Previous Daf

YEVAMOS 120

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) From the fact that Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah, permits the Yevamos to marry l'Shuk only after they have performed Yibum, we try to prove - that Rebbi Elazar holds like the first side of Rava's current She'eilah (that a woman would not cause herself harm by performing Yibum, if her husband had not really died).
(b) We nevertheless justify the other Tzad of Rava's She'eilah (that Rebbi Elazar accepts the testimony of a woman to permit her Tzarah to remarry under any circumstances) - by pointing out he may not be stating his own opinion, but asking the Rabanan whether they would not at least concede to him in a case where Yibum has already been performed.
(c) The Rabanan's counter-argument is that even if she has already performed Yibum, we cannot believe her - because of the Sevara 'Tamos Nafshi im Pelishtim' (from which we learn that sometimes a person will not stop short of harming herself, as long as he can harm his enemy simultaneously).

click for question
2)
(a) In a Beraisa, the Tana Kama forbids the Tzarah of a woman who returns from overseas and testifies that her husband died, to remarry. Rebbi Elazar rules 'Ho'il v'Hutrah Hi, Hutrah Nami Tzarasah'. According to the Tzad that he only permits the Tzarah to marry, if the woman herself has already married - we will amend the Beraisa to read 'Ho'il v'Hutrah v'Nises, ... '.
(b) According to that side, however, we can only know that she is telling the truth (without suspecting that her husband is still alive, and she that married on the basis of a Get, which she hid from the Tzarah, testifying that her husband died, merely in order to cause her to sin), if she married a Kohen (which she could not have done with a Get).
(c) We ask the previous question after having cited the Beraisa. It is not applicable to the case in our Mishnah, where the two women performed Yibum with the two available Yevamin - because there, had she married on the basis of a Get, she would have been guilty of incest with her husband's brother (who is only permitted in the event of her husband's death).

click for question
3)
(a) Before a man is believed to permit a man's wife to remarry - the Tana of our Mishnah requires a witness to have recognized the face of the dead man together with his nose. Simanim on the man's body or clothes will not suffice without them.
(b) A man is not considered dead if the witness testifies that he saw him ...
1. ... cut-up (seriously wounded) ...
2. ... hanging, or ...
3. ... being devoured by a wild animal.
(c) According to the Tana Kama, the witness must testify within three days of his death - after which, his appearance tends to change.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava says - that not all people, not all places and not all times are the same.

click for question
4)
(a) To explain a statement in a Beraisa, Abaye learns from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Hakaras Pneihem Ansah Bam" - that besides the dead man's face, the witnesses must also have seen his forehead (see Tosfos DH 'Hakaras').
(b) Aba bar Minyumi, who owed money to the Bei Resh Galusa) put this to the test - by walking in front of them with a piece of cloth stuck to his forehead with wax, and they did not recognize him.

click for question
5)
(a) The Mishnah in Gitin rules that a Get that someone discovers tied to his purse or to a signet-ring is Kasher - because Simanim are d'Oraisa (otherwise, how could we validate a Get, permitting a married woman to marry someone else on the basis of Simanim?!).
(b) The problem with our Mishnah is - that, if Simanim are d'Oraisa, why does the Tana discount the testimony of a witness who recognize the dead man's body or clothes?
(c) We suggest that this is a Machlokes between the Chachamim and Rebbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, who argue over whether one can testify on a wart (Rebbi Eliezer ben Mahavai) or not (the Chachamim). We initially establish their Machlokes by whether Simanim are d'Oraisa (Rebbi Eliezer ben Mahavai) or d'Rabanan (the Chachamim).
(d) We refute this suggestion however, in that both Tana'im could hold that Simanim are d'Oraisa, and they could hold that Simanim are d'Rabanan. Assuming that Simanim are ...
1. ... d'Oraisa, the Chachamim do not accept the testimony of a wart - because, they maintain, identical warts are commonly found on a ben Gil (someone who is born on the same day and under the same Mazal).
2. ... d'Rabanan, Rebbi Eliezer ben Mahavai accepts it - because he considers a wart to be a very reliable Siman, which is considered sound proof (even in the case of an Isur d'Oraisa).

