MISHNAH: If a woman’s husband and her co-wife went overseas and people came and told her “your husband died”, she cannot remarry or perform ḥalîṣah until she has ascertained whether this co-wife was pregnant [She cannot marry outside the family for the husband might have died childless. She cannot marry the levir for there might be a child born overseas. The Babli, 119a, notes that the expression היא צרתה “this co-wife” implies that she does not have to inquire whether her husband took yet another wife overseas.] . If she had a mother-in-law, she does not have to suspect [When she last saw her mother-in-law, her husband was the only son. If the mother-in-law is far away, she does not have to inquire whether in the meantime the latter had another son.] . If the latter left pregnant [And now the whereabouts of the mother-in-law are not known; no notice of a brother born to her husband was received.] , she has to suspect; Rebbi Joshua says, she does not have to suspect [The reason is detailed in the Halakhah.] .
HALAKHAH: “If a woman’s husband and her co-wife went overseas”. Rav asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Why can she not wait three months and then immediately perform ḥalîṣah? As the case may be, if there was a live birth, ḥalîṣah did not affect her. If there was no live birth, she has ḥalîṣah in her hand! [The plain language of the Mishnah implies that the woman is permanently forbidden marriage and levirate until there is proof of her co-wife’s status. This seems to be unreasonable since ḥalîṣah would solve every problem as explained by Rav.] He said to him: They taught “three months” only for herself. If so, how long does she have to wait for her co-wife? 9 months. [Any ḥalîṣah while her co-wife is pregnant would be invalid; cf. the parallel discussion in Halakhah 4:1, Note 4.] After that, could she not immediately perform ḥalîṣah? As the case may be, if there was a live birth, ḥalîṣah did not touch her. If there was no live birth, she has ḥalîṣah in her hand? [In the Babli, 119b, this is the tradition of Ze‘iri, student of Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan.] There came Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya [The name tradition is garbled. There is no mention in any other source of a R. Jehudah younger than R. Eleazar; the double “in the name of” is irregular. In ms. A, the reading is: ר׳ לעזר בשם ר׳ חייה רובה. (?) יהוּדה בן כיני An acceptable reading would be (ר׳) יהוּדה בר בוני ר׳ לעזר בשם ר׳ חייה רובה “Rebbi Jehudah bar Buni, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya.” In the Babli, 119b, the rule is ascribed to R. Ḥanina, the explanation to Abbai and Ḥanina bar Abin.] : That she would not need a proclamation with regard to priesthood [In effect, she is never permitted to marry as long as her situation is not cleared up. The Babli explains that the prohibition is permanent since if it should turn out that the co-wife had a live child overseas, there might be persons who know about the ḥalîṣah ceremony and the marriage to a Cohen but were not informed about the proclamation that the ḥalîṣah was void. These persons would then think that the rabbis do no longer equate a woman after ḥalîṣah with a divorcee. The Babli does not permit the woman to waive her right to marry a Cohen. The position of the Yerushalmi in that last case is not known. Cf. also Chapter 4, Note 5.] .
The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan [Text from ms. A.; missing in editio princeps.] : The reason of the rabbis: “When [brothers] dwell,” certainly, not in a case of doubt [This refers to the statement of the Mishnah that, if the husband had no known brother when he left, the widow does not have to inquire whether his faraway father-in-law had another son.] .
“If the latter left pregnant, she has to suspect,” since there is one doubt, whether it was a male or a female. A doubt in biblical matters has to be resolved in a restrictive way [The Babli agrees to this principle, Beṣah 3b.] . “Rebbi Joshua says, she does not have to suspect,” since there is a double doubt. There are doubts whether it was a male or a female, and whether it was a live or a still birth [While the Babli agrees to this principle, Qiddušin 75a, it disagrees in this particular case since the probability of a still birth is rather small. It is argued that if the Yerushalmi reason were true, it could be applied to the case of the co-wife and then the woman left at home would be free to remarry. The Babli explains the position of R. Joshua that the woman was known to be free from levirate when her husband left. Since the probability that the mother-in-law gave birth to a live son is less than 50%, the known prior state remains in force because the probability that it remained in force (that either the mother-in-law had a baby girl who cannot be a levir, or there was a still birth, or a termination of pregnancy) is greater than 50%.] .
MISHNAH: If each one of two sisters-in-law [The wives of two brothers.] says “my husband died”, each one is forbidden because of the other’s husband [Each of them can testify that her husband is dead but her testimony is not accepted for her sister-in-law (Mishnah 15:4). Neither of them can marry outside the family until the death of her levir is confirmed by another source.] . If one has witnesses but the other has no witnesses, the one who has witnesses is forbidden but the one who has no witnesses is permitted [If the husband of the sister-in-law was the only levir, his death confirmed by witnesses releases his brother’s widow from levirate.] . If one has children but the other has no children, the one who has children is permitted [She is forbidden for levirate.] but the one who has no children is forbidden. If they married in levirate [There were other brothers in addition to the two husbands. Since each woman is believed when she declares to be a widow, she must be believed that she has the right to be married in levirate.] but the levirs died [They died childless and there are no other brothers. For the rabbis, the situation is now that of the first case, that the death of the first two brothers is only asserted by the women, each of whom is excluded as source of information regarding her sister-in-law.] , they are forbidden to remarry. Rebbi Eleazar said, since they were permitted to the levirs, they became permitted to any man.
