## Yevamot Daf 117b

###### Yevamot 117b:1
[Yevamot 117b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:1)

תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמְרָה: ״מֵת בַּעְלִי וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת חָמִי״ — תִּנָּשֵׂא וְתִטּוֹל כְּתוּבָּה, וַחֲמוֹתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא חֲמוֹתָהּ אֲסוּרָה? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן לָא בַּעְלַהּ מִיית וְלָא חֲמוּהָ מִיית, וְהָא דְּקָאָמְרָה הָכִי — לְקַלְקוֹלַאּ לַחֲמוֹתָהּ הוּא דְּקָמִיכַּוְּונָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma. If **she said: My husband died and afterward my father-in-law died, she may marry and take** her money from the **marriage contract, and her mother-in-law is prohibited** to remarry; she is not deemed credible to testify for her mother-in-law, as already stated. The Gemara clarifies: **What is the reason** that **her mother-in-law is prohibited** to remarry? Is it **not because we say:** Perhaps **her husband did not** really **die,** and she is still her mother-in-law, **and her father-in-law did not die** either, **and** the reason **that she says this** statement **is that she intends to ruin her mother-in-law?**


###### Yevamot 117b:2
[Yevamot 117b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:2)

סָבְרָה: לְבָתַר שַׁעְתָּא לָא תֵּיתֵי (תִּצְטַעֲרַן).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates. **She reasons: Later,** when the husbands arrive, **she will not come back and trouble me,** because if the mother-in-law relies on this testimony and remarries she will no longer be able to return to her original husband, and she will be out of her daughter-in-law’s life. This shows that there is a concern that a daughter-in-law might lie in order to prevent future family relationships from coming into being. Similarly, a woman should be suspected of lying with regard to her future daughter-in-law.


###### Yevamot 117b:3
[Yevamot 117b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:3)

דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּרְגִישׁ לַהּ צַעֲרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion. **Perhaps** it **is different there, as** the daughter-in-law has already **felt oppressed by her** mother-in-law. In other words, she is suspected of lying because she had previous dealings with that woman, whereas in the case of a future mother-in-law, with whom she had no previous dealings, there is no such concern. Consequently, the dilemma cannot be resolved from this case.


###### Yevamot 117b:4
[Yevamot 117b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** עֵד אוֹמֵר ״מֵת״, וְנִשֵּׂאת, וּבָא אֶחָד וְאָמַר ״לֹא מֵת״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵּצֵא. עֵד אוֹמֵר ״מֵת״, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״לֹא מֵת״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת, תֵּצֵא. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״מֵת״, וְעֵד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא מֵת״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת, תִּנָּשֵׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one **witness says:** The man **died, and** the wife **married** based on this testimony, **and one** other witness **came and said:** He did **not die, she** need **not leave** her new husband due to this testimony. However, if one **witness** comes and **says:** The husband **died, and two** witnesses **say:** He did **not die,** then **even though she married** based on the first witness **she must leave** her new husband. If **two** witnesses **say: He died, and** one **witness says:** He did **not die,** the testimony of the two witnesses is accepted, and **even though she did not** yet **marry, she may marry.**


###### Yevamot 117b:5
[Yevamot 117b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:5)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּנִשֵּׂאת, הָא לֹא נִשֵּׂאת — לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא. וְהָאָמַר עוּלָּא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד — הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara infers: **The reason** in the case of one witness contradicted by another witness **is that she** already **married;** however, if **she did not** yet **marry** and a second witness comes in the meantime and contradicts the statement of the first one, **she may not marry.** The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Ulla say: Wherever** you find that **the Torah relies on one witness,** his testimony is considered complete proof, as though **there are two** witnesses present **here?** If so, the witness who comes and testifies to the opposite is only one witness, **and the statement of one** witness **has no** standing **in a place where** it is contradicted by **two** witnesses. Why, then, may she not remarry, even *ab initio*?


###### Yevamot 117b:6
[Yevamot 117b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:6)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״מֵת״, וְהִתִּירוּהָ לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וּבָא אֶחָד וְאָמַר ״לֹא מֵת״ — לֹא תֵּצֵא מֵהֶיתֵּירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **this is what** the mishna **said:** If **one witness says: He died, and they permitted her to marry** based on his testimony, **and one** other witness later **came and said: He did not die, she does not leave her initial, permitted** state, i.e., the permission she was granted to remarry is still in force, and she may marry *ab initio*.


