תּלמוד אויף דברים 19:15

MISHNAH: A woman’s husband went overseas and some persons¹The language of the Mishnah implies that the wife was told (maybe by hearsay), not that she received testimony that would stand up in court. This is clear from the following Mishnaiot and the discussion at the end of Halakhah 2. came and told her, your husband died. If she remarried²Without having her husband declared dead by a competent court. That a woman may remarry even if her husband’s death is not confirmed by two independent witnesses of sterling character (Deut. 19:15) is a rabbinic institution. and then the husband returned, she has to leave both husbands³It is clear that she has to leave the second husband since her marriage to him was invalid by biblical standards. As pointed out by both Talmudim, this shows that the rules of the Mishnah are rabbinical., she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows⁴Num. 30:14.. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah⁵If the deceased husband had sons from different wives, before the inheritance is distributed the ketubah of each wife should be given to her sons; only the remainder is distributed among all sons.. If they died⁶Before the divorce documents were executed and there are no children., the brothers of both of them perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “For he found in her a word of nakedness.^16”Deut. 24:1.. “Nakedness”, that is the rendez-vous¹⁷“Meeting in secret” with another man.. “Word”, that is the declaration of jealousy. “Word, word”; just as “word” mentioned there requires two witnesses¹⁸Deut. 19:15: “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a word (fact, circumstance) be confirmed.” The argument is based on the second hermeneutical rule (Sifra Introduction) that the meaning of words is unchanged from one occurrence to the other.
In the Babli, Giṭṭin 90a, this is quoted as the argument of the House of Shammai., so “word” mentioned here requires two witnesses. “But he can take her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony,” “she was untrue to him in untruthfulness¹⁹Num. 5:12. The root מעל denotes the sin of embezzlement or fraud (Lev. 5:15, Num. 5:6; cf. Arabic مغالة) or general mischief (Lev. 26:40, Ez. 18:24, Ezr. 9:4; cf. Arabic معالة).”, about the conditions spelled out to her through the mouth of others²⁰In this interpretation, מעל refers to fraud as breach of contract; it does not imply unfaithfulness of the wife, as explained in Num. 5:14. Therefore, the breach of contract is that the wife went to a rendez-vous with the man forbidden to her by the declaration of jealousy in front of two witnesses. The clause (Num. 5:12) that she breached her contract with him is read to mean that he is empowered to prosecute this breach before the Temple priests..

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose¹⁶Here it seems better to read “Rav Joseph” with the other two sources.. It is said here two and it is said there¹⁷Deut. 19:15. by the mouth of two witnesses. Since there it must be by the testimony of two witnesses, also here by the testimony of two witnesses. Then why does the verse say two¹³Deut. 19:17.? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. With one he puts up, to the other he is unfriendly.