HALAKHAH: [A similar text in Tosephta 14:3. There is no quote from the Mishnah here.] Two sisters-in-law, of whom one has children and witnesses but the other has neither. The first one is permitted by children, the other one by her witnesses [The widow with children can remarry outside the family. The widow without witnesses is believed if she states that she is a widow. Since her levir’s death is certified by witnesses, she is free to marry outside the family.] .
What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar [In ms. A and the Tosephta which parallels the Mishnah (14:3), the name everywhere is R. Eliezer. The abbreviation ר״א used by several medieval authors in quotes of the Mishnah usually refers to R. Eliezer.] ? Is it because she is not suspected to cause trouble [to herself in order later to cause trouble to her co-wife or because she is not suspected to cause any trouble] to her co-wife? Let us hear from the following: [Mishnah 15:7.] “If a woman went overseas with her husband and returns and says ‘my husband died’, she can remarry and collect her ketubah, but her co-wife remains forbidden.” We explain it, saying that she is suspected to cause trouble to herself in order to cause trouble to her co-wife, and Rebbi Eleazar does not disagree [Halakhah 15:7.] . It is impossible that the reason be that she is not suspected to cause any trouble to her co-wife. We could suspect that perhaps her husband sent her a bill of divorce from overseas [If she remarriesas a divorcee, she has not sinned even though in reality she is a divorcee. But if her co-wife remarries on her testimony, the co-wife’s children will be bastards born in adultery.] . Think of it, what if her [next] husband was a Cohen [As a divorcee, it is sinful for her to marry a Cohen and her children will be desecrated from priesthood, but the marriage is valid. The Babli, 120a, dismisses the thought that a woman would willingly desecrate her children.] ? Rebbi Abba bar Rebbi Zemina said, she is suspected to produce several desecrated children in order to make bastards of her co-wife’s children.
MISHNAH: One testifies only on the appearance of the face [Greek πρόσωπος, ὁ, πρόσωπον, τό, “face, front, Mask, bust” (meanings also found in Hebrew and Aramaic), also in Greek “dramatic or legal person, portrait”. Since the Yerushalmi expresses only long vowels by writtern letters, the spelling in the Mishnah would permit a vocalization of פּרֳצוֹפּ but Manadaic פארצופא confirms the spelling pronunication parṣuf.] with the nose [Positive identification of a corpse is only accepted if based on the recognition of the face.] , even though there may be marks on his body and his clothing [This and the following Mishnaiot are the basis of a novel by S. J. Agnon, והיה העקוֹב למישוֹר, translated into German as: Und das Krumme wird gerade based on the misidentification of a corpse as that of the absent husband; cf. Note 154.] . One testifies only up to three days [After that time, the body starts to decompose and positive identification is no longer possible.] . Even if one saw him cut up or crucified on the cross, or an animal eating of him, one testifies [To the fact of death. Before a person has stopped breathing, there is always a chance that he might be saved.] only after he has stopped breathing. Rebbi Judah ben Baba says, not all people nor all places nor all times are the same [This refers to the end of the preceding Mishnah, that one testifies only within three days from the time of death. Both the Yerushalmi and the Babli tend to consider R. Jehudah ben Baba’s statement as a restriction, that under some circumstances the time available for identification is less than three days.] .
HALAKHAH: “One testifies only on the appearance of the face,” etc. Rav Jehudah said, the nose with the mandibles [Reading of ms. A. Editio princeps: רב.] . This follows what Rebbi [This is the reading of both sources. One might except that the reading should be “Rav”, referring to Rav’s colleague in Babylonia rather than to a Galilean Amora some 100 years later. However, in the Babli, the same argument and verse are quoted by Abbai and/or Rav Cahana II, one generation after Rebbi Jeremiah.] Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: “The recognition of their faces testified about them [Is. 3:9.] ,” that is the nose. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if somebody does not want to be recognized, he should put a patch [Greek σπλήνιον, Latin splenium, cf. ‘Orlah 3:1, Note 20.] on his nostrils, then he will not be recognized. As in the following [This is an editorial comment, on what happened some 50 years after R. Ḥiyya bar Abba’s death. The same text appears in Soṭah 9:3.] : In the times of king Ursicinus [The legate of Caesar Gallus in Palestine, about the year 350. His oppressive regime lead to a revolt centered in Sepphoris.] , some people from Sepphoris were under arrest warrants. They put patches on their nostrils and were not recognized. Finally they were denunciated and all caught because of lies.
It is written: “Abijah and his people inflicted a very great slaughter on them [2Chr. 13:13. The biblical text reads: וַיַכּוּ בָהֶם אֲבִיָּה וְעַמּוֹ מַכָּה רַבָּה.] .” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, he destroyed the face recognition of the men of Israel. That is what is written, “the recognition of their faces testified about them,” etc. That refers to the nose. Rebbi Immi said, he put up guards for three days until appearance was disfigured. That is what is written: “Your widows are more for me than the sand of the oceans [Since the slain warriors could no longer be identified, their widows could never remarry according to rabbinic rules.] .” It was stated in this respect: One testifies only on the appearance of the face with the nose. It is written: “Jeroboam was powerless for the rest of Aijah’s days; the Eternal smote him and he died. [2Chr. 13:20.] ” Rebbi Samuel [In Gen. rabba 65:16, 73:4, R. Samuel bar Naḥman. He and the authors quoted earlier attribute Abijah’s early death to his mutilation of the bodies of the slain.] said, you think that this refers to Jeroboam, but it is Abijah [Abijah was king for only 3 years and must have died shortly after the battle; Jeroboam died two years after Abijah (1K. 15:25).] . Why was he smitten? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he insulted Jeroboam in public [In the Babli, Sanhedrin 101b, R. Joḥanan is reported to have said that Jeroboam was punished for insulting Solomon in public.] . That is what is written: “You are a great multitude and with you are the golden calves that Jeroboam made for you as gods.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because he denigrated his teacher Aḥijah from Shiloh. That is what is written: “And men, rascals, joined him, [2Chr. 13:7. The text there reads וַיִּקָֽבְצוּ עָלָיו אֲנָשִׁים רֵקִים בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל “and loiterers, rascals, joined him.”] ” that he called Aḥijah from Shiloh a rascal. But the rabbis say, because an idol fell into his hand and he did not destroy it, that is what is written: “Abijah pursued Jeroboam and took from him cities, Beth El and its dependencies … [2Chr. 13:19.] ” and it is written: “He set up one in Beth El and one he dedicated in Dan. [1K. 12:20.] ”
“Even though there are [marks] on his body and his clothing.” Did one not state: From where that if your fellow man is lost, you return him both body and property [The verse to which this refers is not indicated; it probably refers to Deut. 22:2 where the obligation to return a find is extended to include helping a person who is lost, since the end of the verse may be read “return him to himself.” The essence of the verse is interpreted to mean that the obligation to return property exists only after the person who claims to be the owner was examined as to the validity of this claim (Sifry Deut. 223; Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 2:7); in Midrash Tannaïm (Midrash Haggadol Deut, ed. S. Fisch, p. 486) the implication is that one is required the look after the medical needs of indigents and travelers.. These sources imply that examination of marks on bodies and property is accepted in biblical law. Then the question is how the Mishnah here can declare this kind of investigation as invalid. The answer given here (and in the Babli, 120b and Baba Meṣi‘a 27b) is that after death, bodily marks will rapidly change. The Babli in Baba Meṣi‘a adds that clothing or documents found on a corpse are no proofs of identity since they may belong to someone else.] ? There is a difference, because marks are apt to change.
So is the Mishnah: “One testifies only up to after three days [One testifies that the person was identified within a full 72 hours.] .” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Suknin in the name of Rebbi Levi: During the first three days, the soul hovers over the body because she thinks that she will return to it [In the Babli, Šabbat 152b, the verse from Job quoted at the end of this sermon is taken as proof that the soul remembers this world until all flesh is decomposed.] . Once she sees that the splendor of his face changes after three days, she abandons him and goes away. After three days, the belly breaks open in his face and says to him, there is what you have robbed and extorted. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Joshia brings it from that verse [Ma. 2:3.] : “I shall scatter your stomachs’ contents in your faces,” even “your holidays’ stomach contents.” At that moment, [Job 14:22.] “but his flesh will hurt him, his soul will mourn for him.”
