Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth

Folio 121a

have brought on his death,¹  What is the practical difference between these [two explanations]? — The case where one cut [another man's organs] in a house of marble²  and the latter made some convulsive movements,³  or also where he cut his organs out of doors and the latter made no convulsive movements.⁴ 

R. JUDAH … SAID: NOT ALL etc. The question was raised: Does R. Judah b. Baba differ [from the first Tanna] in relaxing the law⁵  or does he differ from him in imposing a greater restriction?⁶  — Come and hear: A man was once drowned at Karmi and after three days he was hauled up at Be Hedya, and R. Dimi of Nehardea allowed his wife to remarry. And again, it happened that a man was drowned in the Tigris⁷  and after five days he was hauled up to the Shebistana bridge⁸  and, on the evidence of the shoshbinim,⁹  Raba permitted his wife to marry again — Now, if you grant that he¹⁰  differs [from the first Tanna] in relaxing the law, they¹¹  might well have acted in accordance with the ruling of R. Judah b. Baba. If you should contend, however, that he¹⁰  differed in imposing a greater restriction, in accordance with whose view [it may be asked] did they¹¹  act? — Waters are different because they cause contraction.¹²  But, surely, you said that 'waters [are different since they] irritate the wound'! — That applies only where a wound exists, but where no wound exists waters cause contraction. This, furthermore, applies only where the witnesses saw the body as soon as it was brought up, but if it remains some time, it swells.¹³ 

MISHNAH. IF A MAN FELL INTO THE WATER, WHETHER IT HAD [A VISIBLE] END¹⁴  OR NOT, HIS WIFE IS FORBIDDEN [TO MARRY AGAIN].¹⁵  SAID R. MEIR: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A MAN FELL INTO A LARGE CISTERN AND ROSE TO THE SURFACE¹⁶  AFTER THREE DAYS.¹⁷  SAID R. JOSE: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A BLIND MAN DESCENDED INTO A CAVE.¹⁸  TO PERFORM RITUAL ABLUTION WHILE HIS GUIDE WENT DOWN AFTER HIM; AND AFTER WAITING LONG ENOUGH FOR THEIR SOULS TO DEPART, PERMISSION WAS GIVEN TO THEIR WIVES TO MARRY AGAIN.¹⁹  ANOTHER INCIDENT OCCURRED AT ASIA²⁰  WHERE A MAN WAS LOWERED INTO THE SEA, AND ONLY HIS LEG WAS BROUGHT UP,²¹  AND THE SAGES RULED: [IF THE RECOVERED LEG CONTAINED THE PART] ABOVE THE KNEE [THE MAN'S WIFE] MAY MARRY AGAIN,²²  [BUT IF IT CONTAINED ONLY THE PART] BELOW THE KNEE, SHE MAY NOT MARRY AGAIN.²³ 

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If a man fell into water, whether it had [a visible] end²⁴  or not, his wife is forbidden [to marry again];²⁵  so R. Meir. But the Sages ruled: [If he fell into] water that has [a visible] end,²⁴  his wife is permitted [to marry again],²⁶  but [if into water] that has no [visible] end²⁷  his wife is forbidden [to marry again].²⁸ 

What is to be understood by 'has [a visible] end'? — Abaye replied: [An area all the boundaries of which] a person standing [on the edge] is able to see in all directions.²⁹ 

Once a man was drowned in the swamp of Samki, and R. Shila permitted his wife to marry again. Said Rab to Samuel: 'Come, let us place him under the ban'.³⁰  'Let us first', [the other replied,] 'send to [ask] him [for an explanation]'. On their sending to him the enquiry: '[If a man has fallen into] water which has no [visible] end. is his wife forbidden or permitted [to marry again]'? he sent to them [in reply], 'His wife is forbidden' — 'And [they again enquired] is the swamp of Samki regarded as water that has [a visible] end or as water that has no [visible] end?' — 'It is', he sent them his reply, 'a water that has no [visible] end'. 'Why then did the Master [they asked] act in such a manner?'³¹  — 'I was really mistaken', [he replied]; 'I was of the opinion that as the water was gathered and stationary it was to be regarded as "water which has [a visible] end", but the law is in fact not so; for owing to the prevailing waves it might well be assumed that the waves carried [the body] away'.³²  Samuel thereupon applied to Rab the Scriptural text, There shall no mischief befall the righteous,³³  while Rab applied to Samuel the following text: But in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.³⁴ 

