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 pregnant¹. If she had a mother-in-law, she does not have to suspect². If the latter left pregnant³, she has to suspect; Rebbi Joshua says, she does not have to suspect⁴.

footnotes: ¹ 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. ² 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. ³ And now the whereabouts of the mother-in-law are not known; no notice of a brother born to her husband was received. ⁴ 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!⁷ 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.⁸ 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?⁹ There came Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya¹⁰: That she would not need a proclamation with regard to priesthood¹¹ 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..

footnotes: ⁷ 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 ⁸ Any ḥalîṣah ⁹ In the Babli, 119b, this is the tradition of Ze‘iri, student of Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan. ¹⁰ 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. ¹¹ 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

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹²: The reason of the rabbis: “When [brothers] dwell,” certainly, not in a case of doubt¹³.

footnotes: ¹² Text from ms. A.; missing in editio princeps. ¹³ 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 way¹⁶ 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 birth¹⁷ 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%..

footnotes: ¹⁶ The Babli agrees to this principle, Beṣah ¹⁷ While the Babli agrees to this principle, Qiddušin

MISHNAH: If each one of two sisters-in-law¹⁸ says “my husband died”, each one is forbidden because of the other’s husband¹⁹. 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 permitted²⁰. If one has children but the other has no children, the one who has children is permitted²¹ but the one who has no children is forbidden. If they married in levirate²² but the levirs died²³, they are forbidden to remarry. Rebbi Eleazar said, since they were permitted to the levirs, they became permitted to any man.

footnotes: ¹⁸ The wives of two brothers. ¹⁹ 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. ²⁰ If the husband of the sister-in-law was the only levir, his death confirmed by witnesses releases his brother’s widow from levirate. ²¹ She is forbidden for levirate. ²² 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. ²³ 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.

HALAKHAH: ²⁵ 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 witnesses²⁶.

footnotes: ²⁵ A similar text in Tosephta 14:3. There is no quote from the Mishnah here. ²⁶ 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 Eleazar²⁹? 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: ³⁰“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 disagree³¹. 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 overseas³². Think of it, what if her [next] husband was a Cohen³³? 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.

footnotes: ²⁹ 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. ³⁰ Mishnah 15:7. ³¹ Halakhah 15:7. ³² 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. ³³ 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.

MISHNAH: One testifies only on the appearance of the face³⁴. with the nose³⁵, even though there may be marks on his body and his clothing³⁶ based on the misidentification of a corpse as that of the absent husband; cf. Note 154.. One testifies only up to three days³⁷. Even if one saw him cut up or crucified on the cross, or an animal eating of him, one testifies³⁸ only after he has stopped breathing. Rebbi Judah ben Baba says, not all people nor all places nor all times are the same⁷².

footnotes: ³⁴ 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 ³⁵ Positive identification of a corpse is only accepted if based on the recognition of the face. ³⁶ 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 ³⁷ After that time, the body starts to decompose and positive identification is no longer possible. ³⁸ To the fact of death. Before a person has stopped breathing, there is always a chance that he might be saved. ⁷² 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 mandibles⁴⁰: רב.. This follows what Rebbi⁴¹ Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: “The recognition of their faces testified about them⁴² 3:9.,” that is the nose. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if somebody does not want to be recognized, he should put a patch⁴³ cf. ‘Orlah 3:1, Note 20. on his nostrils, then he will not be recognized. As in the following⁴⁴ 9:3.: In the times of king Ursicinus⁴⁵, 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.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Reading of ms. A. Editio princeps ⁴¹ 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. ⁴² Is. ⁴³ Greek σπλήνιον, Latin splenium, ⁴⁴ This is an editorial comment, on what happened some 50 years after R. Ḥiyya bar Abba’s death. The same text appears in Soṭah ⁴⁵ The legate of Caesar Gallus in Palestine, about the year 350. His oppressive regime lead to a revolt centered in Sepphoris.

