משנה: אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת מֵת וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא מֵת זוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֶרֶת מֵת תִּינָּשֵׂא וְתִיטּוֹל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְזוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֶרֶת לֹא מֵת לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא וְלֹא תִיטּוֹל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת מֵת וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת נֶהֱרַג רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר הוֹאִיל וּמַכְחִישּׁוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ לֹא יִנָּשֵׂאוּ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִין זוֹ וְזוֹ מוֹדוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ קַייָם יִנָּשֵׂאוּ. MISHNAH: One [wife] says105A man went overseas with his two wives; the wives return without the husband., he died, the other one says, he did not die. The one who said that he died can remarry and collect her ketubah; the one who said that he did not die cannot remarry106According to her own statement, a second marriage would be adulterous. The ketubah is due only at the dissolution of the marriage. nor collect her ketubah. If one said that he died, while the other one107According to the understanding of the Halakhah, this refers to two unrelated women who testify about their common husband who has disappeared. said he was killed; Rebbi Meïr says, since they contradict one another, they108The wives who contradict one another. cannot remarry. Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.
הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָֽלְכָה הִיא כול׳. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי מֵאִיר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי. עוֹד הִיא בְמַחֲלוֹקֶת. מַה בֵין שְׁנִייָה מַה בֵין רִאשׁוֹנָה. רִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא עָשׂוּ בָהּ דָּבָר זֶה אֵצֶל חֲבֵירָתָהּ כְּלוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעֵדִים. מַה בֵּין עֵדִים מַה בֵּין צָרָה. לא עָשׂוּ דִבְרֵי צָרָה אֵצֶל חֲבֵירָתָהּ כְּלוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִילּוּ אֲמָרָהּ רִבִּי לָעְזָר מִנִּי שְּׁמָעָהּ וַאֲמָרָהּ. HALAKHAH: “A woman who went overseas with her husband,”109A misquote from Yevamot 15:7:1-8:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.15.7.1-8.2">Mishnah 7. etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Meïr agrees in the first case110Of two co-wives giving conflicting testimony.. It was found stated: That is also in dispute. What is the difference between the second and the first cases? In the first case, did they not consider her word as nonexistent for her companion111Nothing a wife says has any legal consequences for her co-wife. (The Yevamot.118a">Babli, 118a, quotes R. Joḥanan as holding that a quarrel whether the husband is dead or not is not a contradiction. That opinion is characterized as difficult to understand. The simple solution offered here is not mentioned; this implies that it is rejected.)? Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Judah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses112Witnesses who contradict one another in details that have no essential bearing on the case before the court are nevertheless legally contradicting one another, making their testimony worthless. In the Yevamot.118a">Babli, 118a, R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan reject any distinction by R. Jehudah and R. Simeon between women and witnesses.. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? Did they not consider the co-wife’s words as nonexistent for her companion111Nothing a wife says has any legal consequences for her co-wife. (The Yevamot.118a">Babli, 118a, quotes R. Joḥanan as holding that a quarrel whether the husband is dead or not is not a contradiction. That opinion is characterized as difficult to understand. The simple solution offered here is not mentioned; this implies that it is rejected.)? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he heard it from me and formulated it113A frequent complaint of R. Joḥanan, that R. Eleazar should have formulated his statement for the permanent record as stating: R. Joḥanan says.….
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים מֵעִידוֹת אוֹתוֹ. אֵלּוּ מֵעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנָּזַר שְׁתַּיִם וְאֵלּוּ מֵעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנָּזַר חָמֵשׁ. רַב אָמַר. בִּכְלָל נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בִּפְרָט כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּכְלָל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁיְּהֵא נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּמוֹנֶה נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בִּכְלָל כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי. נֶחֱלֶקֶת הָעֵדוּת אֵין כָּאן נְזִירוּת. וְהֵידֵינוֹ כְלָל וְהֵידֵינוֹ מוֹנֶה. כְּלָל. הָהֵן אָמַר תַּרְתֵּיי וְהָהֵן אָמַר חָמֵשׁ. מוֹנֶה. הָהֵן אָמַר. חָדָא תַּרְתֵּיי וְהָהֵן אָמַר. תְּלַת אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ 115From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Nazir 3:7:2-3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.3.7.2-3">Nazir 3:7, Sanhedrin 5:2:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.5.2.2-4">Sanhedrin 5:2. There, we have stated116Nazir 3:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.3.7.1">Mishnah Nazir 3:7.: “If two groups of witnesses testified about him, one group testifying that he vowed two periods of nezirut117The vow to abstain from grape products, from impurity of the dead, and from hair cutting, Numbers.6.1-21">Num. 6:1–21. If the person making the vow does not indicate the duration of the vow, it is for a period of 30 days (Nazir 3:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.3.1.1">Mishnah Nazir3:1)., the other group testifying that he vowed five periods of nezirut.118“The House of Shammai say, this is conflicting testimony, there is no nezirut, the House of Hillel say, two is included in a totality of five, he must be a nazir for two periods.”” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, that he has to be a nazir for two periods119What Rav calls detail, R. Joḥanan calls counting. Rav holds that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree if one group of witnesses say that he vowed two periods and the other group say five periods. But if the first group testify that he vowed a first and a second time separate 30-day periods of nezirut, and the other group confirm this but add that he also vowed third, fourth, and fifth periods, then the testimony for the first two periods is concurrent and valid according to everybody. The Nazir.20">Babli agrees, Nazir 20a/b, in the names of Rav and the Galileans.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut120R. Joḥanan holds that the testimony of 5 contradicts the testimony of 2 and the House of Hillel will agree that both testimonies are invalid. He holds that the House of Hillel consider a testimony on (1,2) to be contained in the testimony about (1,2,3,4,5), but the House of Shammai see the testimonies as contradicting one another.. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five.
