Yevamot 122a (קכב.) — the Talmud in English

that he delayed it—

for three pilgrimage Festivals.

Abaye delayed answering the woman’s question until she had remained with him for three pilgrimage Festivals, when Torah scholars gathered together, and she would ask them what her status was.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to her: Go

go

before Rav Yosef, for his knife is sharp.

His knife is sharp, which is a metaphor: He will cut through your case quickly and will not delay you like Abaye.

She went before him.

And

Rav Yosef resolved

the status of this woman as prohibited,

from this Mishna:

In the case of a gentile who was selling produce in the marketplace,

and said: This produce is from orla, it is from Azeka [

it came from Eretz Yisrael, from a place called Azeka, and is of superior quality],

it is fourth-year produce—

he has said nothing,

and there is no reason for concern regarding it, neither on account of orla, nor on account of untithed produce, nor on account of fourth-year produce. It is permitted, as one follows the majority of permitted produce, since he

did not intend

by his statement

anything other than to enhance his merchandise.

And the same applies to this woman: The gentile did not intend to say that he had killed her husband; he merely wished to threaten this man so that he would reap fodder for his animals.

Abba Yudan of Sidon said: There was an incident involving a Jew and a gentile who were traveling on the road. A gentile came and said: Alas for the Jew who was traveling with me; he died on the road, and I buried him. And they permitted his wife to marry.

And again, there was an incident involving a group

of people

who were traveling to Antioch, and one gentile came and said: Alas for the group of people; they died, and I buried them. And they permitted their wives to marry.

And again, there was an incident involving sixty people who were traveling to Karkom Beitar, and a gentile came and said: Alas for the sixty people who were traveling on the road to Beitar; they died, and I buried them. And they permitted their wives to marry.

Mishna:

Witnesses may testify

about a person’s death even if they examined him and identified him only

by candlelight or moonlight.

And they permit

a woman to marry even

on the basis of a voice

that cries out, “So-and-so has died,” without seeing or knowing who it was that cried out in this manner.

There was an incident involving one who stood on the top of a mountain and said: So-and-so son of so-and-so from such-and-such a place has died.

They went and found no person there, and

nevertheless

they permitted his wife to marry.

And again, there was an incident in Tzalmon involving one who said: I am so-and-so son of so-and-so; a snake bit me, and I am now dying.

They went but did not recognize him, and they went and permitted his wife to marry.

Gemara:

Rabba bar Shmuel said: A tanna taught: Beit Shammai say: One may not permit a woman to marry on the basis of a voice, and Beit Hillel say: One may permit a woman to marry on the basis of a voice.

And we challenge this:

What does this teach us

that Rabba said in the name of Shmuel? Is he coming to teach us that this is the halakha? But

it is stated in the Mishna,

where the opinion of Beit Hillel is taught, and we know that the halakha follows them!

And we answer:

This teaches us

that Shmuel said

that if an unattributed Mishna is found

stating

that one may not permit a woman to marry—

you should know that

it is the opinion of Beit Shammai,

and the halakha does not follow it.

We learned in the Mishna:

“They went and found no person.”

And we challenge this:

Perhaps it was a demon?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

In a case where

they saw him

at the beginning of his cry

as a human figure.

And we challenge this:

They

the demons

also resemble

human beings!? And we answer:

They saw that he had

a

reflection;

a shadow, whereas demons have no shadow.

And we challenge this:

But they too,

the demons,

have a reflection!

And we answer: They saw that he had

“the reflection of a reflection,”

a shadow of the shadow, which demons do not have.

And we challenge this:

But perhaps they themselves

the demons

have the reflection of a reflection!

Rabbi Ḥanina said: Yonatan the demon told me:

[

his name was either that of a demon or of a person expert in demons]:

They have a reflection, but they do not have the reflection of a reflection. And we challenge this:

Perhaps it was a rival wife

of this woman

who was

the voice that cried out, and she intended to cause her harm, so we should not believe her!?

And we answer, as

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

said concerning a bill of divorce, that

in a time of danger,

such as when a person has been thrown into a pit and is dying,

they write and deliver

a bill of divorce on the basis of his call from the pit, instructing them to give it to his wife,

even though they do not recognize

him. Here too, they rely on the testimony of the voice and are not concerned that perhaps this is the plot of her rival wife, since otherwise she would remain an aguna.

Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva said: When I went down to Nehardea

in order

to intercalate

the year there,

I found Nehemiah, a man of Beit Deli,

and

he said to me: I have heard that one may not permit a woman to marry in Eretz Yisrael on the basis of the testimony of one witness, except for Yehuda ben Bava.

And I declared

and said

to him:

Indeed,

that is the matter.

He said to me: Say to them in my name: You know that the country is disrupted by troops,

and therefore I cannot go up to Eretz Yisrael and testify before them to that which

I received from Rabban Gamliel the Elder: One may permit a woman to marry on the basis of the testimony of one witness.

And when I came and presented the matter before Rabbi Gamliel,

the grandson of Rabban Gamliel the Elder,

he rejoiced at my words and said: We have found an associate for Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava.

As a result of this matter, Rabbi Gamliel remembered that people had been killed at Tel Arza, and Rabbi Gamliel permitted their wives to marry on the basis of the testimony of one witness.

And it became established that they would permit a woman to marry on the basis of testimony transmitted from one witness to another, from a slave, from a woman, or from a maidservant.

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua say: One may not permit a woman to marry on the basis of the testimony of one witness.

Rabbi Akiva says: Not on the basis of a woman, not on the basis of a slave, not on the basis of a maidservant, and not on the basis of relatives.

Gemara:

And the Gemara wonders:

And

if

Rabbi Akiva held

that

on the basis of a woman one may not

permit his wife to marry?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: A woman is deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce

from outside Eretz Yisrael and to testify that it was written and signed in her presence,

by means of a kal va-chomer: What

about the five

women whom the Sages said

about

the Sages [

in this chapter, 117a] that

they are not

to

deemed credible to say that her husband died—

nevertheless

they are deemed credible

to

bring their bills of divorce,

and to say that they were written and signed in their presence—this

woman, who is deemed credible to say that her husband died

and thereby permit herself to marry—

is it not logical that she is deemed credible

also

to bring her bill of divorce

and testify concerning it?

And the Gemara infers from Rabbi Akiva’s words in the beraita:

Only the five

women whom the Sages said are not deemed credible

to testify concerning their husband’s death; but

an ordinary woman,

who is not one of those five women,

is deemed credible!

And we answer:

This is not difficult:

Here,

it is referring to before they established the practice of permitting a woman to marry on the basis of a woman’s testimony.

There,

it is referring to after they established the practice of permitting a woman to marry on the basis of a woman’s testimony.

Mishna:

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Akiva:

There was an incident involving the sons of Levi, who went to Zoar, the City of Palms, and one of them fell ill, and they brought him to an inn;

and they continued on their way.

When they returned, they said to the innkeeper

the gentile woman:

Where is our companion?

She declared

she said

to them: He died, and I buried him. And they permitted

his wife

to marry.

And

would not

a Jewish woman or

a daughter of a kohein

be deemed credible

as

one like that

innkeeper?

He said to them: When

a Jewish woman or a daughter of a kohein brings proof

like this innkeeper,

she will indeed be

deemed credible.

For they did not rely on her testimony; rather,

the innkeeper

was speaking casually, and

she brought out to them his staff, his knapsack, and the Torah scroll that had been in his possession.

Gemara: