(Gemara) Inference: Sarah is forbidden because she said that he did not die. Had she kept quiet, she would be permitted!

Objection: A wife is not believed regarding her Tzarah!

Affirmation: Indeed, the inference is wrong. This clause teaches something else;

One might have thought that (Sarah knows that) he really died, and she lies to [try to] prevent her Tzarah from remarrying. She afflicts herself in order to afflict her Tzarah. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. (Tosfos - the Hava Aminah was only to believe her later if she gives an excuse why she lied.)

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If Leah says that he died (and Sarah says that he was killed, since they contradict each other, they may not remarry).

Question: Why doesn't R. Meir argue also in the Reisha? (Also there they contradict each other!)

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): He does!

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): The Reisha is even like R. Meir. (One witness) saying that a man did not die (after she was permitted) is not considered contradictory testimony regarding Edus Ishah.

(Seifa): If one witness says that he died and one says that he did not die, or a woman says that he died and a woman (even a Tzarah) says that he did not die, she may not remarry.

Question: We understand according to R. Elazar. The Stam Seifa is R. Meir;

However, according to R. Yochanan, this is unlike all the Tana'im!

This is left difficult.

(Mishnah): If Leah went overseas with her husband and returned and said that her husband died, she may remarry, and she receives her Kesuvah. Her Tzarah (Sarah) is forbidden;

R. Tarfon says, if Sarah is a Bas Yisrael and her husband was a Kohen, she continues to eat Terumah;

R. Akiva says, to avert sin, Sarah may not remarry or eat Terumah;

If Leah says 'my husband died, and then my father-in-law', she may remarry and receives her Kesuvah, but her mother-in-law (Miryam) may not remarry;

R. Tarfon says, if Miryam is a Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen, she continues to eat Terumah;

R. Akiva says, to avert sin, Miryam may not remarry or eat Terumah.

(Gemara): It is necessary to teach both cases:

If we taught only the Reisha, we would think that there R. Tarfon says that Leah's testimony does not even forbid her Tzarah to eat Terumah, because the Tzarah causes her bodily pain (less frequent Bi'ah. It is likely that Leah is lying, so Sarah keeps her Chazakah to eat.) Her mother-in-law causes only verbal pain, so we would forbid the mother-in-law, lest Leah is telling the truth;

If we taught only the Seifa, we would think that there R. Akiva is stringent on the mother-in-law, lest Leah is telling the truth. A Tzarah causes bodily pain, so R. Akiva would agree with R. Tarfon.

(Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows R. Tarfon.

Support (Abaye): A Stam Mishnah is like R. Tarfon:

(Mishnah): If Leah says 'I had a son overseas. My son died, and then my husband', she is believed. If she says 'my husband died, and then my son', she is not believed, and we are concerned for her words. She does Chalitzah, not Yibum.

Inference: We are concerned for her words, but not her Tzarah's words.

(Mishnah - R. Tarfon): If a man does not know which one of five women he was Mekadesh, and each says 'You were Mekadesh me', he gives a Get to each one. He hands over money for one Kesuvah, and withdraws;

R. Akiva says, to clear himself from sin, he must pay a Kesuvah to each one.

If a man does not know from which one of five people he stole, and each says 'You stole from me', he hands over the amount stolen, and withdraws;

R. Akiva says, to clear himself from sin, he must pay the amount stolen to each one.

(Gemara): The Mishnah teaches a case of Kidushin, and not Bi'ah; it teaches a case of theft, and not buying.

Question: The Mishnah is not like R. Shimon ben Elazar, nor the Tana he argues with!

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): R. Tarfon and R. Akiva agree that if a man was Mekadesh one of five women, he hands over one Kesuvah and withdraws. They argue about when he had Bi'ah with one;

R. Tarfon says that he pays one Kesuvah. R. Akiva says that he pays a Kesuvah to each.

They agree that if he bought from one of five people (and did not pay), he hands over the purchase price and withdraws. They argue about when he stole;

R. Tarfon says that he pays once. R. Akiva says that he pays to each.

Inference: R. Shimon ben Elazar says that they do not argue about Kidushin and buying. This implies that there is a Tana earlier in the Beraisa who says that they argue in these cases!

If our Tana (of our Mishnah) is that Tana, he should teach about Kidushin and buying!

If our Tana is R. Shimon ben Elazar, he should teach about Bi'ah and stealing!

Answer: Our Tana is R. Shimon ben Elazar. The case is, he was Mekadesh one of the women through Bi'ah.

He teaches about Kidushin (through Bi'ah) to show the extremity of R. Akiva's opinion. Even though Kidushei Bi'ah is forbidden only mid'Rabanan, he must pay each woman!

He teaches about stealing to show the extremity of R. Tarfon's opinion. Even though this is forbidden mid'Oraisa, he pays only once!

(Mishnah): If a woman went overseas with her husband and son and returns and says 'my husband died, and then my son', she is believed. If she says 'my son died, and then my husband', she is not believed. We are concerned for her words; she does Chalitzah, not Yibum.

(If she left without children, and returns and says) 'I had a son overseas. My son died, and then my husband', she is believed. If she says 'my husband died, and then my son', she is not believed. We are concerned for her words; she does Chalitzah, not Yibum.

(If she left without a Yavam, and returns and says) 'a Yavam was born (a brother to my husband). My husband died, and then my Yavam'; or if she says 'my Yavam died, and then my husband', she is believed;

If she left with her husband and her Yavam, and returns and says 'my husband died, and then my Yavam', or 'my Yavam died, and then my husband', she is not believed;

This is because a woman is not believed to say that her Yavam died to permit herself to marry a stranger; nor to say that her sister died, to marry her sister's husband;

A man is not believed to say 'my brother died' to do Yibum, nor to say 'my wife died' to marry her sister.

(Gemara - Rava) Question: If Reuven asks Shimon to receive a Get on behalf of Reuven's wife in a situation where she will fall to Yibum if not for the Get, does this work?

Since (normally) she hates the Yavam, it benefits her to receive the Get, and one can be Zocheh (acquire something beneficial) for a person in his absence;

Or, since sometimes she likes the Yavam, the Get could be detrimental. One cannot be Chav (acquire something detrimental) to a person in his absence;

Answer (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): We are concerned for her words. She does Chalitzah, not Yibum. (Perhaps she is lying because she wants to do Yibum!)

Question (Ravina): If Reuven was quarreling with his wife and he asks Shimon to receive a Get on her behalf, does it work?

Since they are quarreling, it is a Zechus for her to receive the Get;

Or, perhaps she prefers being married, in spite of the quarrels!

Answer: She prefers being married;

Reish Lakish: A woman says, 'It is better to live as two (i.e. married) than to live as a widow.'

Abaye: A woman married to an ant (i.e. even a midget) puts her chair among the important women.

Rav Papa: Even if her husband cleans wool (a scorned profession), she goes out on the porch to greet him (she is not ashamed).

Rav Ashi: Even if he sells heads of cabbage (Tosfos; Rashi - his lineage is tainted), she will not even request lentils (it suffices to her that she is married).

(Beraisa): All women married to such men have Bi'as Zenus and attribute the child to their husbands.