It is written: “Abijah and his people inflicted a very great slaughter on them⁴⁸ 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 oceans⁴⁹.” 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.⁵⁰ 13:20.” Rebbi Samuel⁵¹ 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 Abijah⁵² 15:25).. Why was he smitten? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he insulted Jeroboam in public⁵³ 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,⁵⁴ 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 …⁵⁵ 13:19.” and it is written: “He set up one in Beth El and one he dedicated in Dan.⁵⁶ 12:20.”

footnotes: ⁴⁸ 2Chr. ⁴⁹ Since the slain warriors could no longer be identified, their widows could never remarry according to rabbinic rules. ⁵⁰ 2Chr. ⁵¹ In Gen. rabba ⁵² Abijah was king for only 3 years and must have died shortly after the battle; Jeroboam died two years after Abijah (1K. ⁵³ In the Babli, Sanhedrin ⁵⁴ 2Chr. ⁵⁵ 2Chr. ⁵⁶ 1K.

“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 property⁵⁷. 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.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ The verse to which this refers is not indicated; it probably refers to Deut

So is the Mishnah: “One testifies only up to after three days⁶⁰.” 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 it⁶¹ 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 verse⁶². 2:3.: “I shall scatter your stomachs’ contents in your faces,” even “your holidays’ stomach contents.” At that moment, ⁶³ 14:22.“but his flesh will hurt him, his soul will mourn for him.”

footnotes: ⁶⁰ One testifies that the person was identified within a full 72 hours. ⁶¹ In the Babli, Šabbat ⁶² Ma ⁶³ Job

“Even if one saw him cut up,” I say he was burned by a red hot lance and survived⁶⁵. “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 him⁶⁶. 13:28.. If he fell into a lion’s den one does not testify about him⁶⁷, I say that miracles happened for him as they did for Daniel. If he fell into a fiery oven one does not testify about him⁶⁸, 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 charmer⁶⁹. If he fell into a boiling vat of water or oil, one does not testify about him. Rebbi Abba⁷⁰ said, of oil one testifies, of water one does not testify⁷¹.) 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..

footnotes: ⁶⁵ 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. ⁶⁶ It is known that animals obey the commandments of Heaven; cf. 1K ⁶⁷ Without seeing that the person is dead. The same statement is in Babli 121a/Tosephta 14:4. ⁶⁸ In Babli 121a/Tosephta 14:4, “one testifies about him”. ⁶⁹ 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. ⁷⁰ In a few Medieval authors he is quoted as R. Aḥa, the Tanna who is quoted in Babli/Tosephta. ⁷¹ In Babli/Tosephta (loc. cit

“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 him⁷⁸ (on Maimonides, Gerušin 13:22) reads צרפתו “refined him”. so that they permitted his wife to remarry⁷⁹.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Following Rashba (commentary to Babli 120a) who reads צפדתו. Maggid Mishneh ⁷⁹ 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 forbidden⁷³. Rebbi Meїr said, if happened that someone fell into a large cistern and came up after three days⁷⁴. 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 remarry⁷⁵. It also happened in Assos⁷⁶ 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 remarry⁷⁷, 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.

footnotes: ⁷³ 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. ⁷⁴ 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. ⁷⁵ This proves that practice does not follow R. Meїr in enclosed bodies of water. ⁷⁶ Cf. Kilaim ⁷⁷ An animal, which has lost a part of a leg that included the knee, is considered ṭerefa

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.”⁸³ 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 wonders⁸⁴. 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 mourning⁸⁵. 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 me⁸⁶ 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 permitted⁸⁷.

footnotes: ⁸³ The same text in Babli 121a Toesephta 14:5. ⁸⁴ 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. ⁸⁵ Babli 121a, Tosephta 14:6. ⁸⁶ From Jonah ⁸⁷ Babli 121a, Tosephta 14:5.