###### Yevamot 117b:7
[Yevamot 117b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:7)

עֵד אוֹמֵר ״מֵת״ — פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם! לָא צְרִיכָא, בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת, וְכִדְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that if one **witness says: He died,** and two come and say: He did not die, she must leave her new husband. The Gemara asks: This **is obvious, as the statement of one** witness **has no** standing **in a place where** it is contradicted by **two** witnesses. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** in a case **of** people **disqualified** from giving **testimony.** In other words, the mishna is referring to two people who are generally disqualified from serving as witnesses. In the case of a missing husband, however, their testimony is accepted in contradiction of the first, qualified, witness. **And** this is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya.**


###### Yevamot 117b:8
[Yevamot 117b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:8)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב דֵּעוֹת, וְעָשׂוּ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד כִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Neḥemya says: Wherever** you find that **the Torah relies on one witness, follow the majority of opinions,** even if they are disqualified. **And** the Sages **established** the testimony of **two women against one man** in this case **like** the testimony of **two men against one man,** i.e., the testimony of the two witnesses negates the earlier testimony of a single witness. The mishna is teaching that even if the first witness was qualified to give testimony, his account is negated by the statements of the two disqualified witnesses who contradicted him.


###### Yevamot 117b:9
[Yevamot 117b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:9)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דַּאֲתָא עֵד אֶחָד כָּשֵׁר מֵעִיקָּרָא — אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה נָשִׁים כְּעֵד אֶחָד דָּמְיָין. אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן דַּאֲתַאי אִשָּׁה מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say: Anywhere that a qualified witness came initially** and testified that he died, **even** if **one hundred women** came and contradicted his account, they **are considered like one witness,** and cannot negate his testimony. **However,** here it is speaking of a case **where a woman came initially** and they relied on her testimony to release the wife, and afterward two other women came and contradicted her.


###### Yevamot 117b:10
[Yevamot 117b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:10)

וְתָרְצַהּ לִדְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הָכִי, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב דֵּעוֹת, וְעָשׂוּ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת כִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד. אֲבָל שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד — כְּפַלְגָא וּפַלְגָא דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And** you can **explain** the ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya as follows: Rabbi Neḥemya says: Wherever** you find that **the Torah relies on one witness,** e.g., in testimony concerning a woman’s missing husband, **follow the majority of opinions, and they established two women against one woman like two men against one man. However,** in a case involving **two women against one man,** the latter of whom is a qualified witness, this **is like half against half,** i.e., they are equal. The testimony of two women has no advantage over that of one male witness, who is considered like two witnesses in testimony concerning a missing husband.


###### Yevamot 117b:11
[Yevamot 117b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:11)

שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״מֵת״ וְכוּ׳. מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת, וְכִדְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר רוֹב דֵּעוֹת? הַיְינוּ הָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught: If **two** witnesses **say: He died,** and one witness says: He did not die, even if she did not yet marry, she may marry. The Gemara asks: **What is** the mishna **teaching us?** If you say it is referring **to** people **disqualified** from giving **testimony, and** this is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya, who follows the majority of opinions,** then **this** case **is** identical to **that** previous case.


###### Yevamot 117b:12
[Yevamot 117b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:12)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כִּי אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוֹב דֵּעוֹת — לְחוּמְרָא, אֲבָל לְקוּלָּא — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers. This case is also necessary, **lest you say** that **when we follow the majority of opinions,** this is only when it leads **to a stringency, but** when this principle would lead **to a leniency,** to permit her to marry based on the majority of opinions, we do **not** follow the majority opinion. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that there is no difference in this regard, as the majority of opinions is accepted whether this leads to a lenient or a stringent outcome.


###### Yevamot 117b:13
[Yevamot 117b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת ״מֵת״ וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת ״לֹא מֵת״. זוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֶרֶת ״מֵת״ — תִּנָּשֵׂא וְתִטּוֹל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, וְזוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֶרֶת ״לֹא מֵת״ — לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא וְלֹא תִּטּוֹל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If two women who were married to the same man come forward, and **one** of them **says** that the husband **died, and** the other **one says he did not die, the one who says he died may marry** on the basis of her own testimony, **and she takes** the money of **her marriage contract. And the one who said he did not die may not marry, and does not take** the money of **her marriage contract.**


###### Yevamot 117b:14
[Yevamot 117b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/117b:14)

אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת ״מֵת״ וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת ״נֶהֱרַג״, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וּמַכְחִישׁוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יִנָּשְׂאוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: הוֹאִיל וְזוֹ וָזוֹ מוֹדוֹת שֶׁאֵין קַיָּים — יִנָּשְׂאוּ. עֵד אוֹמֵר ״מֵת״ וְעֵד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא מֵת״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one** wife **says: He died** in a normal manner, **and** the other **one says: He was killed, Rabbi Meir says: Since they contradict one another, these** women **may not marry. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say: Since they both agree that he is not alive they may marry,** despite the fact that they dispute the circumstances of his demise. If **a witness says: He died, and a witness says: He did not die,**