## Yevamot Daf 115a

###### Yevamot 115a:1
[Yevamot 115a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:1)

דְּאִי בָּעֲיָא אָמְרָה: ״שָׁלוֹם בָּעוֹלָם״. אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיחַזְקָה — אָמְרָה בִּדְדָמֵי, וְלָא אָתֵי ״מָה לִי לְשַׁקֵּר״ וּמַרַע חֶזְקָתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Because if she wanted** to lie **she** would have **said:** There was **peace in the world,** and the court would have accepted her testimony. **Or perhaps** it can be argued: **Since she has maintained** that there was a war and this claim of hers has already been accepted, with regard to her report concerning her husband, **she will say** what **she imagines** to be the case, **and** the argument of: **Why would I lie, does not come and undermine the** established **presumption** that there was a war.


###### Yevamot 115a:2
[Yevamot 115a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״עִישְּׁינוּ עָלֵינוּ בַּיִת״, ״עִישְּׁינוּ עָלֵינוּ מְעָרָה״, ״הוּא מֵת, וַאֲנִי נִצַּלְתִּי״ — אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר לָהּ: כִּי הֵיכִי דִּלְדִידָךְ אִיתְרְחִישׁ נִיסָּא, לְדִידֵיהּ נָמֵי אִיתְרְחִישׁ נִיסָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a *baraita* in an attempt to resolve this dilemma. **Come** and **hear:** It was taught that if a woman comes and says: **They set our house** on fire and the house became filled with **smoke,** or: **They set our cave** on fire to **smoke** us out, and she adds: My husband **died and I was saved, she is not deemed credible.** In this case, she herself related the entire story, and even so her version of events is not accepted. The Gemara answers that this is no proof. **There,** in the case of the fire, **it is different, as one says to her: Just as a miracle occurred for you** and you were saved, **likewise a miracle** might have **occurred for** your husband and he too survived.


###### Yevamot 115a:3
[Yevamot 115a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״נָפְלוּ עָלֵינוּ גּוֹיִם״, ״נָפְלוּ עָלֵינוּ לִיסְטִים״, ״הוּא מֵת, וְנִצַּלְתִּי״ — נֶאֱמֶנֶת. הָתָם, כִּדְרַב אִידִי. דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי: אִשָּׁה כְּלֵי זַיְינָהּ עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof from another *baraita*. If a woman comes and says: A group of **gentiles attacked us,** or: A group **of bandits attacked us,** and she adds: My husband **died and I was saved, she is deemed credible.** This indicates that her testimony is accepted due to the argument of: Why should she lie? The Gemara rejects this proof. **There,** in that *baraita*, her testimony is accepted because it stands to reason that she is speaking the truth, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Idi. As Rav Idi said:** With regard to **a woman, her weapons are upon her.** In other words, a woman is generally not killed by thieves, because the very fact of her being a woman protects her. They would most likely rape her and not kill her. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that she is speaking the truth.


###### Yevamot 115a:4
[Yevamot 115a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:4)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּבְשִׁילְהֵי הִלּוּלֵיהּ אִיתְּלַי נוּרָא בֵּי (גנני) [גְּנָנֵיהּ]. אֲמַרָה לְהוּ דְּבֵיתְהוּ: ״חֲזוֹ גַּבְרַאי! חֲזוֹ גַּבְרַאי!״ אֲתוֹ, חֲזוֹ גַּבְרָא חָרוֹכָא דִּשְׁדֵי, וּפִסְּתָא דִּידָא דְּשַׁדְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain man who** got married. **At the end of his wedding a fire broke out in the bridal chamber,** where the bride and groom were standing, during the ceremony. **His wife** screamed and **said to them: Look at my husband, look at my husband! They went and saw** an unrecognizable **burnt man fallen down, and a palm** of a hand **lying** there.