רַב אָמַר. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת לֹא בָֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. דִבְרֵי הַכֹּל. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת לְאַחַר עֲדוּת לֹא בָֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דָּמַר רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הוּחְזָק הַמּוֹנֶה. זֶה אָמַר. מִן הַכִּיס מוֹנֶה. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. מִן הַצְּרוֹר מוֹנֶה. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת. וְאַף רַב מוֹדֶה שֶּׁבָּֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים. אֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. מִן הַכִּיס מוֹנֶה. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. מִן הַצְּרוֹר מוֹנֶה. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּטֵל הָעֵדוּת. וּכְרַב לֹא בָֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. אֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. לְתוֹךְ חֵיקוֹ מָנָה. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. לְתוֹךְ פוּנְדָּתוֹ מָנָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. הִכְחִישׁ הָעֵדוּת לְאַחַר עֵידוּת לֹא בָֽטְלָה עֵדוּת. זֶה אָמַר. בַּמַּקֵל הֲרָגוֹ. וְזֶה אָמַר. בַּסַּייָף הֲרָגוֹ. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. וְאַף רַב מוֹדֶה שֶׁבָּֽטְלָה עֵדוּת. מַה פְלִיגִין. כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִתֵּי עֵדִים. אֵלּוּ אָמַר. בַּמַּקֵל הֲרָגוֹ. וְאֵלּוּ אָמַר. בַּסַּייָף הֲרָגוֹ. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. וּכְרַב לֹא בָֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. אֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. בְּדָרוֹם פָּנָה. וְאֵילוּ אוֹמְרִים. בְּצָפוֹן פָּנָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת לְאַחַר עֵדוּת לֹא בָֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרַב מִן הָדָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמְרִין. הוֹאִיל וְזוֹ וְזוֹ מוֹדוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ קַייָם יִנָּשֵׂאוּ. וְלֹא שְׁמִיעַ דָּמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעֵדִים. מַה בֵּין עֵדִים מַה בֵּין צָרָה. לא עָשׂוּ דִבְרֵי צָרָה אֵצֶל חֲבֵירָתָהּ כְּלוּם. (דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם אֲמָרָהּ רִבִּי לָעְזָר מִינִּי שְׁמָעָהּ וַאֲמָרָהּ.) מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. אֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת. בִּזְמָן שֶׁהֵן מַכְחִישִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. פָּתַר לָהּ רַב עֵד בְּעֵד. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר כַּת בְּכַת. שַׁנְייָא הִיא בְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדוֹף. Rav said, if testimony was contradicted in its essence, the testimony is not void123The court may try to piece together an account of what really happened.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradicted in itself, the testimony is void in the opinion of everybody124Both the testimony and the opposing testimony are eliminated from the record.. If testimony was contradicted in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void125The example given below is concurrent testimony how the murder was committed but conflicting testimony as to the direction of escape of the murderer, which is testimony to what happened after the criminal act was committed.. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted126In some case before the court one needs to establish the fact that one party counted a certain amount of money. but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony127For R. Joḥanan, concurrent testimony by several witnesses is biblical testimony binding on the court only if it holds up under cross examination; Deuteronomy.19.18">Deut. 19:18: “The judges have to investigate thoroughly”., the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void128In the first case, there was no testimony. If both witnesses had testified in a coherent way, the fact would have been established by two independent witnesses and would be testimony by biblical standards which is binding on the court. In the second case, Rav holds that both testimonies are binding by biblical standards and can be used to establish any fact that is uncontested between the two groups; in that example that one of the parties counted money.. These say, he counted into his bosom, the others say he counted into his money-belt; everybody agrees that is contradicting testimony after the main testimony, and the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void129In criminal cases, the testimony of a single witness has no standing; if the two testimonies do not combine in a meaningful way, there is no testimony (this example is quoted by Rav Ḥisda in the Sanhedrin.30b">Babli, Sanhedrin30b,Sanhedrin.41a">41a). (In civil cases, a single witness also cannot testify but he can be used to ascertain circumstances.). Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void125The example given below is concurrent testimony how the murder was committed but conflicting testimony as to the direction of escape of the murderer, which is testimony to what happened after the criminal act was committed.. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Judah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses112Witnesses who contradict one another in details that have no essential bearing on the case before the court are nevertheless legally contradicting one another, making their testimony worthless. In the Yevamot.118a">Babli, 118a, R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan reject any distinction by R. Jehudah and R. Simeon between women and witnesses.. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? Did they not consider the co-wife’s words as nonexistent for her companion111Nothing a wife says has any legal consequences for her co-wife. (The Yevamot.118a">Babli, 118a, quotes R. Joḥanan as holding that a quarrel whether the husband is dead or not is not a contradiction. That opinion is characterized as difficult to understand. The simple solution offered here is not mentioned; this implies that it is rejected.)? (Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he heard it from me and formulated it113A frequent complaint of R. Joḥanan, that R. Eleazar should have formulated his statement for the permanent record as stating: R. Joḥanan says.….)130The text in parenthesis is from ms. A only; probably it is copied from above by an unthinking scribe. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav131Sanhedrin 5:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.5.2.1">Mishnah Sanhedrin 5:2.: “Both in investigations132The procedures before a Talmudic court are inquisitory. In a first stage the witnesses are queried about the alleged crime. and in cross examinations133These are questions about matters of secondary importance put to each witness in the absence of the other to ferret out any prior understanding between the witnesses, which would invalidate the testimony, or inconsistencies in detail which would impair its standing., if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”134Deuteronomy.16.20">Deut. 16:20. In criminal cases, proof beyond any reasonable doubt is required..