Daf Yomi - Yevamos 121 - Highlights

Identifying Victims of Drowning

The Gemora inquires: Was Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava (quoted in the Mishna 120a) being lenient or being stringent? The Gemora says that we can understand his position from the following incident. A man drowned in (a place called) Karmi, and they found him in Bei Hedya after three days. Rav Dimi from Naharda enabled his wife to remarry. Moreover, a person drowned in Diglas and they found his body by the bridge of Shavistana. Rava enabled his wife to remarry based on the identification provided by his Shushbani (friends who would participate in many aspects of a colleagues weddings) five days (after he drowned, though he was identified soon after he was taken out of the water, see below). If you will say that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava in our Mishna is being lenient, than we can assume that these Rabbanim acted in accordance with his opinion. If he was being stringent, who did these Rabbanim rely on to permit these women?

The Gemora answers that water is different (and therefore not subject to the time limits in our Mishna) as it preserves (the face) from changing (and it can therefore be identified). The Gemora asks, didn’t we say earlier (120b) that water strengthens and exaggerates wounds? The Gemora answers that this is only when there is a wound, but when there is no wound (as in a drowning) it preserves (the face) from changing. The Gemora further qualifies that water only preserves the person so that he can be identified at the time that he is taken out of the water. However, if the body is left out for awhile it swells up (and is difficult to identify). (121a)

Mishna

If a person fell into water (and his body was not recovered), whether it was water that had an end or not (will be explained in the Gemora), his wife is forbidden to remarry. Rabbi Meir says that there was an incident where someone fell into a large pit and he ascended after three days. Rabbi Yosi says that there was an incident with a blind man who went to bathe in a cave and his helper descended with him. People stayed around the (bathing area) cave until they definitely would have already been dead, and they (the Rabbanim) permitted their wives to remarry. There was also an incident where someone was lowered into the sea (by rope), and when they raised him up they only found his leg. The Chachamim said that if they found his leg above the knee his wife can remarry, but if it was below the knee she cannot remarry. (121a)
What is Water with an End?

The Braisa states that if a person fell into water (and his body was not recovered), whether it was water that had an end or not his wife is forbidden to remarry. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. The Chachamim say that if the water had an end his wife is permitted, if not his wife is forbidden. What is a case of water that has an end? Abaye says that anyone who can see (the end of the water) from where he is standing in all four directions.

There was someone who drowned in the pond in Samki and Rav Shilo enabled his wife to remarry. Rav said to Shmuel, “Let us excommunicate him.” Shmuel answered, “Let us first send to him (regarding his ruling).” They sent a message asking him whether someone who falls into water that has no end is permitted. Rav Shilo replied that his wife is forbidden. They further sent a message asking if the pond of Samki was water that has an end or not. Rav Shilo replied that it did not have an end. They further asked, why did you do this (permit this women to remarry)? He answered that he had made a mistake. He thought that because the waters stayed in one place, they are considered like water that does have an end. However, Rav Shilo stated that he later realized this is not true, because there are waves in the water that can bring a person further downstream. Shmuel recited about Rav the Pasuk “A Tzadik will not have any bad occur to him (that he did not excommunicate Rav Shilo who merely made a mistake).” Rav recited about Shmuel the Pasuk “and salvation through much advice (as Shmuel advised him originally to talk to Rav Shilo).”

The Braisa states: there was an incident with two people who were laying out their nets in the Jordan river. One of them went into an area of the river where there was a lot of fish, and the sun set and he could not see the entrance of the area (his head was sticking out of the water, but he could not see where to go). His friend waited until he surmised that he must have drowned, and went and let this be known to his household. The next day the sun shone and the fisherman saw the entrance to the area, and returned and found a great eulogy going on in his house. Rebbi stated, “How great are the words of the Chachamim that they said that (if one falls into) water that has an end his wife is permitted, into water that does not have an end his wife is forbidden. The Gemora asks, if this (story above) is the case, even water that has an end should be forbidden! The Gemora answers that it is uncommon that such a situation could occur in water that has an end.

