(Mishnah): If Leah says that her husband died, and a Tzarah (Sarah) says that he did not, Leah may remarry and she receives her Kesuvah. Sarah may not remarry or receive her Kesuvah;

R. Meir says, if Leah says that he died and Sarah says that he was killed, since they contradict each other, they may not remarry;

R. Yehudah and R. Shimon say, since they admit that he is dead, they may remarry.

(Gemara - R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Yochanan, R. Heila citing R. Lazar): R. Meir agrees about the first case (one wife says that he died, and one wife contradicts her).

A Beraisa was found that says that they argue also about this.

Question (against R. Yakov bar Acha): What is the difference between the second case and the first [according to R. Meir]?

Answer: In the Reisha, [Chachamim] did not make her words have any effect on her colleague [lest she tries to ruin her. In the Seifa, she tries to permit herself, so she creates a contradiction.]

(R. Lazar): R. Yehudah and R. Shimon agree about witnesses [who argue about how he died, that the testimony is contradictory].

Question: What is the difference between witnesses and a Tzarah? (If two witnesses argue about how he died, the widow may not remarry!)

Answer: They did not make a woman's words have any affect on her Tzarah [in any case - GRA (EH 17:40). NODA BI'YEHUDAH 1, EH 46. adds that if one witness in a set contradicts the other about an essential part of the testimony, the entire testimony is Batel.]

R. Yochanan: If R. Lazar (my Talmid) said this, he heard it from me and said it.

(Mishnah): If two pairs of witness testified about a man - [this pair] testifies that he accepted Nezirus twice, and these testify that that he accepted Nezirus five times - Beis Shamai say, the testimony is contradictory (if he says that he did not accept any Nezirus, he is believed). Beis Hillel say, two are included in five. The law requires him to be a Nazir [at least] twice.

(Rav): They argue about Klal (this will be explained), but in Prat, all agree that two are included in five, and he is a Nazir twice;

(R. Yochanan): They argue about one who counted (i.e. Prat), but in Klal, all agree that the testimony is contradictory, and there is no Nezirus.

Question: What is Klal, and what is counting?

Answer: Klal is when this [pair] says that he said [I will be a Nazir] twice, and this says that he said five times. Counting is when this says that he said [I will be a Nazir] 'one, two', and this says that he said 'three, four, five'.

(Rav): If there is contradiction amidst the testimony (in an irrelevant matter), the testimony is not Batel.

(R. Yochanan): If there is contradiction amidst the testimony, the testimony is Batel.

All agree that if there is contradiction [about something that happened] after the testimony, the testimony is not Batel;

R. Yochanan holds that [it is Batel in this case] like his opinion, for R. Ba cited R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan, that if it is established (all agree that) he counted out money to him - this one says that he counted from a wallet, and this one says that he counted from coins wrapped together, there is contradiction amidst the testimony.

Even Rav agrees that the testimony is Batel (when there are only two witnesses, for they contradict each other).

When do they argue? It is when there are two pairs of witnesses. These say that he counted from a wallet, and these say that he counted from wrapped coins. There is contradiction amidst the testimony. [R. Yochanan says that] the testimony is Batel; according to Rav, the testimony is not Batel.

These say that he counted into his garment, and these say that he counted into his money-belt - all agree that a contradiction about after the testimony, the testimony is not Batel.

This one says that he killed him with a staff, and this one says that he killed him with a sword - there is contradiction amidst the testimony. The testimony is Batel. Even Rav agrees that the testimony is Batel;

When do they argue? It is when there are two pairs of witnesses. These say that he killed him with a staff, and these say that he killed him with a sword - there is contradiction amidst the testimony. The testimony is Batel [according to R. Yochanan]. According to Rav, the testimony is not Batel;

These say that he turned to the south (after killing him), and these say that he turned to the north - all agree that a contradiction about after the testimony, the testimony is not Batel.

Rav's source is [the following]. R. Shimon and R. Yehudah say, (if Tzaros argue about whether their husband died or was killed,) since both agree that he is not alive, they may marry.

He does not hold like R. Lazar said, that R. Yehudah and R. Shimon agree about witnesses (who argue about how he died), that the testimony is contradictory.

Question: What is the difference between witnesses and a Tzarah?

Answer: They did not make a woman's words have any affect on her Tzarah.

Question (against Rav - Mishnah): Questions pertinent to the testimony and questions irrelevant to the testimony have the same law - when [the witnesses] contradict each other, their testimony is Batel.

Answer #1 (R. Mana): Rav explains that is when one witness contradicts one. (Rav says that the testimony is established when two sets of witnesses contradict each other.)

Answer #2 (R. Avun): You can even say that it is when sets of witnesses contradict each other. Capital cases are different - "Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof."

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

(Gemara - Gidal bar Binyamin citing Rav): Whenever testimony of a woman is Kosher, she is like a man. A man contradicts a woman, and a woman contradicts a man.

Question: [Our Mishnah] should teach 'a witness says that he died, and a woman says that he did not die, or a woman says that he died, and a witness says that he did not die [she may not remarry]'!

Answer: [Indeed, Talmidim] of Rebbi's academy taught so [in our Mishnah].

(Beraisa - in the name of R. Nechemyah): We follow the majority of opinions.

Question: How is this?

Answer: Two women and one woman (contradicts them), they are like two witnesses and one witness (one cannot contradict two).

Limitation: This refers to a woman and women, but if they were 100 women and one man, they are like one witness and one witness (if they came together, she may not remarry).

(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, this is not the way to avert sin! Rather, Sarah may not remarry or eat Terumah.

(Gemara): [Even after Leah remarried, Sarah is forbidden, for Leah] is suspected to ruin herself (remarry even though she knows that her husband is alive) in order to ruin her Tzarah.

Question: If so, she should not be believed even for herself!

Answer: Since she knows that [Chachamim] made that her words have any effect on her colleague, she tells the truth.

Question: If so, she should be believed even about her Tzarah!

Answer (R. Heila): [If so, matters] would return to the first concern [mentioned]. She is suspected to ruin herself in order to ruin her Tzarah.

(Mishnah): If Leah says 'my husband died, and later my father-in-law died', 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, this is not the way to avert sin! Rather, Miryam may not remarry or eat Terumah.

(Gemara) Question: She should be believed to say 'my father-in-law died' [after she remarried. Her mother-in-law no longer hates her, for she will not consume her mother-in-law's wealth!]

Do we not hold (like we said at the beginning of Halachah 4) that just like [these women] are not believed about her, so she is not believed about them [because hatred is mutual?! Now that her mother-in-law does not hate her, she does not hate her mother-in-law. She should be believed!]

Answer (R. Chaninah): The case is, her father-in-law [and mother-in-law lived] here [with her, so they had mutual hatred, and it does not go away. However, if they were never together, the daughter-in-law never hated her mother-in-law, and she would be believed. We explained this like CHASAM SOFER.]

(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, this is not the way to avert sin! Rather, he must pay a Kesuvah to each one.

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

R. Akiva says, this is not the way to avert sin! Rather, he must pay the amount stolen to each one.

(Gemara - Rav Asi): The Mishnah [in Bava Metzi'a] is like R. Akiva, and unlike R. Tarfon;

(Mishnah): If one said to two people 'I stole from one of you, and I do not know which one', or 'the father of one of you deposited 100 Zuz with me, and I do not know which of you, he gives to this one [the amount stolen, or regarding a deposit] 100 Zuz, and to this one 100 Zuz, for he himself admitted.

Rebuttal #1 (R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Yochanan): It is like everyone. [Beis Din] says [that he must give the full amount to each this] to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim.

Rebuttal #2 (R. Ba citing Rav Yehudah): Here (our Mishnah) is when witnesses know [that he stole, and he does not know. R. Tarfon holds that it suffices to give over the amount that he stole.] Here [the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a], witnesses do not know [but he knows. He should have been careful to know from whom. Since he was negligent, he must pay the full amount to each.]

