Yevamot

for three festivals,  R. Adda b. Ahabah said to her, 'Apply  to R. Joseph, whose knife is sharp'.  When she came to him he decided  [her case by deduction] from the following Baraitha:  If an idolater who was selling fruit in the market declared, 'These fruits are of 'orlah,  of a newly broken field,  or of a plantation in its fourth year',  his statement is disregarded,  for his intention was merely to raise the value  of his fruit.  Abba Judah of Zaidan  related: It once happened that an Israelite and an idolater went on a journey together and when the idolater returned he said, 'Alas for the Jew who was with me on the journey, for he died on the way and I buried him', and [the Israelite's] wife [on this evidence] was allowed to marry again. And, again it happened that a group  of men were going to Antiochia  and an idolater came and stated, 'Alas for that group  of men, for they died and I buried them', and [on this evidence] their wives were permitted to marry again. Moreover, it happened that sixty men were going to the camp  of Bether,  and an idolater came and stated, 'Alas for sixty men who were on the way to Bether, for they died and I buried them', and [on the basis of this statement] their wives were permitted to marry again. MISHNAH. EVIDENCE  MAY BE TENDERED [EVEN IF THE CORPSE WAS SEEN BY THE WITNESSES] IN CANDLE LIGHT OR IN MOONLIGHT; AND A WOMAN MAY BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO MARRY AGAIN ON THE EVIDENCE OF A MERE VOICE.  IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A MAN WAS STANDING ON THE TOP OF A HILL AND CRIED, SO-AND-SO SON OF SO-AND-SO OF SUCH-AND-SUCH A PLACE IS DEAD', BUT WHEN THEY WENT [TO THE TOP OF THE HILL] THEY FOUND NO ONE THERE. HIS WIFE, HOWEVER, WAS PERMITTED TO REMARRY.  AGAIN, IT HAPPENED AT ZALMON  THAT A MAN DECLARED, 'I AM SO-AND-SO SON OF SO-AND-SO; A SERPENT HAS BITTEN ME, AND I AM DYING'; AND THOUGH WHEN THEY WENT [TO EXAMINE THE CORPSE] THEY DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIM, THEY NEVERTHELESS PERMITTED HIS WIFE TO REMARRY. GEMARA. Rabbah b. Samuel stated: A Tanna taught that Beth Shammai ruled that a woman may not be permitted to marry again on the evidence of a mere voice  and Beth Hillel ruled that she may be permitted to marry again on the evidence of a mere voice.  What does he  teach us?  This,  surely, is the ruling in our Mishnah!  — It is this that he teaches us: Should an anonymous statement be found that a woman [in such circumstances] is not permitted to marry again, that [statement would represent the view of] Beth Shammai. BUT WHEN THEY WENT … THEY FOUND NO ONE. Is it not possible that it was a demon [that cried]?  — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: [This is a case] where they  saw in him the likeness of a man! But they  also are in the likeness of men! — They  saw his shadow. But these  also have a shadow! They  saw a shadow of his shadow. Is it not possible that these  also cast a shadow of a shadow? — R. Hanina replied: The demon Jonathan  told me that they  have a shadow but not a shadow of a shadow. Is it not possible that it was a rival [that cried]?  — A Tanna at the school of R. Ishmael taught that at a time of danger  [a letter of divorce] may be written and delivered [to the woman]  even if [the husband who gave the instructions]  is unknown [to the witnesses].  MISHNAH. R. AKIBA STATED: WHEN I WENT DOWN TO NEHARDEA TO INTERCALATE  THE YEAR, I MET NEHEMIAH OF BETH DELI  WHO SAID TO ME, 'I HEARD THAT IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL NO ONE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF R.  JUDAH B. BABA, PERMITS A [MARRIED] WOMAN TO MARRY AGAIN ON THE EVIDENCE OF ONE WITNESS'. 'THAT IS SO', I TOLD HIM. TELL THEM', HE SAID TO ME, 'IN MY NAME: (YOU KNOW THAT THIS COUNTRY  IS IN CONFUSION BY REASON OF RAIDERS);  I HAVE THIS  TRADITION FROM R. GAMALIEL THE ELDER: THAT A [MARRIED] WOMAN MAY BE ALLOWED TO MARRY AGAIN ON THE EVIDENCE OF ONE WITNESS'.  AND WHEN I CAME AND RECOUNTED THE CONVERSATION IN THE PRESENCE OF R. GAMALIEL  HE REJOICED AT MY INFORMATION AND EXCLAIMED, 'WE HAVE FOUND A COLLEAGUE  FOR R. JUDAH B. BABA!' AS A RESULT OF THIS TALK  R. GAMALIEL RECOLLECTED THAT SOME MEN WERE ONCE KILLED AT TEL ARZA,  AND THAT R. GAMALIEL [THE ELDER] HAD ALLOWED THEIR WIVES TO MARRY AGAIN ON THE EVIDENCE OF ONE WITNESS.  AND THE LAW WAS ESTABLISHED THAT [A WOMAN] SHALL BE ALLOWED TO MARRY AGAIN [ON THE EVIDENCE OF ONE] WITNESS [WHO STATES THAT HE HAS HEARD THE REPORT] FROM  ANOTHER WITNESS, FROM  A SLAVE, FROM  A WOMAN OR FROM  A BONDWOMAN. R. ELIEZER AND R. JOSHUA RULED: A WOMAN MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY AGAIN ON THE EVIDENCE OF ONE WITNESS.  R. AKIBA RULED: [A WOMAN IS NOT ALLOWED TO MARRY AGAIN] ON THE EVIDENCE OF  A WOMAN, ON THAT OF  A SLAVE, ON THAT  OF A BONDWOMAN OR ON THAT OF RELATIVES. GEMARA. Is R. Akiba then  of the opinion that on the evidence of  a woman,  [a wife is] not [permitted to marry again]? Surely, It was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated in the name of R. Akiba, '[That] a woman is eligible  to bring her own letter of divorce  is inferred a minori ad majus: If those women concerning whom the Rabbis ruled that they  are not believed when they state, "Her husband  is dead"57 are nevertheless eligible  to bring  her a letter of divorce,  how much more reasonable is it that this woman, who is believed when she states that her own husband is dead, should be eligible  to bring her own letter of divorce.' [Thus it follows that only] those women of whom the Rabbis have spoken  are not believed  but any other  woman is believed!  — This is no difficulty. One ruling  was made  before the law,  had been established; the other,  after the law  had been established. MISHNAH. THEY  SAID TO HIM:  'IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A NUMBER OF LEVITES WENT TO ZOAR,  THE CITY OF PALMS, AND ONE OF THEM WHO FELL. ILL WAS TAKEN BY THEM INTO AN INN. WHEN THEY RETURNED THEY ASKED THE INNKEEPER  WHERE IS OUR FRIEND?" AND SHE REPLIED, HE IS DEAD AND I BURIED HIM". [AND IT WAS ON THIS EVIDENCE THAT] HIS WIFE WAS PERMITTED TO MARRY AGAIN. SHOULD NOT THEN A PRIEST'S WIFE  [BE BELIEVED AT LEAST AS MUCH] AS THE INNKEEPER!'  HE ANSWERED THEM, WHEN SHE WILL BE [GIVING SUCH EVIDENCE] AS THE INNKEEPER SHE WILL BE BELIEVED. THE INNKEEPER [AS A MATTER OF FACT] HAD BROUGHT OUT TO THEM HIS  STAFF, HIS BAG  AND THE SCROLL OF THE LAW WHICH HE HAD WITH HIM.