It was taught: Rabbi related how it once happened that while two men were casting nets in the Jordan one of them entered a subterranean fish pond³⁵  and when the sun had set he could not find the entrance of the cave. His companion, after waiting long enough for his soul to depart, returned and reported the accident to his household. On the following day when the sun rose [the first man] discovered the entrance of the cave, and on returning he found his household in deep mourning³⁶  'How great', exclaimed Rabbi, 'are the words of the Sages who ruled [that if a man fell into] water which has [a visible] end his wife is permitted [to marry again, but if into water] which has no [visible] end, his wife is forbidden'.If so,³⁷  then also in the case of water which has [a visible] end the possibility of having remained in a subterranean fish pond should be taken into consideration! — It is not usual for a subterranean fish pond to be found with water which has [a visible] end.³⁸ 

R. Ashi said: The ruling of the Rabbis [that where a man has fallen into] water which has no [visible] end his wife is forbidden [to marry again]. applies only to an ordinary person but not to a learned man for, should he be rescued.³⁹  the fact would become known.⁴⁰  This, however, is not correct; for there is no difference between an ordinary man and a learned man. Ex post facto, the marriage⁴¹  is valid; ab initio, it is forbidden.

It was taught: R. Gamaliel related, 'I was once travelling on board a ship when I observed a shipwreck and was sorely grieved for [the apparent loss of] a scholar⁴²  who had been travelling on board that ship. (And who was he? — R. Akiba.) When I subsequently landed, he⁴³  came to me and sat down and discussed matters of halachah. "My son", I asked him, "who rescued you?" "The plank of a ship", he answered me, "came my way, and to every wave that approached me I bent my head" — 44 Hence the Sages said that if wicked persons attack a man let him bend his head to them.⁴⁵  At that hour I exclaimed: How significant are the words of the Stages who ruled [that if a man fell into] water which has [a visible] end, [his wife] is permitted [to marry again; but if into] water which has no [visible] end, she is forbidden'.

It was taught: R. Akiba related, 'l was once travelling on board a ship when I observed a ship in distress,⁴⁶  and was much grieved on account of a scholar who was on it. (And who was it? — R. Meir.) When I subsequently landed in the province of Cappadocia⁴⁷  he came to me and sat down and discussed matters of halachah. "My son", I said to him, "who rescued you?" — "One wave" he answered me, "tossed me to another, and the other to yet another until [the sea] cast me⁴⁸  on the dry land". At that hour I exclaimed: How significant are the words of the Sages who ruled [that if a man fell into] water which has [a visible] end, [his wife] is permitted [to marry again; but if into] water which has no [visible] end, she is forbidden'. Our Rabbis taught: If a man fell into a lion's den, no evidence⁴⁹  may be legally tendered concerning him;⁵⁰  but if into a pit full of serpents and scorpions, evidence⁴⁹  may legally be tendered concerning him.⁵⁰  R. Judah b. Bathyra ruled: Even [if he fell] into a pit full of serpents and scorpions, no evidence⁴⁹  may legally be tendered concerning him,⁵⁰  since the possibility must be taken into consideration