Rebuttal #3 (R. Heila citing R. Elazar): Here (our Mishnah) is when [the possible victims of theft] are quiet. Here [in Bava Metzi'a], they speak (each claims 'you stole from me.')

Rebuttal #3 (R. Yirmeyah citing Rav): Here (in Bava Metzi'a) is when [the thief] swore (the Torah requires proper return of the theft). Here [in our Mishnah] he did not swear.

Objection #1 (to Rebuttal #3 - R. Yochanan): If he swore to him, he should make a Shali'ach Beis Din and give it to him!

Inference: R. Yochanan holds that [the Gazlan may give it even to a Shali'ach of a] Beis Din that the Gazlan assembled, and not [only] a Beis Din that the Nigzal assembled. (Here, each Safek Nigzal would assemble a Beis Din only if he knew that they will give it to him!)

Answer ((Rav): [He must give it to a Shali'ach of a] Beis Din that the Nigzal assembled, and not a Beis Din that the Gazlan assembled.

Source (for Rav): R. Shimon ben Elazar said, a Beis Din that the Nigzal assembled, and not a Beis Din that the Gazlan assembled.

Objection #2 (to Rebuttal #3 - R. Yirmeyah): (A Tosefta on the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a says that if one said 'I do not know to which of you I owe', he pays the full amount to each. If not, he should have been silent.) If he swore, why does it say that he should have been silent?! (He must admit, in order to get a Kaparah!)

Inference: R. Yirmeyah holds that [the Tosefta means that if he does not want to pay both] he should have been silent and not admitted;

Answer: R. Yosah holds that [it means that] he should have been silent and not sworn.

(R. Yudan): Even if you will say like those who say that [the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a is R. Tarfon, but according to R. Akiva,] silence and speaking (admission) are the same for Gezeilah (in every case, he must pay everyone), regarding a deposit, they agree that one who is silent profits, and one who speaks loses. (We explained this like HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA.)

One who is silent profits, from the case of two who deposited with one;

This one deposited 100 [Zuz], and this deposited 200. This one says 'the 200 are mine', and this one says 'the 200 are mine'. [The Shomer] gives 100 to this one and 100 to this one, and the rest stays [by the Shomer] until Eliyahu will come [and reveal whose it is].

One who speaks loses, from here. He said 'I stole from one of you, and I do not know from which of you...'

(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) Question (R. Chananyah, to R. Ila): Who is the Tana who says that we are concerned for her words (i.e. but not for her Tzarah's words), and she does Chalitzah? Is it R. Tarfon (who said above that she still eats Terumah, and is not concerned for her Tzarah's words), and not R. Akiva?

Answer (R. Ila): It is like everyone. Here, even R. Akiva agrees. (He is concerned for a Tzarah's words only when there would be a Vadai Aveirah, e.g. a wife remarries, and her Tzarah continues to eat Terumah. Here, if we ignore the Tzarah's words, there is no Vadai Aveirah - NO'AM YERUSHALMI.)

Question: What is the difference between this (the second case) and the Reisha? Here (the Reisha) you say that she is not believed [to says 'my son died, and then my husband') and here (the Seifa) you say that she is believed [to say so]!

Answer: Here (the Seifa) you say that she is believed when she departed amidst a Heter to the Yavam (if her husband will die). Here (the Reisha) you say that she is not believed when she did not depart amidst a Heter to the Yavam. (We explained this like CHESHEK SHLOMO.)

(R. Yosah): Our Mishnah teaches that [Chachamim] did not make males [suspected, and not believed] like females;

Our Mishnah teaches that a man is not believed to say 'my brother died' in order to do Yibum, because she has no children (perhaps he lies in order to do Yibum), but if she has children, he is believed. (Really, it depends on whether or not her husband had children. Perhaps the text should say "Lo", and not "Lah". - PF)