Yevamot 121b (קכא:) — the Talmud in English

Because

we are concerned

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

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

But the first tanna held that they would certainly kill him even if he whispered to them,

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

because of the pressure: since the pit is narrow, and when he falls he presses upon them, they become enraged and

since the pit is narrow, and when he falls he presses down on them, they become angry and

harm him.

But a lions’ den is wide, and he does not stand upon them; moreover, sometimes the lions are satiated and do not devour him.

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

testimony may be given concerning him.

If he fell into a vat full of wine or oil

boiling over a fire—

testimony may be given concerning him.

They said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa:

If he fell into a vat

of oil

boiling over a fire—

testimony may be given concerning him, because he feeds the fire

when he falls, as he splashes oil onto it at the moment of his fall, and his legs become fixed, so that he cannot get out of it.

But if a person fell into a vat boiling over a fire

of wine—

testimony may not be given concerning him because he

extinguishes

the fire when he falls, through the wine that splashes from the vat onto the fire as a result of his fall, and thus he remains alive.

Therefore, even if they did not see him emerge from the vat immediately, this is no proof that he died. Rather, he is unable to emerge at present, and once the vat cools he will be able to get out of it.

They said to him: At first,

at the moment of his fall, he indeed

extinguishes

the fire beneath the vat of wine.

But

nevertheless,

in the end

he

feeds

the fire even more, because a strong fire transforms liquids 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: An incident involving miracles may not be cited

as proof.

For even without drowning in the water, he should have died during the time he was missing; and if he survived, that itself was a miracle.

And we raised a question about it:

What miracle

occurred there?

If you say

it was because

he neither ate nor drank,

that is not an incident involving miracles.

But it is written:

Esther 4,

“Fast for me, and do not eat or drink

for three days.”

And we answer:

Rather,

it was because

he did not sleep.

He did not sleep.

As Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

If a person swore

an oath that he would not sleep for three days—

they flog him

for taking a vain oath,

and he sleeps immediately,

as his oath has no validity, since he is incapable of fulfilling it.

And Rabbi Meir—

what is the reason,

why did he cite proof from that incident, when this was an incident involving miracles and proof may not be brought from it?

Rav Kahana said: There were tiers upon tiers of arches

there, and he could lean against them and thereby fall asleep; this was not an incident involving miracles.

And the Rabbis held that those arches

held that those tiers

were of marble,

smooth

they were,

and he could not lean against them; and while standing he could not sleep.

And Rabbi Meir

held:

It is impossible that he did not cling,

strengthening himself by clinging to them,

and sleep a little.

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

who

dug cisterns

so that they would fill with rainwater and provide water for the pilgrims when they ascended for the pilgrimage,

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

After the first hour—

he said to them: Peace

be with her.

After the second—

he said to them: Peace

be with her.

After the third—

he said to them:

She has already

ascended

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 in her father’s merit, as will be explained, by the third hour he was certain that she had already ascended from the pit.

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

from the pit?

She said to him: A male sheep

[the ram of Isaac]

happened to come to me, and an old man

[Abraham our forefather]

was leading it.

His students said to him

: Are

you a prophet?

He said to them: I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. Rather,

I know that it is impossible that

something with which the righteous is occupied—

should cause his offspring to stumble!?

Rabbi Abba said: Nevertheless, the son of Rabbi Naḥumya died

of Rabbi Naḥumya

of thirst,

because this is the way of the Omnipresent: He is exacting with the pious, to the extent that even their merits do not protect them under the strictness of judgment.

As it is stated:

Psalms 50,

“And around Him

it is exceedingly stormy.”

The verse teaches

that

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

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

as a strand of hair.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: From here

one may learn about the strictness of 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 regarding testimony concerning a woman, accepting even someone who is unfit to testify, and even when he did not state his words as formal testimony but merely spoke casually.

However, they did not believe every person. Regarding the testimony of a non-Jew, the Sages were concerned that he might intend to mislead us, and they believed a non-Jew only when he spoke casually.

1.

Even if he heard it from women

when they spoke casually, without intending to testify, that they

say: So-and-so has died—

it is sufficient

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

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

he may come and testify in court concerning his death.