1. So that the man who inflicted the wounds was not the direct cause of death. Hence he is not to be exiled, though the wife of the victim may well be allowed to marry again on the evidence of the infliction of such mortal wounds.
2. Where no wind can penetrate.
3. According to the first explanation. since no aggravation could have resulted from wind, the offender must be condemned to exile. According to the second explanation he is exonerated, since it is possible that the convulsive movements of the victim brought on his death.
4. Aggravation by wind is possible, while the bringing on of death by the victim himself cannot be assumed.
5. While the first Tanna requires the evidence to be based on an examination of the corpse within three days of death, R. Judah allows it, in certain circumstances, even after three days.
6. Disregarding the evidence under certain conditions even within three days.
7. [H], Heb [H] cf. Targum on Gen. II, 14.
8. [The bridge on the Southern Tigris connecting the great trading route between Khuzistan and Babylon during the persian period; v. Obermeyer pp. 68ff].
9. Pl. of shoshbin, groomsman'. The shoshbin acted as best men or companions of the groom, to whom they also brought wedding gifts (shoshbinuth).
10. R. Judah b. Baba.
11. R. Dimi and Raba.
12. Of the corpse, the decay of which consequently sets in later than in the case of a corpse on dry land. Hence it is possible in such circumstances to identify a person even after three days from the time of his death.
13. And changes appearance.
14. This is explained by Abaye infra.
15. It being possible that the man was thrown up by the water after a day or two; and that he was restored to life. V. infra n. 8.
16. Lit., 'and he went up'.
17. In R. Meir's opinion it is possible for one to live in water for a day or two; and the first clause of our Mishnah is in agreement with this view.
18. I.e., to waters 'that had a visible end' (cf. supra note 5).
19. R. Jose is of the opinion that no human being can survive so long (v. p. 854, n. 8) in water, and death may, therefore, be regarded as a certainty. In the case of water 'that has no visible end', however, he agrees with R. Meir, since it is possible that the body was thrown up on a distant shore where it was restored to life.
20. V. Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 151, n. 1.
21. V. supra p. 851, n. 17.
22. V. p. 852, n. 1.
23. V. p. 852, 11. 2.
24. This is explained by Abaye infra.
25. V. p. 854, n. 6.
26. It being assumed that the man was not rescued from the water. Any rescue, had it been effected, since all the shores are visible, would have been observed from the point where the drowning occurred.
27. This is explained by Abaye infra.
28. Since the man might have been rescued on another shore which was not visible from the point where the drowning occurred.
29. Lit., 'four winds'. A person observing a drowning accident would not depart as long as there was any hope of rescue, and, as all the shores were visible and no rescue was observed, it may be regarded as a certainty that the drowned man was dead, and his wife may, therefore, be permitted to marry again.
30. For permitting a married woman to remarry.
31. V. p. 855 n. 12.
32. Lit., 'they lowered', and the man was rescued.
33. Prov. XII, 21. Rab was spared the injustice of placing the innocent R. Shila under the ban.
34. Ibid. Xl, 14. The counsel of Samuel saved Rab from a wrong action.
35. [Constructed on the shore to retain the fish washed into it by the overflowing river].
36. Lit., 'a great mourning in his house'.
37. If such an incident as that related by Rabbi is possible.
38. [There is not sufficient fish to warrant the construction of a pond (Me'iri)].
39. Lit., 'that he went up'
40. Lit., 'he has a voice'.
41. Of his wife to another man.
42. Talmud Hakam, v. Glos.
43. R. Akiba.
44. Thus avoiding its force.
45. Cf. supra n. 6
46. Lit., 'that was tossed in the sea'.
47. [G] in Asia Minor.
48. Lit., 'vomited me out'.
49. That he is dead.
50. To enable his wife to marry again.

that he might be a charmer.¹  But the first Tanna?²  — Owing to the pressure³  they⁴  injure him.⁵ 

Our Rabbis taught: [If a man] fell into a burning furnace, evidence may be legally tendered concerning him, [and also if he fell] into a boiler that was full of [boiling]⁶  wine or oil, evidence may be legally tendered concerning him. In the name of R. Aha It was stated: [If the man fell into a hot boiler] of oil, evidence may legally be tendered concerning him, because it⁷  adds fuel to the fire;⁸  [but if into one] of wine, no evidence may legally be tendered concerning him, because it⁹  extinguishes [the fire].¹⁰  They,¹¹  however, said to him: At first it⁹  extinguishes [the fire to a certain extent] but eventually it causes it to burn [with greater vehemence].¹² 

SAID R. MEIR: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A MAN FELL INTO A LARGE CISTERN etc. It was taught: They said to R. Meir, 'Miracles cannot be mentioned [as proof]'.¹³  What [did they mean by] 'miracles'?¹⁴  If it be suggested because he neither eats nor drinks, surely [it may be pointed out], It is written in Scripture, And fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink [three days]!¹⁵  — Rather because he does not sleep. For R. Johanan stated: [A man who said]. 'I take an oath that I will not sleep for three days' is to be flogged¹⁶  and he may sleep at once.¹⁷  What then is R. Meir's reason?¹⁸  — R. Kahana replied: There were¹⁹  arches above arches.²⁰  And the Rabbis?²¹  — They²²  were of marble.²³ 

And R. Meir? — It is hardly possible that the man did not hang²⁴  on to [the arches] and doze a while.

Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that the daughter of Nehonia the well²⁵  -digger²⁶  fell into a large cistern, and people went and reported [the accident] to R. Hanina b. Dosa.²⁷  During the first hour he said to them, 'All is well'.²⁸  In the second hour he again said, 'All is well'.²⁸  In the third he said to them, 'She is saved'.²⁹  'My daughter', he asked her, 'who saved you?' — 'A ram³⁰  came to my help³¹  with an aged man³²  leading it'. 'Are you', the people asked him, 'a prophet?' — 'I am', he replied, 'neither prophet nor the Son of a prophet; but should the [beneficent] work in which the righteous is engaged³³  be the cause of disaster³⁴  to his seed!' R. Abba stated: His³⁵  son nevertheless died of thirst; for it is said in Scripture, And round about Him it stormeth mightily,³⁶  which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, deals strictly with those round about Him even to a hair's³⁷  breadth. R. Hanina said, [Proof³⁸  may be adduced] from here: A God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared of all them that are round about Him.³⁹ 

