IS A WOMAN BELIEVED IN WARTIME?
Question: If she informed us that there is war in the world, what is the law?
Is she believed due to a Migo? I.e. it is unreasonable that she would say such a lie. (If she wanted to lie,) she could have said that there is peace in the world (and surely she would be believed)!
Or, since it is now established that it is wartime, are we concerned that she testifies by estimation, and the Migo does not override this?
Answer (Beraisa): If a woman says 'the house burned and was full of smoke. I survived, and he died', she is not believed.
Rejection: There is different. She reasons that a miracle was done for her, but not for him!
Answer (Beraisa): If a woman says 'Nochrim or robbers came upon us. He was killed, and I survived', she is believed.
Rejection: That case is different, like Rav Idi taught.
(Rav Idi): A woman's weapons are with her (she does not fear robbers, for they would rather have relations with her than kill her (Rashi) or because they have mercy on her (Tosfos). Therefore, she waits to see if her husband really died.)
At the end of a Chupah, a fire broke out. The Kalah cried 'See, it is my husband!' They found a burned man and a hand.
R. Chiya bar Avin: This is like the case of the house that burned (she is not believed).
Rava: Here is different! She cried, 'See, it is my husband'! And here, a burned man and a hand were found!
R. Chiya bar Avin is concerned lest the burned man tried to save her husband, and the hand is her husband's. He became blemished, and fled due to shame.
ONE WITNESS IN WAR
Question: Is one witness believed in wartime?
If one witness is believed because people do not lie about matters that are Avid l'Igluyei (prone to become known, e.g. if the husband is alive), here also, he will not lie!
If one witness is believed because she will investigate before marrying, here, perhaps she hates him (Maharshal's text - she will rely on estimation) and will not investigate!
Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama - Mishnah - R. Akiva): In Eretz Yisrael, only R. Yehudah ben Bava permitted a woman to remarry based on one witness. Nechemyah of Beis Deli said, 'You know, the land is perilous because of troops. I received from R. Gamliel that we may marry a woman based on one witness.'
Question: Why did he say, the land is perilous because of troops?
Answer #1: Even though soldiers are rampant, we may marry a woman based on one witness.
Rejection (Rava): If so, what is special about this land? He should have said 'Any place where soldiers are rampant'!
Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question (1) - Rava): Rather, this land is perilous because of the troops, and I cannot leave my household to testify in front of Chachamim. I received from R. Gamliel that a woman may marry based on one witness.
Answer #2: A case occurred in which two Chachamim were coming in a ship with R. Yosi ben Simai. The ship sank; Rebbi allowed their widows to remarry based on the testimony of women.
Suggestion: Drowning is like war; and even 100 women are like one witness, and Rebbi allowed the widows to remarry!
Rejection: This cannot be! Whenever one cannot see the end of the water, she is forbidden!
Rejection: Rather, women saw the bodies immediately (after they were taken from the water), and they gave identifying signs;
Rebbi relied on the Simanim, not on the women.
Reuven deposited sesame with Shimon, and later asked for it.
Shimon: You already took it back!
Reuven: The quantity is such and such, and it is in a barrel.
Shimon: You took yours. I have other sesame.
(Rav Chisda): This is like the case of the two Chachamim. We do not say that they went elsewhere, and other men were found (with the same Simanim. Also here, we are not concerned lest Reuven took his sesame, and Shimon has different sesame.)
(Rava): This case is different! There, there were Simanim. Here, there are not!
Even though Reuven gave the correct quantity, perhaps he guessed right!
Question (Mar Kashisha bar Rav Chisda): We are not concerned lest something was removed and replaced!
(Mishnah): If the letter Kuf is on a vessel (denoting Korban), we assume that the contents are Hekdesh. If there is a Mem, Dalet, Tes or Tav, the contents are Ma'aser, Dimua (Terumah mixed with Chulin), Tevel (untithed produce) or Terumah, respectively.
When there were decrees against Mitzvos, people wrote Tav in place of Terumah.
Counter-question (Ravina): You cannot say that no one is concerned lest something was removed and replaced!
(Seifa - R. Yosi): Even if Terumah is written on the barrel, it is Chulin. We assume that the Terumah inside was removed and replaced by Chulin (the majority usage).
Answer to both questions (Ravina): Really, both Tana'im are concerned lest the contents were removed and replaced;
The first Tana holds that had he transferred the Terumah, he would have erased the marking on the barrel;
R. Yosi assumes that he forgot to do so, or he left the Tav to discourage others from taking the contents.
ARE WE CONCERNED FOR OTHER PEOPLE WITH THE SAME NAME?
Yitzchak Reish Galusa, the nephew of Rav Bivi, was going from Korteva to Aspamya; he died. They relayed this information back to Korteva. (Rashba - he was the head of Yisrael in Galus. Tosfos Rid - his name was Yitzchak Reish Galusa.)
Question: Are we concerned lest a different man with this name died (and forbid R. Yitzchak's widow to remarry, even though we do not know of another man with this name)?
Answer #1 (Abaye): We are concerned.
Answer #2 (Rava): We are not concerned.
Support (Abaye, for himself): A Get was found in Nehardai. It said 'next to Kalonya (a city), I, Androlinai of Nehardai, divorce my wife.' Shmuel's father sent this question to R. Yehudah Nesi'ah, who answered that all of Nehardai must be checked (for another Androlinai).
Rejection (Rava): This is no proof. If we were truly concerned, we would have to check the whole world!
R. Yehudah Nesi'ah said to check only so that Shmuel's father would not be embarrassed for asking the question.