Yevamot II 94: More on One Witness, Double Standards for Men/Women Whose Spouses May Have Died

Our rabbis look again at why we can trust just one witness in cases of agunot when Torah law teaches that two or three witnesses are required.  One of their arguments involves the notion that a woman - or a man - cannot be the only witness on their own behalf (regarding this specific issue).  They rabbis extrapolate from this: another individual witness must be allowed to testify.

A woman would know that a child of her second marriage would be called a mamzer - or at least a partial mamzer.  The rabbis assume that that consequence would be enough to encourage that woman to ensure that her husband is dead.  The rabbis focus on the idea that a yevama or her first husband, still alive somewhere, might lie to better their circumstances.  Again the rabbis note that a woman might 'hate' her first husband, which could impact on her actions and her motivation.

The huge differences in halacha for men and for women are highlighted in our new Mishna.  we learn that if a woman goes abroad and a witness reports that she has died, her husband may remarry her sister. And if the first wife is found to be alive, both women and rival wives and family members are allowed to that husband.  If he has a child with his second wife and his first wife was alive when the child was born, the child is a mamzer.  Any later children born of this second wife are not mamzerim.  Clearly, though both men and women are prohibited from many relations, men are treated with greater leniency.  Our notes tell us that this is in part because women rarely travelled abroad.  Rare circumstances justified lenient halachot.

A halacha teaches that a man does not require to get a get, bill of divorce, for a marriage he entered with a forbidden woman as long as he was unaware of that prohibition.  The exceptions are a  woman already married through the court, a woman who is the sister of his betrothed, and a woman who is a yevama and marries her yavam.  The mishna also speaks of a case when a woman goes abroad with her brother-in-law and they are both said to have died.  

The Gemara looks at a number of different marriages that a man whose wife is 'lost' might marry.  It considered whether or not the bill of betrothal might have contained a condition that was not met, and thus the marriage was not actually complete. Another interesting conversation details the rabbis' thoughts regarding whether or not this man may marry his mother-in-law following her daughter's death.  Some argue that she is prohibited; others argue that she is permitted by Torah law as long as her daughter has already died.  

The real question for the rabbis, of course, is what the punishment should be for these possible offences.  Should this man be liable to death by burning, as stated in the Torah (for intercourse with a close relative of his wife)?  Or is he 'just' liable to receive karet?  Or another less concerning punishment?  What are the punishments if he has intercourse with his mother-in-law after his wife has died?  Our notes teach us that in the latter case, rabbis continue to disagree - either karet or a lesser punishment may be levied.  It is undeniable that in these situations of 'lost' husbands and wives, men face much simpler circumstances than woman.