MISHNAH. EVEN [A MAN ONLY] HEARD WOMEN SAYING, 'SO-AND-SO IS DEAD', THIS SHOULD SUFFICE FOR HIM.⁴⁰  R. JUDAH SAID: EVEN IF HE ONLY HEARD CHILDREN SAY, 'BEHOLD WE ARE GOING TO MOURN FOR A MAN NAMED SO-AND-SO AND TO BURY HIM' [IT IS SUFFICIENT].⁴⁰  WHETHER [SUCH STATEMENT WAS MADE] WITH THE INTENTION [OF TENDERING EVIDENCE] OR WAS MADE WITH NO SUCH INTENTION [IT IS VALID]. R. JUDAH B. BABA SAID: WITH AN ISRAELITE [THE EVIDENCE IS VALID] EVEN IF THE MAN HAD THE INTENTION [OF ACTING AS WITNESS]. IN THE CASE OF AN IDOLATER, HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE IS INVALID IF HIS INTENTION WAS [TO ACT AS WITNESS].

GEMARA. Is it not possible that they⁴¹  did not go?⁴²  — Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: [Our Mishnah deals with a case] where they⁴¹  Say, 'Behold we are returning from the mourning for, and the burial of So-and-so'.Is it not possible that a mere ant⁴³  had died and that the children gave it the man's name?⁴⁴  — [It is a case] where they⁴⁵  say, 'Such and such Rabbis were there' or 'such and such funeral orators were there'.

IN THE CASE OF AN IDOLATER, HOWEVER … IF HIS INTENTION WAS etc. Said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: This⁴⁶  was taught only in the case where it was his⁴⁷  intention to enable [the woman] to be permitted,⁴⁸  but if his intention was merely to give evidence his testimony is valid. How could this⁴⁹  be ascertained? — R. Joseph replied: If he came to Beth din and stated. 'So-and-so is dead, allow his wife to marry again', such evidence is one where his intention was to enable [the woman] to be permitted,⁴⁸  [but if he stated], 'He is dead', and nothing more, his intention was merely to give evidence.

So It was also stated:⁵⁰  Resh Lakish said, This⁴⁶  was taught only in the case where it was his intention to enable [the woman] to be permitted,⁴⁸  but if his intention was merely to give evidence his testimony is valid.

Said R. Johanan to him:⁵¹  Did it not happen with Oshaia Berabbi,⁵²  that he opposed⁵³  eighty-five elders saying to them that, 'This⁴⁶  was taught Only in the case where it was his intention to enable [the woman] to be permitted⁴⁸  but if his intention was merely to give evidence his testimony is valid', but the Sages did not agree with him!⁵⁴ 

But according to the ruling in our Mishnah, that⁵⁵  IN THE CASE OF AN IDOLATER, HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE IS INVALID IF HIS INTENTION WAS [TO ACT AS WITNESS],⁵⁶  how is it possible [for the idolater's testimony ever to be accepted]?⁵⁷  — Where he makes a statement at random;⁵⁸  as was the case where one went about saying, 'Who of the family of Hiwai is here? Who is here of the family of Hiwai? Hiwai is dead!', and R. Joseph allowed his⁵⁹  wife to marry again.

A man⁶⁰  once went about saying, 'Alas for the valiant rider who was at Pumbeditha, for he is dead'; and R. Joseph, or it might be said, Raba, allowed his wife to marry again.

A man once went about saying, 'Who of the family of Hasa is here? Hasa is drowned!' [On hearing this] R. Nahman exclaimed, 'By God, the fish must have eaten Hasa up!' Relying on R. Nahman's exclamation, Hasa's wife went and married again, and no objection was raised against her action.⁶¹ 

Said R. Ashi: From this⁶²  it may be inferred that the ruling of the Rabbis⁶³  that [if a man had fallen into] water which had no [visible] end, his wife is forbidden [to marry again] applies only ab initio, but if someone had already married her, she is not to be taken away from him.

Others read: R. Nahman allowed his⁶⁴  wife to marry again; for he said, 'Hasa was a great man, and had he come up [out of the water] his rescue would have become known'. The law, however, is not so. For there is no difference between a great man and one who is not great — [In either case] it is permitted⁶⁵  ex post facto and forbidden⁶⁶  ab initio.