###### Yevamot 115a:5
[Yevamot 115a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:5)

סָבַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין לְמֵימַר: הַיְינוּ ״עִישְּׁינוּ עָלֵינוּ בַּיִת, עִישְּׁינוּ עָלֵינוּ מְעָרָה״. אָמַר רָבָא: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם לָא קָאָמְרָה ״חֲזוֹ גַּבְרַאי, חֲזוֹ גַּבְרַאי״. וְעוֹד, גַּבְרָא חָרוֹכָא דִּשְׁדֵי, וּפִסְּתָא דִּידָא דְּשַׁדְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin thought to say: This is** the same as the case of: **They set our house** on fire and the house became filled with **smoke,** or: **They set our cave** on fire to **smoke** us out, i.e., we cannot rely on her claim that her husband died. **Rava said: Is** this case **comparable** to those? **There she did not say: Look at my husband, look at my husband. And furthermore,** there is another difference: Here, there is **a burnt man who has fallen down and a palm that is lying** there. In other words, her statement is substantiated by facts.


###### Yevamot 115a:6
[Yevamot 115a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:6)

וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין — גַּבְרָא חָרוֹכָא דִּשְׁדֵי, אֵימָא אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא אֲתָא לְאַצּוֹלֵי, וַאֲכַילְתֵּיהּ נוּרָא. וּפִסְּתָא דִידָא דְּשַׁדְיָא — נוּרָא אִיתְּלַיא וְאִתְיְלִיד בֵּיהּ מוּמָא, וּמֵחֲמַת כִּיסּוּפָא אֲזַל וַעֲרַק לְעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** why didn’t **Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin** accept her testimony? In his opinion, **a burnt man who has fallen down** is not conclusive proof, as one might still **say:** Perhaps **another person came to the rescue and the fire burned him. And** as for **the palm lying** there, perhaps **the fire burned him and caused a deformity** through which he lost his hand, **and due to his embarrassment he went and ran away to** somewhere else **in the world,** but he is still alive. Consequently, Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin did not want to rely upon the testimony of the wife.


###### Yevamot 115a:7
[Yevamot 115a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:7)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עֵד אֶחָד בַּמִּלְחָמָה מַהוּ? טַעְמָא דְּעֵד אֶחָד מְהֵימַן — מִשּׁוּם דְּמִילְּתָא דַּעֲבִידָא לְאִיגַּלּוֹיֵי הוּא לָא מְשַׁקַּר, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא מְשַׁקַּר. אוֹ דִלְמָא: טַעְמָא דְּעֵד אֶחָד מִשּׁוּם דְּהִיא גּוּפָא דָּיְיקָא וּמִינַּסְבָא, וְהָכָא [כֵּיוָן דְּזִימְנִין דְּסָנְיָא לֵיהּ], לָא דָּיְיקָא וּמִינַּסְבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before them:** In the case of **one witness** who testifies to the death of someone **during a war, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: **The reason that one witness is deemed credible** when he provides testimony concerning the death of a husband is **because** the husband being alive **is a matter that is likely to be revealed,** and one would **not lie** in a case of this kind. **Here, too,** one witness would **not lie. Or perhaps the reason that one witness** is trusted **is because** his account is supported by the fact that **she herself is exacting** in her investigation before she **marries** again. **And here, since sometimes** she **hates him,** and war is a situation that requires especially careful investigation and it is tempting for her to rely on the witness, **she is not exacting** in her investigation before she **marries** again, and therefore the testimony of one witness is not accepted.


###### Yevamot 115a:8
[Yevamot 115a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:8)

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כְּשֶׁיָּרַדְתִּי לִנְהַרְדְּעָא לְעַבֵּר הַשָּׁנָה, מְצָאַנִי נְחֶמְיָה אִישׁ בֵּית דְּלִי, וְאָמַר לִי: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁאֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא. וְנַמְתִּי לוֹ: כֵּן הַדְּבָרִים. אָמַר לִי, אֱמוֹר לָהֶם מִשְּׁמִי: אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִים הַמְּדִינָה הַזּוֹ מְשׁוּבֶּשֶׁת בִּגְיָיסוֹת? כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מֵרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן, שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאִין הָאִשָּׁה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama said: Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma. **Rabbi Akiva said: When I descended to Neharde’a** in Babylonia **to intercalate the year, I found** there the Sage **Neḥemya of Beit D’li, and he said to me: I heard that** the Sages **do not** allow **a woman to marry in Eretz Yisrael based on** the testimony of **one witness, apart from Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava,** as the other Sages are reluctant to rely on his opinion. **And I said [*namti*] to him: This is so. He said to me: Say to them in my name:** Do **you know that this country is riddled with troops? This is** the tradition that **I received from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, that** the Sages do allow **a woman to marry based on one witness.**


###### Yevamot 115a:9
[Yevamot 115a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:9)

מַאי מְדִינָה מְשׁוּבֶּשֶׁת בִּגְיָיסוֹת? לָאו, אַף עַל גַּב דִּמְדִינָה זוֹ מְשׁוּבֶּשֶׁת, כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאִין עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. אַלְמָא עֵד אֶחָד מְהֵימַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *baraita* in relation to the issue at hand. **What** is the significance of his comment that this **country is riddled with troops? Isn’t** he saying: **Even though this country is riddled** with troops, **this is** the tradition that **I received, that** the Sages do allow **a woman to marry based on one witness,** notwithstanding the war. **Apparently, one witness is deemed credible** in the case of a missing husband during a time of war.


###### Yevamot 115a:10
[Yevamot 115a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:10)

אָמַר רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, מַאי שְׁנָא ״מְדִינָה זוֹ״? ״כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ גְּיָיסוֹת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִים שֶׁמְּדִינָה זוֹ מְשׁוּבֶּשֶׁת בִּגְיָיסוֹת, וְלָא אֶפְשָׁר לִי לְמִשְׁבַּק אִינָשֵׁי בֵיתִי וּמֵייתֵי קַמֵּי רַבָּנַן. כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מֵרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאִין הָאִשָּׁה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: If this is** how you interpret the matter, in **what** way **is** this **country different** from any other? In other words, why did Neḥemya of Beit D’li mention a particular place? **He should have** said: **Any place where there are troops. Rather, Rava said: This is what he said: You know that this country is riddled with troops, and I cannot leave the members of my household and come before the Sages,** due to the danger. Therefore, I cannot testify in person that **this is** the tradition that **I received from Rabban Gamliel** the Elder, **that** the Sages allow **a woman to marry based on one witness.** According to this interpretation, his statement has no bearing on the matter at hand.


###### Yevamot 115a:11
[Yevamot 115a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָּאִין עִם אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן סִימַאי בִּסְפִינָה, וְטָבְעָה, וְהִשִּׂיא רַבִּי נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן עַל פִּי נָשִׁים. וְהָא מַיִם כְּמִלְחָמָה דָּמוּ. וְנָשִׁים, אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה — כְּעֵד אֶחָד דָּמוּ, וְקָתָנֵי: הִשִּׂיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues. **Come** and **hear** a *baraita* that relates **an incident involving two Torah scholars who were coming with Abba Yosei ben Simai by boat, and** that boat **sank. And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi allowed **their wives to marry based on** the testimony given by **women** that these men were dead. **But** consider: **Water,** i.e., the sea, **is like war** with respect to this *halakha*, as there is room in both cases for conjecture and error. **And women, even one hundred** of them, **are considered as one witness** with regard to their testimony about a husband’s death. **And** yet the *baraita* **taught:** He allowed them **to marry,** which indicates that one may rely on one witness even during a war.


###### Yevamot 115a:12
[Yevamot 115a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115a:12)

וְתִסְבְּרָא? מַיִם שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם סוֹף נִינְהוּ, וּמַיִם שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם סוֹף — אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה. אֶלָּא הֵיכִי דָּמֵי, דְּאָמְרִי: אַסְּקִינְהוּ קַמַּן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof. **And** how can **you understand** it that way? Apparently, the women testified only that the boat sank, **and this is** a case of **an endless body of water,** as the boat sank at sea in a spot from which it is impossible to see the shore. **And** the *halakha* is that if a man was on a boat that sank in **an endless body of water his wife is prohibited** to marry, as there is no proof that he actually drowned and didn’t emerge from the water on a different shore. **Rather,** one must say: **What are the circumstances? That** those women **said: Those** drowned men **were brought up before us**