Yevamot 121b — the Talmud in English

For

we are concerned

perhaps he is a practitioner of sorcery,

and he knows how to whisper an incantation to them so that they will not harm him.

And the first tanna

held that they would certainly kill him, even if he whispered an incantation to them,

because of the pressure,

for since the place of the pit is narrow, and in his fall he presses upon them, they become angry, and

they harm him.

But a lions’ den is wide, and he does not stand upon them, and sometimes the lions are satiated and do not tear apart at that time.

The Sages taught: If one fell into a furnace of fire—

they testify concerning him.

Into a cauldron full of wine and oil

boiling over the fire—

they testify concerning him.

They said in the name of Rabbi Aha: If one fell into a cauldron

of

oil

boiling over the fire—

they testify concerning him, because he intensifies

the fire by his fall, as he splashes oil upon it at the time of his fall, and his legs become caught, and he cannot get out of it.

But if a person fell into a cauldron boiling over the fire

of wine—

they do not testify concerning him because he

extinguishes

the fire by his fall, with the wine that splashes from the cauldron onto the fire as a result of his fall, and thus he remains alive.

Therefore, even if they did not see him emerge immediately from the cauldron, this is no proof that he is dead; rather, he is unable to emerge now, and when the cauldron cools he will be able to emerge from it.

They said to him: Its beginning,

at the time of his fall, he indeed

extinguishes

the fire beneath the cauldron of wine.

And

however,

its end

is that he

intensifies

the fire even more, because in a strong fire liquids are transformed into combustible material.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir said: There was an incident involving one who fell into the great pit.

It was taught: They said to Rabbi Meir: One does not mention miracles

to bring proof from them.

For even apart from his drowning in the water, he should have died during the time in which he disappeared there, and if he was saved, that is a miracle.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What miracle

occurred there?

If you say

because

he neither ate nor drank,

this is not a miracle.

But is it not written: [Esther 4]

Esther 4

“Fast for me, and do not eat and do not drink

for three days”?

And we answer:

Rather,

because

he did not sleep.

He did not sleep.

For Rabbi Yohanan said:

A person who swore

an oath that I will not sleep for three days—

they flog him

for a vain oath,

and he sleeps immediately,

for his oath has no validity, since he is unable to fulfill it.

And Rabbi Meir—

what is the reason,

why did he bring proof from there, when this is a miracle, and one does not bring proof from it?

Rav Kahana said: There were tiers upon tiers

there, and he was able to lean upon them and thus fall asleep, and this is not a miracle.

And the Rabbis

held that those tiers

of marble

were smooth

indeed,

and he was unable to lean upon them, and while standing he cannot sleep.

And Rabbi Meir

held:

It is impossible that he did not cling,

to strengthen himself by clinging to them,

and sleep a little.

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving the daughter of Nehunya,

who

was digging cisterns

so that they would fill with rainwater and there would be water for the pilgrims when they went up for the pilgrimage,

who fell into the great pit, and they came and informed Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa.

The first hour—

he said to them: Peace

to her.

The second—

he said to them: Peace

to her.

The third—

he said to them:

Already

she has risen

from the pit.

Since it is impossible to remain in the pit for more than two hours, and he was certain that she would be saved through the merit of her father, as will be explained, therefore at the third hour he was certain that she had already risen from the pit.

He said to her: My daughter, who brought you up

from the pit?

She said to him: A male sheep [A0104]the ram of Isaac

[the ram of Isaac]

happened to me, and an old man [A0106]Abraham our forefather

[Abraham our forefather]

was leading it.

His disciples said to him,

“Is it that

you are a prophet?”

He said to them: I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet, but

I know that it is impossible that

a matter with which the righteous one busies himself—

his offspring should fail in it!?

Rabbi Abba said: Even so, his son died

of Rabbi Nehunya

of thirst,

because such is the way of the Omnipresent: to be exacting with the pious, to the extent that even their merits do not stand for them under exact judgment.

As it is stated: [Psalms 50]

Psalms 50

“And around Him—

it is greatly exacted.”

The verse teaches

that

the Holy One, blessed is He, is exacting with “those around Him”,

the righteous who follow Him—even concerning matters that are as fine

as a hair’s breadth.

Rabbi Hanina said: From here

one may learn about exact judgment with the righteous [Psalms 89]:

“God is greatly revered in the council of the holy, and awesome over all those around Him.”

Mishna:

The Sages were lenient concerning testimony regarding a woman, to believe even one who is unfit for testimony, and even when he did not state his words as testimony but as one who speaks casually.

But they did not believe every person, and concerning the testimony of a gentile the Sages were concerned lest his intention be to mislead us; and they believed a gentile only when he speaks casually.

a.

Even if he heard from the women

when they speak casually, as they do not intend to testify, that they

say: So-and-so has died—

it is sufficient

for the one witness who heard this to come to the court and testify concerning his death.

Rabbi Judah says: Even if he heard children saying, “Look, we are going to eulogize and bury so-and-so,”

he may come and testify in court concerning his death.

b. A witness who came to court is believed concerning the man’s death, so that the court may permit his wife,

whether he intends

to testify about it

or whether he does not intend

to testify as testimony, but only to reveal the matter.

Rabbi Judah ben Bava says: In the case of an Israelite—

they permit the woman on his statement

even though he intends.

And in the case of a gentile, if he intended

to testify—

his testimony is not testimony.