click for question
6)
(a) According to the Lashon of Rava that Simanim are unanimously considered d'Oraisa, the Tana of our Mishnah does not accept Simanim of the man's ...
1. ... body - because he is referring to weak Simanim, such as tall or short.
2. ... clothes - because we are afraid that the woman's husband may have lent the clothes to somebody else (and that the borrower is the person on whom they are testifying).
(b) We are only afraid that clothes have been borrowed, because people tend to lend out their clothes - they do not however, lend out their personal household articles. Consequently, there is no problem with the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, which obligates the return of a document via the Simanim on the vessel in which it is lying, since people do not.
(c) Despite the fact that we suspect clothes to have been borrowed, we will accept ...
1. ... the ruling in 'Eilu Metzi'os' that one returns a donkey to the person who gives Simanim on the saddle - because (based on the fact that a borrowed saddle is unlikely to be a good fit) people tend to avoid borrowing donkey's saddles, which will probably hurt their donkey.
2. ... the Mishnah in Gitin (quoted on the previous Amud) which considers a purse and a signet-ring a good Siman - because people tend to avoid lending a signet-ring (for fear that the borrower will use it to forge the lender's signature, and use it to extract their valuables from their wives), and a purse, (because it is considered a bad sign, inasmuch as the borrower will take away his Mazal).
(d) Alternatively, we do not accept testimony of the man's clothes - because the Tana is referring to weak Simanim, such as white or red, which are inadequate even if Simanim are d'Oraisa.

click for question
7)
(a) We infer from the Mishnah in Ohalos 'Adam Eino Metamei ad she'Tetzei Nafsho, Afilu Meguyad, Afilu Goses' - that someone who is cut-up is not yet dead, but that (like a Goses), he is bound to die as a result of his wounds (clashing with our Mishnah, which does not permit a woman to remarry on the basis of testimony that her husband is cut-up).
(b) To resolve this Kashya, we cite a Beraisa, where The Tana Kama makes a distinction between the testimony that a man was left hanging (which is insufficient evidence that he is dead), and testimony that he was cut-up. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - considers the latter too, insufficient evidence that he is dead (due to the fact that the wound may still heal).
(c) The author of our Mishnah is - Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar
(d) The Seifa of our Mishnah rules (on the following Amud) that, if someone fell into the sea and they found ...
1. ... his lower-leg - his wife is not permitted to marry, but if they found ...
2. ... his upper-leg - she is.
(e) Even though the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, we do not suspect that he may have survived, despite the loss of his upper-leg - because even he will agree that the wound swells in the water, making it impossible for him to survive.

click for question
8)
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah saw an Arab take a sword and sever the upper-leg of his camel, which did not stop braying until it died - posing a Kashya on Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who maintains that, on dry land, it is possible to survive such a wound.
(b) Abaye explains that the camel there happened to be a weak one. Rava establishes our Mishnah (which considers a man who is cut up capable of surviving) even according to the Chachamim of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - where he was cut-up with a white-hot knife, in which case, the fire cauterizes the wound.

click for question
9)
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah states that seeing a wild animal eating someone is, in itself, not sufficient evidence that the person is dead. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel qualifies the Tana's statement - by restricting it to a non-vital organ, such as a hand or a leg. But if the witness sees the beast chewing his heart, say, or his brain, then his testimony will permit the wife to remarry.
(b) He also says that if someone whose two pipes (the wind-pipe and the esophagus) have been cut ...
1. ... runs away - testimony to this regard will permit his wife to remarry (even if it is only the majority of each pipe that has been severed).
2. ... hints that they should write his wife a Get - they should do so (an indication that he is still considered alive).
(c) There is no contradiction between the two statements however - because the first ruling does not suggest that he is already dead, but that he is bound to die. The second ruling teaches us, that, as long as he can still drop hints, he is considered alive.

click for question
10)
(a) The Beraisa rules that someone who inadvertently cuts someone else's two pipes - is not obligated to run to one of the cities of refuge.
(b) To reconcile Shmuel (who considers this to be a death-stroke) with the Beraisa, we establish the Beraisa - in a case where the murdered man was exposed to the wind, which may have hastened his death. Alternatively, it could be that, he hastened his own death through excessive gasping.
(c) One difference between the two answers is - when the death-stroke took place inside a marble room, where no wind could possibly enter, but where the murdered man could still cause his own death through excessive gasping. The other difference is - when he killed him outside, and the witnesses testified that the dying man did not gasp excessively.

Next Daf