First, they examine the notion of losing a husband in war. What counts as a war? How big or how small must that fight be to be called a war? When would women wait to see if their husbands have been killed and when would they run and assume that their husbands are dead? Is it similar if a woman and her husband were smoked out of a cave? She might survive by running, assuming that her husband has stayed and died. The rabbis note that men would likely be killed, while as Rav Idi says, women's "weapons are upon her". They acknowledge that women would likely be raped but not killed in an attack.
The rabbis remember a bride and groom who suffered a fire in the bridal chamber during the ceremony. Upon seeing her husband charred, only a palm of his hand remaining, the bride yelled, "Look at my husband, look at my husband!" Believe it or not, the rabbis did not accept her testimony. Their story: the fire caused him to lose his hand, and his embarrassment at this "deformity" forced him to run far away - but he could be alive.
Why would a woman lie about the death of her husband in war? The rabbis suggest that she might wish to cover the truth: she hates her husband. Thus she does not complete a thorough search for him, and he might be alive. Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava argues this point: the country is riddled with troops, he says, and we must allow the testimony of one witness when considering whether or not women can remarry. Of course, this point is countered as well, in a sneaky way: if the country is riddled with troops, it is too dangerous to testify at all, and thus one witness cannot be trusted.
The Gemara shares a story about a boat that sinks while carrying Torah scholars. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi allowed widows to remarry based on the testimony of women regarding these deaths. But perhaps water is like war, the Gemara states, and even one hundred women are like one woman in relation to testimony. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi allowed them to remarry, one witness must be permissible in this circumstance.
Amud (b) carries this story further - what about distinguishing marks? If men were found or seen, the court would not be relying on the testimony of women but on the distinguishing marks themselves. Using an example of plants that might be moved or traded, and thus they become unidentifiable property, the rabbis discuss other distinguishing marks. If a vessel is found with a letter on it, it is assumed to have been destined for a specific purpose:
- letter: mem - ma'aser sheni, second tithe
- letter: tet - tevel, untitled produce
- letter: taf - teruma
- letter: dalet - damai, doubtfully tithed produce
- letter: kuf - korban, offering
- no inscription on a metal vessel - value of vessel plus contents are used to purchase an offering
The rabbis continue to doubt whether this is enough information to identify the vessel and/or its content.
One last story is told about Yitzchak the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, who died while walking from Corva to Spain. Abaye is not sure that this is enough information; perhaps another man named Yitzchak, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, died on that trip. Rava is confident that his wife can remarry.
Abaye's argument is based on a bill of divorce that was confusing, for it referred to a husband who may have shared the same name as another man. In fact, in response to Abba bar Abba (the father of Shmel), Rabbi Yehuda Nesia ordered that all of the town of Neharde'a be searched for a man of the same name. Rava argues that this is not a proof; it refers to the respect that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia held for Abba bar Abba.
Today's daf is a wonderful example of the Rabbis arguing points of concern in fine form. The "yes, but" argument is exciting. It takes us on a journey to other stories, other experiences, all in the name of clarifying the argument at hand. And today's paths were not so onerous; so filled with brush that we could not see back to our starting point.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment