Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 15.5

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 קַיָים יִנָּשֵׂאוּ.

MISHNAH: One [wife] says, 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 remarry nor collect her ketubah. If one said that he died, while the other one said he was killed; Rebbi Meïr says, since they contradict one another, they cannot remarry. Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.

הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלְכָה הִיא כול׳. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי מֵאִיר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי. עוֹד הִיא בְמַחֲלוֹקֶת. מַה בֵין שְׁנִיָיה מַה בֵין רִאשׁוֹנָה. רִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא עָשׂוּ בָהּ דָּבָר זֶה אֵצֶל חֲבֵירָתָהּ כְּלוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. 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,” 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 case. 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 companion? Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Judah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? Did they not consider the co-wife’s words as nonexistent for her companion? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he heard it from me and formulated it.

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.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses testified about him, one group testifying that he vowed two periods of nezirut, the other group testifying that he vowed five periods of nezirut.” 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 periods. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. 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 בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. דִבְרֵי הַכֹּל. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת לְאַחַר עֲדוּת לֹא בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דָּמַר רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הוּחְזָק הַמּוֹנֶה. זֶה אָמַר. מִן הַכִּיס מוֹנֶה. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. מִן הַצְּרוֹר מוֹנֶה. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת. וְאַף רַב מוֹדֶה שֶּׁבָּטְלָה 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 בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. אֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. לְתוֹךְ חֵיקוֹ מָנָה. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. לְתוֹךְ פוּנְדָּתוֹ מָנָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. הִכְחִישׁ הָעֵדוּת לְאַחַר עֵידוּת לֹא בָטְלָה עֵדוּת. זֶה אָמַר. בַּמַּקֵל הֲרָגוֹ. וְזֶה אָמַר. בַּסַּיָיף הֲרָגוֹ. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. וְאַף רַב מוֹדֶה שֶׁבָּטְלָה עֵדוּת. מַה פְלִיגִין. כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִתֵּי עֵדִים. אֵלּוּ אָמַר. בַּמַּקֵל הֲרָגוֹ. וְאֵלּוּ אָמַר. בַּסַּיָיף הֲרָגוֹ. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. וּכְרַב לֹא בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. אֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. בְּדָרוֹם פָּנָה. וְאֵילוּ אוֹמְרִים. בְּצָפוֹן פָּנָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת לְאַחַר עֵדוּת לֹא בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרַב מִן הָדָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמְרִין. הוֹאִיל וְזוֹ וְזוֹ מוֹדוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ קַיָים יִנָּשֵׂאוּ. וְלֹא שְׁמִיעַ דָּמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. 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. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא בְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדוֹף.

Rav said, if testimony was contradicted in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradicted in itself, the testimony is void in the opinion of everybody. If testimony was contradicted in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted 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 testimony, the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. 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 void. 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 void. 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 witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? Did they not consider the co-wife’s words as nonexistent for her companion? (Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he heard it from me and formulated it.) A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, 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”.