(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld


Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 115

1) BELIEVING A WOMAN WITH A "MIGU"

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a case in which a woman testifies that there was a war in a certain place and that her husband died there. We only know of the war because of her testimony. The Gemara asks whether or not she is believed. On one hand, she has a Migu that if she was lying, she would have said that there was peace in that place, and then she would have been believed to say that her husband died there. On the other hand, perhaps a Migu will not be effective in this case, because we are not afraid that she is lying but only that she is assuming that her husband died without knowing for certain ("bid'Dami"). Since she thinks she is telling the truth (but has merely reached an incorrect conclusion), the logic of a Migu will not help her because she is not trying to lie.

Why does the Gemara ask that she should be believed because of the Migu? It is clear that we are not afraid that she is lying, so it should not matter that she had the opportunity to lie and say a better claim!

Furthermore, if the logic of Migu can be applied when she testifies that her husband is dead, then why do we say that in a time of war or famine she is not believed? In those cases, also, she should be believed because of a Migu -- if she was lying she would have said a better claim: in a time of war, that her husband died upon his bed, and in a time of famine, that her husband died and she buried him!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (114b, DH Mi) writes that the Gemara is not actually suggesting that she should be believed because of a Migu. Indeed, we are not afraid that she is lying, and thus a normal Migu cannot apply in order to give her trustworthiness. Rather, the Gemara is saying that this Migu is proving that the woman was very careful to *verify the facts* of her testimony even though it was a time of war.

How does the Migu prove that she was careful to verify the facts?

This woman could have come to Beis Din and said simply that her husband died. She did not have to add any details. However, she added pertinent details to her testimony which Beis Din did not ask her about (i.e. that there was a war, and that her husband died from the war). We would not have known these details without her testimony. Since we see that she was so careful to point out the details because she was afraid that it might affect the outcome of her testimony, we may assume that she was careful about her testimony and is not adding anything based on conjecture.

That is the question of the Gemara in our Sugya -- does her addition of facts in her testimony prove that she is telling the truth (like a Migu), or not?

In contrast, in the case where it is already known that there is a war or famine and the woman says simply that her husband died, she has no Migu that she could have said that he died upon his bed, or that he died and she buried him, because we know that she is not trying to lie and a Migu only helps a person whom we suspect of trying to lie. Likewise, we have no proof that she verified the details of her testimony, because she is adding no pertinent details to her testimony, and therefore we suspect that she is testifying based on conjecture, "bid'Dami."

(b) The RASHBA, RITVA, and TOSFOS CHAD MI'KAMAI explain the Migu of the Gemara slightly differently than Tosfos. They do not consider the Migu to be proof that she verified the details by the mere fact that she informed us that there was a war. Rather, she is believed for a different reason.

The Migu is not that if she is lying, she could have said a better lie. Rather, the Migu we are discussing is that she did not have to say a lie at all; she could have just said nothing about the war! Not mentioning that there was a war in progress is not a lie, yet it would cause us to believe her to say that her husband died. Since she could have been believed *without lying* at all, when she mentions that there was a war in progress -- a fact which will be to her detriment (because she knows that the Beis Din will say that she is only conjecturing, "bid'Dami," since there is a war) -- she should be believed. She told us about the war only because she knows that she is *not* based on conjecture and that what she is saying is absolutely true.

This also answers why there is no Migu when a woman says that her husband died in a normal case of war or famine. When she says that her husband died, the Migu that she could have said that her husband died on his bed, or that he died and she buried him, does not enable us to believe her now, because the woman does not want to use those claims since she has no desire to lie.

(c) TOSFOS CHAD MI'KAMAI cites RABEINU MOSHE BAR YOSEF who says that the woman has no Migu to say that the husband died on his bed during a war, because it will look very suspicious if she says that he died a natural death during a time of war. (Tosfos also mentions this, apparently as a second answer to his question.)

However, Tosfos Chad me'Kamai (and the HAGAHOS MAYIM CHAYIM on Tosfos) asks that even if this is true, it will not answer why she has not Migu to say "he died and I buried him." Both is cases of war and famine she should have a Migu that she could have said that she buried him! There is no reason for her to be afraid to say that, and thus it should be a good Migu!

The answer might be as follows. If a woman knows that the Beis Din does not believe her in a time of war or famine, it is not because she thinks that they suspect her of conjecturing ("bid'Dami"). Rather, she thinks that Beis Din does not trust her in a time of war because they assume that she is using the war as an excuse to claim that her husband died. She does not reason that they do not suspect her of lying and that they do not accept her testimony because she says "bid'Dami." If so, when she says "he died and I buried him," there is no more reason to believe her than when she says simply that he died, because she thinks that it makes no difference what she says, and that is why she did not mention that she buried him! (This might also explain why Tosfos did not ask the question from the Migu of "he died and I buried him" but only from the Migu of "he died on his bed.")

Regarding why the Gemara suggests that she has a Migu in the first place if she is not trying to lie at all, perhaps Rabeinu Moshe bar Yosef learns that even when she is saying "bid'Dami" and thinks that she is telling the truth, she knows that she is not saying the facts *exactly* as they are. She is saying that she saw her husband dead, when really she only saw him *almost* dead; it is just that she is so certain that he is dead that she is willing to exaggerate so that no one will doubt what she says. As such, she should be believed with a Migu, because once she knows that she is altering the facts, she might alter the facts even more so that they will accept her testimony with no questions.

(Why, according to this, is she believed to say "he died and I buried him?" Once we suspect her of lying, she might lie about his burial as well! The answer is that a woman will not lie about what happened after her husband's death (i.e. about his burial) in order to strengthen her testimony, because she does not realize that it will affect her testimony.) (M. Kornfeld)


115b

Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il