“Even if one saw him cut up,” I say he was burned by a red hot lance and survived [It is recognized that not the wound is the main danger but the infection by a dirty lance or sword. The Babli, 120b, quotes Tosephta 14:2 where R. Simeon ben Eleazar holds that even if wounded by a dirty instrument one may burn away the infected flesh so that the victim can survive. The position of the Yerushalmi is quoted there by Rava; cf. Chapter 1, Note 19.] . “Or crucified on the cross,” I say a noble lady passed by and redeemed him. “Or an animal was eating of him,” I say that in Heaven they had mercy on him [It is known that animals obey the commandments of Heaven; cf. 1K. 13:28.] . If he fell into a lion’s den one does not testify about him [Without seeing that the person is dead. The same statement is in Babli 121a/Tosephta 14:4.] , I say that miracles happened for him as they did for Daniel. If he fell into a fiery oven one does not testify about him [In Babli 121a/Tosephta 14:4, “one testifies about him”.] , I say that miracles happened for him as they did for Ḥanaiah, Mishael and Azariah. If he fell into a cistern full of snakes and scorpions one does not testify about him; Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba said, I say he was a snake charmer [In Babli 121a/Tosephta 14:4: “If he fell into a cistern full of snakes and scorpions one testifies about him; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, one takes into consideration that he might be a snake charmer.” In the Yerushalmi version it is not clear why R. Jehudah ben Baba has to be mentioned if nobody disagrees with him; but both sources agree that one does not testify and the text cannot be amended.] . If he fell into a boiling vat of water or oil, one does not testify about him. Rebbi Abba [In a few Medieval authors he is quoted as R. Aḥa, the Tanna who is quoted in Babli/Tosephta.] said, of oil one testifies, of water one does not testify [In Babli/Tosephta (loc. cit.) the discussion is about vats of oil and wine, where R. Aḥa holds that the overflow of wine caused by the human’s drop into the vat might extinguish the flames. The majority disagrees since the alcohol in the wine acts as fuel. The Babli might agree with the Yerushalmi in the case of a vat of water.] .
“Rebbi Judah ben Baba.” Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥananel in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Judah ben Baba. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Jeremiah said that it happened that someone fell into the Jordan and surfaced after seventeen days when he was recognized because the cold had shrunk him [Following Rashba (commentary to Babli 120a) who reads צפדתו. Maggid Mishneh (on Maimonides, Gerušin 13:22) reads צרפתו “refined him”.] so that they permitted his wife to remarry [The Babli, 121a, quotes a parallel ruling by Rava (cf. Chapter 1, Note 19) which does not mention the frigidity of the water as cause.] .
MISHNAH: If he fell into water, both enclosed and open, his wife is forbidden [This is the statement of R. Meїr. The other authorities permit the widow to remarry if the husband drowned in an enclosed body of water: a lake, or a cistern, or a cave.] . Rebbi Meїr said, if happened that someone fell into a large cistern and came up after three days [A cistern is an enclosed container of water. If it is possible to survive in water for three days, then one can never assume that a person drowned unless his corpse was found.] . Rebbi Yose said, it happened with a blind man who went to immerse himself in a cave, and his guide went after him, they stayed there the time to die [from drowning] and they permitted their wives to remarry [This proves that practice does not follow R. Meїr in enclosed bodies of water.] . It also happened in Assos [Cf. Kilaim 9, Note 128.] that one lowered a person into the sea and only his leg was recovered. The Sages said, if from the knee and higher, she can remarry [An animal, which has lost a part of a leg that included the knee, is considered ṭerefa, unfit for human consumtion since it is as good as dead. The Mishnah extends the principle to humans that any wound or deficiency which makes an animal unfit for human consumption, if found in a human proves that that human must die unless immediate medical attention can be given.] , from lower than the knee she cannot remarry.
HALAKHAH: “If he fell into water, both enclosed and open, his wife is forbidden, the words of Rebbi Meĩr. But the Sages say, in open waters his wife is forbidden, in enclosed waters, his wife is permitted.” [The same text in Babli 121a Toesephta 14:5.] Rebbi Meїr said, it happened that someone fell into a large cistern and came up after three days. They said to him, one does not mention wonders [The same text in Babli 121b. Wonders should not be considered in writing regulations (and anyhow, the widow is not permitted to remarry before 30 days have elapsed). In the opinion of the Babli, the wonder was that he survived three days without sleep. The Amoraic opinion is that there is no wonder since one may survive with occasional naps without drowning.] . Rebbi said, it happened that two went to put fish nets into the Jordan in the evening. One of them saw a fish cave and entered it. When he wanted to leave, he was unable to find the cave’s entrance. His colleague waited at the entrance of the cave so long that he would be dead; he returned and reported to his house. Next morning when the sun shone, the man recognized the entrance of the cave, left, and found his house in mourning [Babli 121a, Tosephta 14:6.] . Rebbi Aqiba said, It happened that I was traveling on the ocean that I saw a ship sinking. I was sorry for a student Sage who was on that ship. When I came to Kappadocian Mazaga he greated me and asked me questions. I said to him, my son, how did you escape? He told me, Rabbi, one wave tore me to another, and another to another, until it vomited me [From Jonah 2:11.] onto dry land. Then I said, how great are the words of the Sages who said, in open waters his wife is forbidden, in enclosed waters, his wife is permitted [Babli 121a, Tosephta 14:5.] .
Rebbi Abbahu said, if the ocean was quiet [Greek γαλήνη, ἡ “stillness of the sea”. In Erubin 4:1 (fol. 21d) הים גלנו, Greek γαληνὸς, όν “calm (adj.)”.] , he looked around in all directions and saw that no creature was there, one lets his wife remarry [In the Babli, 121a, this is the definition of “enclosed waters”, that from one point one can see the lake shore all around. In the discussion there, the anonymous editors agree that even a larger lake can be considered enclosed if at the time of the accident there was absolute calm.] .