Rav Ashi said that the Rabbanan say that water that has no end does not enable one’s wife to remarry is only regarding a regular person. However, if he is a Rabbinical scholar this is inapplicable, as if he would have exited (the water) there would definitely be a rumor to that effect. The Gemara says that this is incorrect. It does not make a difference if the person is a regular person or a Rabbinical scholar. Only if they got married already do we say that this enough (for them not to have to get divorced), not to enable them to marry. (121a)
“How Great are the Words of the Chachamim!”

The Braisa states that Rabban Gamliel related the following incident: I was once traveling in a boat and I saw a boat break, and I was pained regarding the Torah scholar who was in that boat. Who was that? Rabbi Akiva. And when I went ashore, he (Rabbi Akiva) came, sat, and judged before me a Halachic matter. I said to him, “My son, who took you out (of the water)?” He answered “A board from the ship chanced by me, and at every wave that came over me I bent my head.” From here the Chachamim said that if a person encounters evildoers he should bend his head to them. Rabban Gamliel stated that he said at this time, “How great are the words of the Chachamim that they said that (if one falls into) water that has an end, his wife is permitted, into water that does not have an end, his wife is forbidden!”

The Braisa states that Rabbi Akiva related the following incident: I was once traveling by boat and I observed a boat sinking in the sea and I was pained regarding the Torah scholar who was in that boat. Who was that? Rabbi Meir. When I arrived at the country of Kaputkiya , he (Rabbi Meir) came, sat, and judged before me a Halachic matter. I said to him, “My son, who took you out (of the water)?” He answered “A wave washed over me and passed me to the next wave etc. until it spit me onto the land.” Rabbi Akiva stated that he said at this time, “How great are the words of the Chachamim that they said that (if one falls into) water that has an end his wife is permitted, into water that does not have an end his wife is forbidden!” (121a)
Other Calamities

The Braisa states that if someone fell into a lion’s den, we do not testify that he died. If he fell into a pit full of snakes and scorpions we do testify that he died. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseirah said that even if he fell into a pit full of snakes and scorpions we do not testify that he died, as we suspect he is a Chaver (someone who know how to whisper things that would keep snakes from attacking him). And the Tana Kama (why doesn’t he suspect this as well)? The Gemora answers that because he is pressed against them they will attack him anyway.

The Braisa states that if he fell into a furnace we testify that he is dead. If he fell into a boiling pot of wine or oil, we testify that he is dead. In the name of Rabbi Acha it is said that if he fell into a pot of oil we testify he is dead, as oil burns (when something falls into it, the oil that splashes out and hits the fire just makes the fire increase). We do not testify he is dead in the case of a boiling pot of wine, as wine makes the fire go out (when it hits the fire). They answered him that in the beginning it acts to put out the fire, but eventually it actually causes the fire to burn further. (121a – 121b)
Rabbi Meir’s Statement in the Mishna

The Braisa states that they retorted to Rabbi Meir that we do not mention miraculous stories (as examples to set Halachah). What was miraculous in Rabbi Meir’s story (where someone fell into a large pit and he ascended after three days)? If it is the fact that he did not eat or drink for three days, doesn’t it say that Queen Esther or ordered that the Jews should fast for her, and not eat or drink for three days? It must be that the miracle is that he did not fall asleep (and therefore drown). This is supported by Rabbi Yochanan’s statement that if someone takes a vow that he will not sleep for three days we give him lashes and he can immediately sleep (as it is clear that he cannot possibly keep his vow). Why did Rabbi Meir use this as proof? There was little ledges on top of other little ledges (where he was able to lean and rest). Why don’t the Rabbanan agree? They understood that these were smooth ledges (and would only enable one to rest his head, not his body, and people cannot sleep standing up). Why did Rabbi Meir use this as proof? It is impossible, Rabbi Meir says, that he would not gain strength and be able to sleep a little on these ledges. (121b)
Nechunya’s Daughter