A certain idolater 'once said to an Israelite, 'Cut some grass⁶⁷  and throw it to my cattle on the Sabbath; if not, I will kill you as I have killed So-and-so, that son of an Israelite, to whom I said, "Cook for me a dish on the Sabbath", and whom, as he did not cook for me, I killed'. His wife⁶⁸  heard this and came to Abaye.⁶⁹  As he kept her waiting

1. Tosef. Yeb. XIV.
2. Why, in view of R. Judah b. Bathyra's reason, does he admit evidence of death in the latter case?
3. Of the falling body.
4. The serpents and scorpions.
5. In a lion's den, however, there is much more space, and the body might sometimes fall to one side and the animals, if they happened to be full, would leave it untouched.
6. Standing over the fire.
7. The oil when, owing to the fall of the body, it flows over the sides of the boiler into the fire beneath it.
8. Lit., 'it causes to burn'.
9. The wine (cf. supra n. 9).
10. And, owing to the cooling caused by the liquid, the man might be saved from actual death.
11. The Rabbis, represented by the view of the first Tanna.
12. Hence the ruling that evidence of death may be accepted in the case of a fall into a hot boiler whether the contents be oil or wine.
13. In the natural course of events the man could not survive long in a cistern. If his death were not caused by the water, some other causes would inevitably bring it about. V. infra.
14. I.e., why should not the man be able to survive if he could keep his head above the water?
15. Esth. IV, 16, which shews that it is possible to live for a considerable time without food or drink.
16. Malkoth (v. Glos.); for taking a false oath. It is impossible for a human being to live for three days without sleep.
17. In three days' time, accordingly, a man who had fallen into a cistern would inevitably succumb to fatigue and the physical necessity for sleep, and would in the natural course of events be drowned.
18. If no one can withstand the necessity for sleep, why does not R. Meir, in the circumstances mentioned, admit the evidence?
19. In the cistern mentioned in our Mishnah.
20. Where the man might have slept in comparative safety.
21. Why do they, in such circumstances, admit the evidence?
22. The arches.
23. Too slippery for anyone to sleep upon them in safety.
24. [H] rt. [H] 'to clutch', 'to twist'.
25. [H] 'wells' or 'ditches'. Cf. Rashi and Jast.
26. He was engaged In the benevolent occupation of digging wells for the benefit of the pilgrims to Jerusalem who visited the Temple on the occasion of the three major Festivals of the year. The ordinary wells did not suffice for the large influx of men and cattle on these festive occasions.
27. Famous for his miraculous powers of cure and rescue through the efficacy of his prayers. Cf. Ber. 34b, Ta'an. 24b. V. B.K., Sonc. ed. p. 287, n. 11.
28. [H], lit., 'peace'.
29. Lit., 'she went up'.
30. Lit., 'a male of ewes'. — The ram of Isaac (Rashi).
31. Lit., 'was appointed for me'.
32. Abraham (Rashi).
33. Well-digging. V. supra p. 859, n. 13.
34. Lit., 'shall stumble', 'come to grief'.
35. Nehonia's.
36. PS. L, 3, stormeth = [H] rt. [H] 'hair'. V. next note.
37. Lit., 'like a thread of a hair', [H] (v. supra n. 4).
38. Of God's strict dealing with the righteous.
39. Ps. LXXXIX, 8; cf. parallel passage B.K. 50a.
40. To tender evidence of death, and to enable the widow to marry again.
41. The children spoken of in our Mishnah.
42. To carry out what they said they were going to do, and that the man in question was in fact not dead. How then could such unreliable evidence be acted upon!
43. Or 'locust'.
44. For fun. Cf. supra n. 10.
45. The children spoken of in our Mishnah.
46. That the evidence is invalid.
47. The idolater's.
48. To marry again.
49. The motive of the witness.
50. By Amoraim.
51. Resh Lakish.
52. Cf. n. on [H] supra 105b.
53. [H], so Aruk and Beth Joseph in Eben ha-Ezer XVII. Cur. edd., 'he permitted them with'.
54. Maintaining that even in the latter case the evidence is invalid.
55. Lit., 'our Mishnah wherein it was taught'.
56. From which it follows that if his Intention was not to act as witness his testimony is accepted.
57. How can one make a statement the object of which is not even to affirm (i.e., to give evidence) that a certain thing had happened, and such a statement nevertheless be accepted as legally reliable?
58. [H] lit., 'speaks according to his innocence'; he is merely reporting what he had seen.
59. Hiwa's.
60. An idolater.
61. Lit., 'and they did not say anything to her'.
62. The acquiescence in the action of Hasa's wife.
63. Lit., 'that which the Rabbis said'.
64. Hasa's
65. Lit., 'yes'.
66. Lit., 'not'.
67. [H], grass used as fodder for cattle.
68. The wife of the Israelite whom the idolater claimed to have killed.
69. To obtain his ruling as to whether she may marry again.