“It also happened in Assos that one lowered a person into the sea and only his leg was recovered.” It was stated: They wanted to cut sponges and found that banker in Acco [Apparently, after a long time the remains of a banker who had disappeared at Assos on the Aegean sea were found by sponge divers near Acco on the Mediterranean.] . Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not reasonable that one allows time for him as for a torn animal [Since the Mishnah states that a human can be presumed dead if he sustains a wound that would make an animal “torn” and unfit for consumption, it should be clear that this can be stated only after the wounded person has disappeared for at least a full 12 months since an animal is declared to be “torn” if it cannot possible survive a full 12 months. This is the interpretation of Don Vidal de Tolosa (מגיד משנה) and R. Isaiah II of Trani (ריא״ז). R. Joseph Caro (כסף משנה) holds that a human might survive more than 12 months (Maimonides, Gerušin 13:13) but in his Code (Even Ha‘ezer 17:32) he follows Don Vidal.] ? He answered him, that is my opinion also.
MISHNAH: It is sufficient even if somebody heard women say, the man X died [A woman can be permitted to remarry on the basis of hearsay testimony based on statements overheard from people who themselves would not be accepted as witnesses.] . Rebbi Jehudah said, even if he heard children say, we go to lament and bury X, whether intentional or unintentional. Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba said, if he is a Jew, only if he intends [to testify] [Only if he knows the consequences of his testimony and is presumed to be as accurate as possible.] ; but if a Gentile intends to testify, it is no testimony [He is suspected of ulterior motives; Ps. 144:8,11.] .
HALAKHAH: “Even if somebody heard women.” If one heard lamenting women eulogizing him among the dead, there is no better testinony than that. From the king’s commentariensis [Latin commentarienses “ one who makes out a list of prisoners” (Cod. Just. 9,4,4). His certification that a certain person convicted of a capital crime appears on his list is insufficient since this might only indicate the civil death of the person, viz., that from the emperor’s prison the man was sold into slavery.] , “X died, X was killed”, one does not let his wife remarry. From a Jewish court [As indicated in Note 96, this reading is from ms. A; it is suspect since it appears in the Babli, Giṭṭin 28b. The reading was conjectured by the earlier commentators on basis of the Babli. (One ms. of Giṭṭin reads: “If one heard from a Jewish judge,” cf. M. S. Feldblum, Tractate Giṭṭin, New York 1966). Both Babli readings make sense only if one assumes that the baraita dates at the latest to the first Century C. E. as detailed in the last Mishnah, before hearsay evidence became acceptable. But then the part dealing with the king’s secretary of prisons also would not represent current practice. The difficulty the Babli has with explaining the rejection of indications from a government secretary and the text of the Yerushalmi here make it clear that both Talmudim accept the baraita as reflecting practice. Therefore, the reading “third party court”, while rejected by all commentators and questioned by the Academy of the Hebrew Language, seems to be the preferable one, appearing as, but not being, lectio difficilior. If we accept the reading, the evidence presented is still hearsay evidence.] , “X died, X was killed”, one lets his wife remarry.
X was lost, X was shaken off, X is not in the world [It is shown that these expressions do not necessarily imply that X is dead; his wife cannot remarry.] . “X was lost,” I say he was embarrassed [Arabic ربك.] . “X was shaken off,” I say that X vomited his food [He was sick and could not keep down his food.] . “X is not in the world,” he is lost in tought. “His ship sank in the sea;” that parallels what Rebbi Abba bar Zavida said in the name of Rav: It happened that Abba Simai’s ship sank in the sea but he was not on it; here it is the same.
What means “intentional”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, anytime one mentions a woman [If in a conversation one mentions any woman and somebody says, speaking of women I remember that here is a woman who became a widow and she does not know it yet. Such a statement is acceptable if made by a Jew but not by a Gentile.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anybody one asks and he responds [In the Babli, 121b, R. Simeon ben Laqish states that the testimony of the Gentile is accepted if he wants to tell about the death of Mr. X if he did not know that X was married and that his testimony will let the widow remarry. R. Joḥanan points out that the case quoted here by R. Ḥaggai that R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position was not accepted. The Babli accepts the Gentile only if he tells his story without ulterior motives.] . Rebbi Ḥaggai said to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, does the Rabbi remember that [In the Babli, 121b, the argument was with 85 Elders supporting what in the next generation would become R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position.] thirty and some Elders were up in arms against Rebbi Hoshaiah to follow the rule of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but he did not accept it [The common position of R. Joḥanan and R. Hoshaia certainly defines practice, even against a majority of dissenting Elders.]
Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel [It is not necessary that the death be reported in a formal testimony; the information is accepted even if gleaned in an accidental way.] . The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] [ר׳ עקיבה is a scribal error.] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination [“Questions and investigations” are required in criminal inquiries (Deut. 13:15). חקירות are obligatory questions to determine time and place of the crime without which no prosecution can be successful. דרישות are questions which depend on the circumstances of the case.] . [The same story in the Babli, 122b; a short version is in Tosephta 14:9.] It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla [In the Tosephta כפר שחרא, in the Babli כפר שיחיא.] . I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan [It is obvious that one must read “Jonathan ben Joḥanan” as in the other two sources.] the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry [In the Babli, R. Tarphon cross-examined the witness only for the purpose of permitting the wife of the deceased to remarry.] . It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination [In the Babli, 122b, that is the position of R. Aqiba.] , against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.
MISHNAH: One testifies by the light of a candle or by the light of the moon [In judicial proceedings, testimony is accepted only during daytime.] and one permits to remarry on the basis of a disembodied voice [This is a source of information without any standing in judicial proceedings.] . It happened that one stood on a hilltop and called out that the man X from place Y died. They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry. It also happened at Ṣalmon [An unidentified place, possibly Kafr Ṣalmeh in lower Galilee.] that somebody said, I am X, son of Y; a snake bit me and I am dying. They went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry.
HALAKHAH: “One testifies by the light of a candle.” [This paragraph is copied from Giṭṭin 6:6.] Rebbi Ḥanina said, Rebbi Jonathan taught me, only if they saw a man’s shadow. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: There [Mishnah Giṭṭin 6:6.] , we have stated: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern and said, anybody who hears my voice should write a bill of divorce to my wife, they should write and deliver,” and Rebbi Jonathan said, only if the saw a man’s shadow. Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That means, in the fields, but in town even without a man’s shadow. But did we not state: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern and said, anybody who hears my voice should write a bill of divorce to my wife, they should write and deliver,” and Rebbi Jonathan said, only if they saw a man’s shadow? Rebbi Abun said, damaging spirits [In the opinion of the Babli, Giṭṭin 66a, they can take on human shapes and even have a shadow. But since that shadow is the work of the spirit and not of physics, they have no half shadows (meaning that the shadows of spirits follow the rules of geometric, not of wave, optics.)] are as frequent in cisterns as they are frequent on the fields.
[The parallel is in Sanhedrin 7:16. The Mishnah states that there are two kinds of missionaries for idolatry, the seducer (Deut. 13:7–12) and the expeller (Deut. 13:13–19). The seducer is the one who tries to bring individuals to idolatry whereas the expeller adresses himself to the public. They go under different rules and one cannot try a seducer as an expeller and vice-versa. The first part of the paragraph has no relevance for the topics of this Halakhah, only the second part does. The expression תמן תנינן introduces a Mishnah. Here, it introduces a paraphrase of the Mishnah.] There, we have stated: “The seducer is a common person, the seduced is a common person.” Therefore, not a Sage [Is a thoroughly educated person immune from prosecution for idolatry?] ? (Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage.) [Sentence out of place, missing in Sanhedrin.] Since he seduces, he is not a Sage. Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage. What does one do to be sly about him? One hides two witnesses, people [A marginal gloss that entered the text, missing in Sanhedrin.] , in an inner room and puts him into the outer room, lights a candle near him so they can see him and hear his voice. That is what they did to Ben Satra [In Sanhedrin: Ben Sôtĕdā, in the Babli, Sanhedrin 67a, and Tosephta Sanhedrin 10:11: Ben Sātĕdā, explained there as “son of the adultress” (known as Miriam the women’s hairdresser).] in Lod, where they hid two Sages, brought him to court, and stoned him. And here, you say so [In the case in Sanhedrin, the single person whom the Seducer wants to convert to idolatry is unable to testify since a single witness is insufficient in criminal proceedings. Therefore, he had to find supporting witnesses in secret. But if voice identification is sufficient to permit a woman to marry even though up to now she was a married woman forbidden under the penalties of adultery to everybody except her husband, then voice identification should be enough also in other criminal proceedings.] ? It is different because he said, “I am”. Here also, “I am”? [If the intended victim could get the seducer to identify himself as “I am …” then voice identification should be enough.] That he should not flee, go away, and continue to seduce others with him [The previous argument is correct; also for the court it would have been enough to hide a single witness who would be the second witness after the intended victim. One chooses two hidden witnesses to have enough manpower to arrest the seducer and haul him into court.] .