The Braisa states that there was an incident with the daughter of Nechunya the well-digger who fell into a big pit. When they came and told this to Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa, he said during the first hour that she was well. The second hour he also said she was well. During the third hour, he said that she had already ascended safely. He then asked her, “my daughter, who saved you?” She answered that a male sheep chanced before me and an old person was guiding it. They asked (Rabbi Chanina), are you a prophet (as he apparently knew she would be saved)? He answered, “I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but it is impossible that something that a Tzadik is involved in will be something that his children will stumble on.” Rabbi Aba said, even so Nechunya’s son died of thirst, as it says “and around Him is very stormy.” This teaches us that Hashem is exacting with those around Him like a small thread (meaning that he will punish them for even a small sin, in order to elevate their status in the next world). Rabbi Chanina says that this concept is apparent from the Pasuk “Hashem is very glorified in the secret of the holy ones, and His awe is on all those who surround Him.” (121b)

Mishna

Even if he heard women saying “a certain person died,” it is enough. Rabbi Yehuda says that even if he heard children saying that “we are going to eulogize and bury a certain person,” whether or not he intended to testify at the time (he may later testify that the person is deceased). Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava states that if the witness is Jewish, even if he intended to testify about this person when he was told that he died the testimony is valid. If the witness is an idolater, if he intended to testify his testimony is invalid. (121b)
When Are Children Reliable?

The Gemora asks, maybe the children aren’t really going (to a funeral)? Rav Yehuda answers in the name of Shmuel that the case is where the children say that we have come from eulogizing and burying a certain person. The Gemora asks, perhaps a simple ant died and they merely named it after this person? The Gemora answers that the case is where they say that a certain amount of Rabbanim were there, and a certain amount of eulogizers were there (showing that there really was a funeral). (121b)
Intent Matters

Rav Yehuda states in the name of Shmuel that this (that we do not accept his testimony) is only if he wanted to permit the woman to remarry, but if he intended to testify his testimony is valid. How can we determine this? Rav Yosef states that if a person comes to Beis Din and says that a certain person died and therefore you should allow his wife to remarry, this is a case of someone who is called having intention to permit remarriage (he is therefore deemed to have an agenda and is disqualified). If he just tells Beis Din that the person died (without telling them to permit her to remarry), this is called intent to testify and his testimony is valid. We similar learned that Reish Lakish stated this is only if he wanted to permit the woman to remarry, but if he intended to testify his testimony is valid. Rabbi Yochanan said to him, wasn’t there an incident with Oshiya b’Rabbi who argued with eighty-five elders. He told them this is only if he wanted to permit the woman to remarry, but if he intended to testify his testimony is valid, but the Chachamim (elders) did not agree to him.

Proclamation of an Idolater

The Gemora asks, our Mishna that states that if the witness is an idolater, if he intended to testify his testimony is invalid. What is the case? Where he talks simply (innocently, without being aware of the ramifications). This is like the case of the idolater who was proclaiming, “Who is from the house of Chivai? Who is from the house of Chivai? Chivai has died!” Subsequently, Rav Yosef enabled his wife to remarry. There was (a similar incident with) an idolater who went around saying “Woe is to Parsha Zriza who lived in Pumbedisa and has died!” Subsequently, Rav Yosef, and some say Rava, enabled his wife to remarry.

There was (a similar incident with) an idolater who went around saying “Who is from the house of Chasa? Chasa drowned!” Rav Nachman said “Elokim! Fish must have eaten Chasa!” From Rav Nachman’s words Chasa’s widow remarried, and no one protested. Rav Ashi remarked that from here we see that this that the Rabbanan say that if a man falls into waters without an end his wife cannot remarry means she is not permitted to remarry. However, if she gets remarried anyway we do not make her get divorced. Some say that Rav Nachman enabled Chasa’s wife to remarry. He said “Chasa was a great man, and if he was alive there would be rumors to that effect.” The Gemara says that this is incorrect. It does not make a difference if the person is a regular person or a Rabbinical scholar. Only if they got married already do we say that this enough (for them not to have to get divorced), not to enable them to marry. (121b)

[END]