And one should believe him only when he speaks casually.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that even if the children said that they were going to eulogize and bury so-and-so, the witness who heard their words may come and testify concerning his death.

And the Gemara asks:

Perhaps they are not going

to eulogize him and bury him, and this is no proof from the fact that they prepared themselves to go to his eulogy and burial that he indeed died, for it is possible that this is merely a rumor, since the children’s words contain no proof that they themselves know that he died.

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The intention of the Mishna is to speak of a case in which the witness heard

that the children

were saying:

the children:

“We are coming from eulogizing and burying so-and-so.”

And the Gemara still asks how it is possible to rely upon the speech of children:

And, by way of an example, the Gemara states: for example, if the witness heard that they were speaking about the burial of a person named “Kamtza.”

Perhaps “Kamtza” merely died, and they called him by his name!

It is possible that the children killed a grasshopper or an ant, called it by the name of a person named Kamtza, and spoke among themselves about its “burial” and “eulogy” in jest, as is the way of children; and how can one permit a married woman on the basis of their speech?

And we answer: for example, the children

were saying

the children:

“Such-and-such Rabbis were there, such-and-such eulogizers were there.”

For then it is proven from their words that they said it seriously and not in jest.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And in the case of a gentile, if he intended

to testify, he is not believed.”

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: They taught this only

that a gentile is not believed concerning testimony about a woman when he does not speak casually,

but when he intended

in his words

to permit

her to marry.

But if he intended to testify

so that they would know of his death—

his testimony is testimony.

And the Gemara explains:

How do we know

whether the gentile’s intention is to testify about his death or to permit his wife?

Rav Yosef said:

If

he came

the gentile

to the court and said: So-and-so has died; marry off his wife—

this is one who intended to permit.

And if he said

“He died,” plainly,

and did not speak about permitting his wife—

this is one who intended for testimony.

It was also stated: Reish Lakish said: They taught this

that the gentile is not believed

only when he intended to permit, but if he intended to testify—

his testimony is testimony,

and they marry off the dead man’s wife on the basis of his testimony.

Rabbi Yohanan said to him

to Reish Lakish: Is it that

the incident did not happen in this way, involving Hosheia the Great, who challenged [A0206]argued

[argued with]

with eighty-five elders

concerning the testimony of a gentile, and he

said to them

as you say:

They taught this only when he intended

the gentile

to permit, but if he intended to testify—

his testimony is testimony.

And

however,

the Sages did not agree with him!

Rather, the Mishna, which teaches

in it

“And in the case of a gentile, if he intended, his testimony is not testimony.”

And it implies that if he does not intend, his testimony is testimony—

how can you find this?

In what case do you find that he intends neither to testify nor to permit, and only then is he believed?—

When he speaks casually.

Like that

gentile

who was saying as he went,

who was saying while walking:

“Who is in the house of Hivai” [A0230]who is in the house of the man called Hivai

[“Who is in the house of the man called Ḥivvai?”]

“Who is in the house of Hivai? He died,”

died

Hivai!

And Rav Yosef married off his wife,

Rav Yosef married off his wife because he was speaking casually.

And there was another incident:

that

gentile,

who was saying as he went: “Woe to the swift horseman

the mighty warrior [A0241]from Israel

who was in Pumbedita, for he has died!”

who was in Pumbedita, for he died!”

And there was another incident, involving

that

gentile

who was saying as he went: “Who is in the house of Hasa? Hasa drowned!”

And his drowning was in water from which there is no end.

Rav Nahman said

as an oath, in order to affirm the matter:

“By God! The fish ate

the fish

Hasa

who drowned.

And

from Rav Nahman’s speech,

as he swore that the fish had eaten him and did not say, “May it be that Hasa will emerge from the water and be saved,” his wife was certain that he was dead.

Hasa’s wife went and married.

And they did not say to her

the Sages a thing,

nor anything,

and they could say nothing to her, for they could not remove her from her husband even though Rav Nahman had not issued a ruling permitting her, since he had drowned in water from which there is no end.

Rav Ashi said: Learn from this,

from this incident, that

that which the Rabbis said, “Water from which there is no end—

his wife is forbidden,” applies only initially,

when they do not permit her to marry.

But if she married—

we do not remove her from him.

Some say:

Rav Nahman himself married off

himself

his wife,

despite the fact that he had drowned in water from which there is no end.

For when

Rav Nahman said:

Rav Nahman

Hasa—

he is a great man,

he was a renowned person.

If it is so

that it occurred

that he emerged,

that he came out of the water—

there would be publicity for the matter.

And if there is no report, it is a sign that he did not emerge from the water.

And in conclusion, the Gemara rejects Rav Nahman’s words according to the second version:

It is not so!

Rather,

whether he is a great man or whether he is not a great man,

only

after the fact,

if his wife went and married without a ruling permitting her,

yes,

she remains with her second husband.

But

initially, no,

they do not marry her off.

That gentile who was saying to an Israelite: “Cut

chop

the grass,

fodder,

and throw it

and place it

to Hivai

for my animals

on Shabbat. And if

not—

“I will kill you as I killed so-and-so, the Israelite, to whom I said: Cook a pot for me on Shabbat, and he did not cook it for me, and I killed him.”

His wife heard,

the wife of that so-and-so about whom the gentile said that he had killed him,

and came before Abaye,

to ask whether she was permitted to marry another on the basis of the gentile’s words.