[This is a slightly defective copy of the text in Giṭṭin 3:3 (fol. 44d).] There, we have stated: “If somebody was bringing a bill of divorce and lost it, if he found it again immediately, it is valid; otherwise it is invalid.” What is immediately? Rebbi Joḥanan said, [In Giṭṭin: R. Joḥanan said, as long as nobody passed by. R. Jacob bar Idi, R. Simeon bar Abba in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi: as long as three people did not pass by. In the Babli, Giṭṭin 27b/28a, the first opinion is quoted in the names of the Tanna R. Simeon ben Eleazar and the Amora R. Abba bar bar Ḥana. The most lenient opinion in the Babli allows for a caravan to come there and encamp.] as long as less than three people passed by. [From here to the end of the Tractate, the Leiden ms. is again available.] If a Gentile passed by, what is the rule [The question is not asked in the Babli; that Talmud must hold that a Gentile is included under the notion of “person”.] ? Let us hear from the following: Abba bar bar Ḥana [He insists in the Babli that the presence of another person invalidates the bill of divorce.] was bringing a bill of divorce when he lost it. A Saracen found it. The case came before the rabbis and they declared [the bill] valid. That means, if a Gentile passed by, it is valid. May we say that he had an identifying mark on [the bill]? But was it not stated that there are no identifying marks on bills of divorce? That means, two or three lines. But here it had a heh which was pointed [In the Babli: If there was a hole in the parchment near a certain letter, that is a convincing mark. But one does not testify about shape, color, type of material, etc. The argument shows that the story of Rabba bar bar Ḥana does not imply that the Gentile is not a person.] . Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana, why should it be invalid in that case? I would say, it was another bill executed for a person with the same name [If there were two couples in the same town where both husbands and wives had, respectively, the same names and patronymics, then it might be possible that both husbands divorced their wives at the same time and the bills of divorce were switched. Since a bill of divorce has to be written for a specific woman (Deut. 24:1) the switch invalidates both bills.] . Think of it, if they investigated and did not find there another person with the same name! It must be that one is very strict in matters of possible incest [In this case, possible adultery if an invalid bill of divorce was delivered and the still married wife remarried as a divorcee.] . But did we not state: “They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry; they went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry? [How can one be super-strict in cases of bills of divorce when one is super-lenient in confirming the husband’s death?] ” Rebbi Mana said to him: So says Rebbi Shammai, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: This man [The one who lost the bill of divorce. In view of the Mishnah in Yebamot, the Mishnah in Giṭṭin is explained away by being reduced to a very special case unlikely to be realized.] had two bills of divorce in his hand, one valid and one invalid. He lost the valid one after he had thrown away the invalid one. When he found it, I am saying that he found the invalid one.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea [The center of Jewish Babylonia at that time; reputed to have been the place of residence of King Jojachin after his release from prison.] for the intercalation of the year [It is difficult to determine the historical background of the Mishnah.In general, intercalations (adding a month to the year) are the prerogative of the Synhedrion in the Land of Israel. Intercalations can be decreed outside the Land only if this is impossible in the Land. Rabban Gamliel the Elder must have died some time before 60 C. E.; his grandson Gamliel II cannot have become patriarch before the election of Galba as Roman Emperor and must have died some time before the outbreak of the war of Bar Kokhba. The only period in which R. Aqiba could act as representative of the Synhedrion in a situation in which this institution was paralyzed in Palestine would be in the latter part of Trajan’s reign, in the time of the great revolution of the Jewish Diaspora against the Romans. The “armed bands” which hindered an old man to go to Jabne to testify might have been Roman units preparing to invade Mesopotamia in Trajan’s last campaign.] , Nehemiah from Badala [In the Mishnah of the Babli: בית דלי “the house of Aquarius”. The place is unidentified.] found me and said to me, I heard that in the Land of Israel one does not let a woman remarry on the testimony of one witness, except Jehudah ben Baba [In the independent Mishnah mss: Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba. The text of the Talmudim is preferable since the rabbis among themselves did not use titles; the use of a title would be inappropriate in the mouth of an old man who studied before the invention of the title of “Rebbi” in Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai’s academy at Jabne.] . I told him, that is so. He said to me: Tell them in my name, you know that this country is in bad shape because of armed bands [And therefore, an old man like me cannot travel to the Land of Israel.] ; I learned from Rabban Gamliel the Elder that one lets a woman remarry on the testimony of one witness. When I came and lectured about this before Rabban Gamliel [Rabban Gamliel II, known as Rabban Gamliel of Jabne.] , he was happy about my words and said, we found a colleague for Jehudah ben Baba [In the independent Mishnah mss: Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba. The text of the Talmudim is preferable since the rabbis among themselves did not use titles; the use of a title would be inappropriate in the mouth of an old man who studied before the invention of the title of “Rebbi” in Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai’s academy at Jabne.] [His opinion is no longer that of a single Sage; it can be the opinion of the majority.] . During the discussion, Rabban Gamliel remembered that people had been killed at Tel Arza and Rabban Gamliel let their widows remarry on the testimony of a single witness. It was firmly established that one permits to remarry on the words of a witness reporting from another witness, and on the words of a woman or a slave girl [The text of these Mishnaiot is not well established. There are Mishnah texts which ascribe the decision about the men killed at Tel Arza to Rabban Gamliel the Elder, and the Babli adds the male slave as credible witness to a death. Hearsay evidence and that of women and slaves is not accepted in adversary proceedings. It seems that the quote of the Mishnah in the Halakhah is the correct one also for the Yerushalmi.] .
HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me,” etc. If it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”; Rebbi Jeremiah said, one lets his wife remarry; Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, one does not let his wife remarry. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “By the mouth of witnesses,” not on basis of their writings, not on the word of a translator, not on the testimony of a single witness [The full baraita is found only here. In Sifry Deut. 188, on Deut. 19:15, “by the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses the matter shall be determined”, written testimony and translated testimony are excluded (the court which hears a criminal matter must be composed of judges able to hear the witnesses in their own languages). In that context, the lone witness does not have to be mentioned since he is excluded by the verse itself. In the Babli, Yebamot 31b, Giṭṭin 71a, only written testimony is excluded.] .” Today, does one not let remarry on the testimony of a single witness [Next Mishnah. The biblical rules of testimony have been abrogated once and for all in the case of the presumed widow since in that case there are no adversary proceedings and the biblical rules of testimony never applied.] ? Therefore also one lets remarry on basis of their writings and on the word of a translator. A baraita supports Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The power of witnesses is greater than the power of a document and the power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses. Since if witnesses say, “X died, X was killed”, one lets his wife remarry but if it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”, one does not let his wife remarry [However, it is not established whether this baraita follows or precedes the reform of Rabban Gamliel.] . The power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses, since if somebody gives a loan before witnesses, he can foreclose only from unincumbered property; by a document, he can foreclose from mortgaged property [This is explained in Chapter 3, Notes 130–131. Cf. Mishnah Baba Batra 10:16.] .
MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua say, one does not let a woman remarry on the testimony of a single witness. Rebbi Aqiba says, not on the testimony of a woman nor on that of relatives [He must agree that a single male witness in good standing is acceptable to testify about a death since he was the messenger of that rule in Mishnah 7. But he restricts the leniency to exactly the case he had heard in Nahardea and objects to the expansive interpretation given at Jabne. In the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi, the fact that R. Aqiba also disqualifies slaves was forgotten by the scribe. The relatives accepted by the majority naturally exclude the 5 women barred in Mishnah 15:4.] .
HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua say, one does not let a woman remarry,” etc. We have stated: “It was firmly established that one permits to remarry on the words of a witness reporting from another witness, and on the words of a woman, and a woman on the words of another woman, and from a slave or a slave girl.” And you say so? Our Mishnah is of the prior Mishnah [Mishnah 9 clearly contradicts Mishnah 8. Since Rebbis Eliezer and Joshua were the joint leaders at Jabne between the death of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai and the accession of Rabban Gamliel, it is quite clear that their joint statement precedes the reform of Rabban Gamliel.] .
MISHNAH: They said to him [The other Sages to R. Aqiba.] , it happened that Levites went to Zoar the town of date palms when one one them fell ill and they left him at an inn On their return they asked the women innkeeper [Gentile woman who most probably kept slave girls to act as prostitutes for her guests.] ,where is our colleague? She told them, he died and I buried him [Since they asked, her answer is testimony which according to Mishnah 5 should not be accepted.] ; and they let his widow remarry. They said to him [The other Sages to R. Aqiba.] , should not the wife of a Cohen [She is the paradigm of a decent Jewish woman. How can R. Aqiba accept the testimony of a Gentile woman of ill repute and refuse that of a Jewish woman in good standing?] be like a women innkeeper? He retorted, if she is in the position of the women innkeeper. For the women innkeeper delivered to them his stick, his back pack and the Torah scroll that had been in his hand [Any woman who can deliver concrete proof of her words is accepted.] .
HALAKHAH: “For the woman innkeeper delivered to them his stick, his shoes, his money belt, and the Torah scroll that had been in his hand.”. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina [This is the correct name, as given at the end of the paragraph. R. Aḥa is reported frequently to quote R. Ḥanina but not R. Ḥinena.] : They treated her like a midwife who is trusted on the spot [If a midwife testifies immediately at the birth which one of twin boys was born first, her testimony is accepted with all the consequences it has in matters of inheritance (Qiddušin Yerushalmi 4:2 fol. 65d; Babli 73b).] . Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated her like a Gentile speaking simplemindedly. A gentleman asked before Rebbi Mana, does that not contradict Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anybody one asks and he responds [Cf. Note 106. This is R. Simeon ben Laqish’s definition of intentional answer which disqualifies the statement of a Gentile. The Babli, 122b, explains the problem away by proposing that the innkeeper started to cry when she saw the Levites coming and informed them of the death when they inquired why she was crying.] ! The statement of Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta is impossible; one has the statement of Rebbi Ḥanina: They treated her like a midwife who is trusted on the spot.