Rebbi Abbahu said, if the ocean was quiet⁸⁸, he looked around in all directions and saw that no creature was there, one lets his wife remarry⁸⁹.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Greek γαλήνη, ἡ “stillness of the sea”. In Erubin 4:1 (fol. 21d) הים גלנו, Greek γαληνὸς, όν “calm (adj.)”. ⁸⁹ 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 Acco⁹⁰. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not reasonable that one allows time for him as for a torn animal⁹¹ 13:13) but in his Code (Even Ha‘ezer 17:32) he follows Don Vidal.? He answered him, that is my opinion also.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ 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. ⁹¹ 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

MISHNAH: It is sufficient even if somebody heard women say, the man X died⁹². 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]⁹³; but if a Gentile intends to testify, it is no testimony⁹⁴. 144:8,11..

footnotes: ⁹² 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. ⁹³ Only if he knows the consequences of his testimony and is presumed to be as accurate as possible. ⁹⁴ He is suspected of ulterior motives; Ps

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 commentariensis⁹⁷ “ 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 court⁹⁸ 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.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Latin commentarienses ⁹⁸ As indicated in Note 96, this reading is from ms. A; it is suspect since it appears in the Babli, Giṭṭin

X was lost, X was shaken off, X is not in the world¹⁰⁰. “X was lost,” I say he was embarrassed¹⁰¹. “X was shaken off,” I say that X vomited his food¹⁰². “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.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ It is shown that these expressions do not necessarily imply that X is dead; his wife cannot remarry. ¹⁰¹ Arabic ربك. ¹⁰² He was sick and could not keep down his food.

What means “intentional”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, anytime one mentions a woman¹⁰⁵. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anybody one asks and he responds¹⁰⁶. Rebbi Ḥaggai said to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, does the Rabbi remember that ¹⁰⁷ 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 it¹⁰⁸

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ 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. ¹⁰⁶ 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. ¹⁰⁷ In the Babli, 121b, the argument was with 85 Elders supporting what in the next generation would become R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position. ¹⁰⁸ 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 Israel¹⁰⁹. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob]¹¹⁰ bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination¹¹¹. 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.. ¹¹² 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 Shiḥla¹¹³. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan¹¹⁴ 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 remarry¹¹⁵. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination¹¹⁶, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ It is not necessary that the death be reported in a formal testimony; the information is accepted even if gleaned in an accidental way. ¹¹⁰ ר׳ עקיבה is a scribal error. ¹¹¹ “Questions and investigations” are required in criminal inquiries (Deut ¹¹² The same story in the Babli, 122b; a short version is in Tosephta 14:9. ¹¹³ In the Tosephta כפר שחרא, in the Babli כפר שיחיא. ¹¹⁴ It is obvious that one must read “Jonathan ben Joḥanan” as in the other two sources. ¹¹⁵ In the Babli, R. Tarphon cross-examined the witness only for the purpose of permitting the wife of the deceased to remarry. ¹¹⁶ In the Babli, 122b, that is the position of R. Aqiba.

MISHNAH: One testifies by the light of a candle or by the light of the moon¹¹⁷ and one permits to remarry on the basis of a disembodied voice¹¹⁸. 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 Ṣalmon¹¹⁹ 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.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ In judicial proceedings, testimony is accepted only during daytime. ¹¹⁸ This is a source of information without any standing in judicial proceedings. ¹¹⁹ An unidentified place, possibly Kafr Ṣalmeh in lower Galilee.

HALAKHAH: “One testifies by the light of a candle.” ¹²² 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: There¹²³ 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 spirits¹²⁴ 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.

footnotes: ¹²² This paragraph is copied from Giṭṭin ¹²³ Mishnah Giṭṭin ¹²⁴ In the opinion of the Babli, Giṭṭin

¹²⁵ 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 Sage¹²⁶? (Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage.)¹²⁷. 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, people¹²⁸., 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 Satra¹²⁹: 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 so¹³⁰? It is different because he said, “I am”. Here also, “I am”?¹³¹ That he should not flee, go away, and continue to seduce others with him¹³².

footnotes: ¹²⁵ The parallel is in Sanhedrin ¹²⁶ Is a thoroughly educated person immune from prosecution for idolatry? ¹²⁷ Sentence out of place, missing in Sanhedrin ¹²⁸ A marginal gloss that entered the text, missing in Sanhedrin ¹²⁹ In Sanhedrin ¹³⁰ 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. ¹³¹ If the intended victim could get the seducer to identify himself as “I am …” then voice identification should be enough. ¹³² 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.

