Yevamot

have brought on his death,  What is the practical difference between these [two explanations]? — The case where one cut [another man's organs] in a house of marble  and the latter made some convulsive movements,  or also where he cut his organs out of doors and the latter made no convulsive movements.  R. JUDAH … SAID: NOT ALL etc. The question was raised: Does R. Judah b. Baba differ [from the first Tanna] in relaxing the law  or does he differ from him in imposing a greater restriction?  — Come and hear: A man was once drowned at Karmi and after three days he was hauled up at Be Hedya, and R. Dimi of Nehardea allowed his wife to remarry. And again, it happened that a man was drowned in the Tigris  and after five days he was hauled up to the Shebistana bridge  and, on the evidence of the shoshbinim,  Raba permitted his wife to marry again — Now, if you grant that he  differs [from the first Tanna] in relaxing the law, they  might well have acted in accordance with the ruling of R. Judah b. Baba. If you should contend, however, that he  differed in imposing a greater restriction, in accordance with whose view [it may be asked] did they  act? — Waters are different because they cause contraction.  But, surely, you said that 'waters [are different since they] irritate the wound'! — That applies only where a wound exists, but where no wound exists waters cause contraction. This, furthermore, applies only where the witnesses saw the body as soon as it was brought up, but if it remains some time, it swells.  MISHNAH. IF A MAN FELL INTO THE WATER, WHETHER IT HAD [A VISIBLE] END  OR NOT, HIS WIFE IS FORBIDDEN [TO MARRY AGAIN].  SAID R. MEIR: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A MAN FELL INTO A LARGE CISTERN AND ROSE TO THE SURFACE  AFTER THREE DAYS.  SAID R. JOSE: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A BLIND MAN DESCENDED INTO A CAVE.  TO PERFORM RITUAL ABLUTION WHILE HIS GUIDE WENT DOWN AFTER HIM; AND AFTER WAITING LONG ENOUGH FOR THEIR SOULS TO DEPART, PERMISSION WAS GIVEN TO THEIR WIVES TO MARRY AGAIN.  ANOTHER INCIDENT OCCURRED AT ASIA  WHERE A MAN WAS LOWERED INTO THE SEA, AND ONLY HIS LEG WAS BROUGHT UP,  AND THE SAGES RULED: [IF THE RECOVERED LEG CONTAINED THE PART] ABOVE THE KNEE [THE MAN'S WIFE] MAY MARRY AGAIN,  [BUT IF IT CONTAINED ONLY THE PART] BELOW THE KNEE, SHE MAY NOT MARRY AGAIN.  GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If a man fell into water, whether it had [a visible] end  or not, his wife is forbidden [to marry again];  so R. Meir. But the Sages ruled: [If he fell into] water that has [a visible] end,  his wife is permitted [to marry again],  but [if into water] that has no [visible] end  his wife is forbidden [to marry again].  What is to be understood by 'has [a visible] end'? — Abaye replied: [An area all the boundaries of which] a person standing [on the edge] is able to see in all directions.  Once a man was drowned in the swamp of Samki, and R. Shila permitted his wife to marry again. Said Rab to Samuel: 'Come, let us place him under the ban'.  'Let us first', [the other replied,] 'send to [ask] him [for an explanation]'. On their sending to him the enquiry: '[If a man has fallen into] water which has no [visible] end. is his wife forbidden or permitted [to marry again]'? he sent to them [in reply], 'His wife is forbidden' — 'And [they again enquired] is the swamp of Samki regarded as water that has [a visible] end or as water that has no [visible] end?' — 'It is', he sent them his reply, 'a water that has no [visible] end'. 'Why then did the Master [they asked] act in such a manner?'  — 'I was really mistaken', [he replied]; 'I was of the opinion that as the water was gathered and stationary it was to be regarded as "water which has [a visible] end", but the law is in fact not so; for owing to the prevailing waves it might well be assumed that the waves carried [the body] away'.  Samuel thereupon applied to Rab the Scriptural text, There shall no mischief befall the righteous,  while Rab applied to Samuel the following text: But in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.  It was taught: Rabbi related how it once happened that while two men were casting nets in the Jordan one of them entered a subterranean fish pond  and when the sun had set he could not find the entrance of the cave. His companion, after waiting long enough for his soul to depart, returned and reported the accident to his household. On the following day when the sun rose [the first man] discovered the entrance of the cave, and on returning he found his household in deep mourning  'How great', exclaimed Rabbi, 'are the words of the Sages who ruled [that if a man fell into] water which has [a visible] end his wife is permitted [to marry again, but if into water] which has no [visible] end, his wife is forbidden'.If so,  then also in the case of water which has [a visible] end the possibility of having remained in a subterranean fish pond should be taken into consideration! — It is not usual for a subterranean fish pond to be found with water which has [a visible] end.  R. Ashi said: The ruling of the Rabbis [that where a man has fallen into] water which has no [visible] end his wife is forbidden [to marry again]. applies only to an ordinary person but not to a learned man for, should he be rescued.  the fact would become known.  This, however, is not correct; for there is no difference between an ordinary man and a learned man. Ex post facto, the marriage  is valid; ab initio, it is forbidden. It was taught: R. Gamaliel related, 'I was once travelling on board a ship when I observed a shipwreck and was sorely grieved for [the apparent loss of] a scholar  who had been travelling on board that ship. (And who was he? — R. Akiba.) When I subsequently landed, he  came to me and sat down and discussed matters of halachah. "My son", I asked him, "who rescued you?" "The plank of a ship", he answered me, "came my way, and to every wave that approached me I bent my head" — 44 Hence the Sages said that if wicked persons attack a man let him bend his head to them.  At that hour I exclaimed: How significant are the words of the Stages who ruled [that if a man fell into] water which has [a visible] end, [his wife] is permitted [to marry again; but if into] water which has no [visible] end, she is forbidden'. It was taught: R. Akiba related, 'l was once travelling on board a ship when I observed a ship in distress,  and was much grieved on account of a scholar who was on it. (And who was it? — R. Meir.) When I subsequently landed in the province of Cappadocia  he came to me and sat down and discussed matters of halachah. "My son", I said to him, "who rescued you?" — "One wave" he answered me, "tossed me to another, and the other to yet another until [the sea] cast me  on the dry land". At that hour I exclaimed: How significant are the words of the Sages who ruled [that if a man fell into] water which has [a visible] end, [his wife] is permitted [to marry again; but if into] water which has no [visible] end, she is forbidden'. Our Rabbis taught: If a man fell into a lion's den, no evidence  may be legally tendered concerning him;  but if into a pit full of serpents and scorpions, evidence  may legally be tendered concerning him.  R. Judah b. Bathyra ruled: Even [if he fell] into a pit full of serpents and scorpions, no evidence  may legally be tendered concerning him,  since the possibility must be taken into consideration