2. A witness who comes to court is believed regarding the man’s death, so that the court can permit his wife to remarry,

whether he intends

to testify about it

or whether he does not intend

to testify in the capacity of a witness, but merely to disclose the matter.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: In the case of a Jew—

the woman is permitted on his word

even though he intends [to testify].

But in the case of a gentile, if he intended

to testify—

his testimony is not testimony.

He is believed only when he speaks casually.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that even if 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 and bury him. Their preparing to go to his eulogy and burial is no proof that he actually died, as it is possible that this is merely a rumor, since the children’s words do not establish that they themselves know that he died.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The Mishna is referring to a case in which the witness heard

that the children

that the children were saying

:

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

The Gemara still asks how one can rely on the speech of children:

As an example, the Gemara speaks of a case in which the witness heard them discussing the burial of a person named “Kamtza.”

Perhaps “Kamtza” was merely an insect that died, and they named it after him!

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 of its “burial” and “eulogy” as a joke, as children do. How can a married woman be permitted on the basis of the speech of children?

And we answer: This is a case where

the children were saying

:

“This and this rabbi was there; this and this eulogizer was there.”

For then it is evident from their words that they spoke seriously and not as a joke.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

to testify, he is not believed.”

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught

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

only 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.

The Gemara explains:

How do we know

whether the gentile intended to testify concerning his death or to permit his wife to remarry?

Rav Yosef said: If

If

the gentile came

to court

and said: So-and-so has died; permit his wife to marry—

this means that he intended to permit her.

But if he said

“He died,” without qualification,

and did not speak of permitting his wife—

this means that he intended to testify.

It was also stated; Reish Lakish said: They taught

that the gentile is not believed

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

his testimony is testimony,

and the wife of the deceased is permitted to marry on the basis of his testimony.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Is it not true that

Is it not true that

this was not what happened in the incident involving Osheya the Great, who challenged

[argued with]

eighty-five elders

regarding the testimony of a gentile, and

said to them

as you say:

They taught only when he intended

the gentile

to permit her, but if he intended to testify—

his testimony is testimony.

But

nevertheless,

the Sages did not agree with him!

Rather, the Mishna, which teaches

in it

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

This implies that if he did not intend, his testimony is testimony—

how can this be found?

In what case is he found not to have intended either to testify or to permit her, in which case alone he is believed?—

When he speaks casually.

Like that

gentile

who was saying as he went along,

who said while walking:

“Who is in the house of Ḥivvai?”

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

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

died

Ḥivvai!

And Rav Yosef married his wife,

as he had spoken casually.

And there was another incident:

that

gentile

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

the mighty warrior [from Israel]

who was in Pumbedita, for he died!”

And Rav Yosef married his wife—or, some say, Rava married his wife.

And there was another incident involving

that

gentile

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

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

Rav Naḥman said, in the language of an oath, to affirm the matter:

as an oath, in order to affirm the matter:

“By God! The fish

ate

Ḥasa,”

who had drowned.

And

from Rav Naḥman’s statement,

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

Ḥasa’s wife went and married.

And they did not say anything to her,

the Sages said nothing

at all,

and they could not say anything to her to prevent it, as they could not remove her from her second husband even though Rav Naḥman had not issued a ruling permitting her to remarry, since he had drowned in water in which there is no end.

Rav Ashi said: Infer from this incident

that

that which the Sages said, “In water in which there is no end—

his wife is forbidden,” applies only ab initio,

when she is not permitted to marry.

But if she married—

we do not remove her from him.

Some say:

Rav Naḥman himself married

himself

Ḥasa’s wife,

even though he had drowned in water in which there is no end.

For when

Rav Naḥman said:

Rav Nahman

Ḥasa—

he is a great man,

he was a famous person.

If it is so

that it occurred

that he emerged,

that he came out of the water—

there would be publicity concerning 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 Naḥman’s statement according to the second version:

That 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 arrange her marriage.

There was a gentile who was saying to a Jew: “Cut

and harvest

alfalfa

fodder,

and throw it

and place it

for Ḥivvai

for my animals

on Shabbat. And if

not—

I will kill you, as I killed so-and-so, a Jewish man, to whom I said: Cook a pot for me on Shabbat, but 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.