troops.”

Rather, Rava said: This is what

Nahum the man of Beit Deli said to Rabbi Akiva:

“You know that this country

the Land of Israel

is troubled by troops, 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 received from Rabban Gamliel: They allow a woman to marry on the basis of one witness.”

Come and hear:

An incident occurred involving two Torah scholars who were coming with Abba Yose ben Simai on a ship, and it sank, and Rabbi allowed their wives to marry on the basis of

the testimony of several

women.

And we discuss it:

But water is like war,

for it is possible to say that they say it according to what appears to them: Once they saw him drowning, they do not imagine that he will rise, and they do not fear waiting to see whether he will rise, even in water whose end can be seen from its four sides.

And women, even a hundred

who testified

are like one witness.

And it teaches: “He allowed [the wives to marry]!”

Apparently, one witness in war is trusted, and we are not concerned that he says it according to what appears to him.

And we reject this:

And can you understand

that testimony of drowning is sufficient?

For here, since they were coming on a ship,

they were waters whose end cannot be seen!

For he does not see the end of the water from its four sides.

And in waters whose end cannot be seen,

his wife is forbidden

even where two fit witnesses testified that he drowned, because we are concerned that perhaps he floated beneath the water and emerged in a place that this person’s eye does not see.

Rather,

it must be

in what case? That they said

that they testified as follows:

“We brought them up before us,”

we brought them up from the water before us,