¹³⁵ 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,¹³⁶: 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. ¹³⁷ If a Gentile passed by, what is the rule¹³⁸? Let us hear from the following: Abba bar bar Ḥana¹³⁹ 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 pointed¹⁴⁰. 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 name¹⁴¹. 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 incest¹⁴². 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?¹⁴³” Rebbi Mana said to him: So says Rebbi Shammai, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: This man¹⁴⁴, 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.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ This is a slightly defective copy of the text in Giṭṭin ¹³⁶ In Giṭṭin ¹³⁷ From here to the end of the Tractate, the Leiden ms. is again available. ¹³⁸ The question is not asked in the Babli; that Talmud must hold that a Gentile is included under the notion of “person”. ¹³⁹ He insists in the Babli that the presence of another person invalidates the bill of divorce. ¹⁴⁰ 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. ¹⁴¹ 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 ¹⁴² In this case, possible adultery if an invalid bill of divorce was delivered and the still married wife remarried as a divorcee. ¹⁴³ How can one be super-strict in cases of bills of divorce when one is super-lenient in confirming the husband’s death? ¹⁴⁴ The one who lost the bill of divorce. In view of the Mishnah in Yebamot

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea¹⁴⁵ for the intercalation of the year¹⁴⁶, Nehemiah from Badala¹⁴⁷ 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 Baba¹⁴⁸. 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 bands¹⁴⁹; 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 Gamliel¹⁵⁰, he was happy about my words and said, we found a colleague for Jehudah ben Baba¹¹⁵¹. 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 girl¹⁵⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ The center of Jewish Babylonia at that time; reputed to have been the place of residence of King Jojachin after his release from prison. ¹⁴⁶ 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. ¹⁴⁷ In the Mishnah of the Babli: בית דלי “the house of Aquarius”. The place is unidentified. ¹⁴⁸ 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. ¹⁴⁹ And therefore, an old man like me cannot travel to the Land of Israel. ¹⁵⁰ Rabban Gamliel II, known as Rabban Gamliel of Jabne. ¹ 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. ¹⁵¹ His opinion is no longer that of a single Sage; it can be the opinion of the majority. ¹⁵⁶ 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 witness¹⁵² 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 witness¹⁵³? 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 remarry¹⁵⁴ 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 property¹⁵⁵ 10:16..

footnotes: ¹⁵² The full baraita ¹⁵³ 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. ¹⁵⁴ However, it is not established whether this baraita ¹⁵⁵ This is explained in Chapter 3, Notes 130–131. Cf. Mishnah Baba Batra

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 relatives¹⁵⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ 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 Mishnah¹⁵⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ 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 him¹⁵⁹, 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 innkeeper¹⁶⁰,where is our colleague? She told them, he died and I buried him¹⁶¹; and they let his widow remarry. They said to him¹⁵⁹, should not the wife of a Cohen¹⁶² 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 hand¹⁶³.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ The other Sages to R. Aqiba. ¹⁶⁰ Gentile woman who most probably kept slave girls to act as prostitutes for her guests. ¹⁶¹ Since they asked, her answer is testimony which according to Mishnah 5 should not be accepted. ¹⁵⁹ The other Sages to R. Aqiba. ¹⁶² 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? ¹⁶³ 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 Ḥanina¹⁶⁴: They treated her like a midwife who is trusted on the spot¹⁶⁵ 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 responds¹⁶⁶! 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.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ 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. ¹⁶⁵ 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 ¹⁶⁶ 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.