Resources for Yevamos daf 116
1. The משנה says that ר׳ יהודה required a woman to be visibly upset in order to accept her testimony that her husband died. The גמרא says that a woman came before ר׳ יהודה to say her husband died but wasn’t crying. Some Rabbis who knew what ר׳ יהודה held told the woman to cry so she would be believed. The גמרא asks how they could have done this and answers they held like the רבנן that maintain that a woman doesn’t need to be crying. The ערוך לנר asks how is that an acceptable excuse? Are we to learn from here that if you don’t hold that something is אסור you can feed it to your friend who holds it is אסור? There is a similar גמרא in סוכה דף י׳ ע"ב that says that רב נחמן put רב חסדא ורבה בר בר חנה in a סוכה they held was פּסול which he held was כשר and didn’t tell them that the סוכה was פּסול according to their שיטה. The ריטב"א there says that some learn from there that you are allowed to be מכשיל someone in what they hold to be אסור if you know its מותר. However, the ריטב"א there disagrees since the גמרא in חולין דף קי"א says pretty clearly that you can’t feed someone something that they hold is not כשר. Rather, the reason it was ok by the גמרא in סוכה was because the אמוראים could see the issue themselves if they had looked well. The ערוך לנר says that there no proof from our גמרא either since ר׳ יהודה was a דעת יחיד and his opinion was not considered valid.
2. The גמרא asks if we would believe a single witness when we know the husband and wife were fighting (קטטה). The question hinges on whether we believe an עד אחד only in conjunction with אשה דייקא ומנסבא which would not apply to woman who hates her husband or do we believe the עד אחד because it is a מילתא דעבידא לגלויי so we know he won’t lie. The גמרא leaves it as a תיקו. The ריטב"א and others point out that the גמרא earlier had this exact same question regarding believing an עד אחד in times of war and the גמרא came out that the נאמנות is based on מילתא דעבידא לגלויי so we could believe the עד אחד. It should follow therefore that להלכה we should be believe an עד אחד in a case of קטטה as well. Nonetheless, the רי"ף in our גמרא says an עד אחד cannot believed yet by the case of wartime he says an עד אחד can be believed. Even more unusual is that theרמב"ם in הלכות גירושין פּרק י"ג הל׳ א says the עד אחד isn’t believed when there is קטטה since we are afraid she hired the witness to get her out of the marriage. The ריטב"א asks where did the רמב"ם get this חשש from? The גמרא certainly never mentions that חשש. The ביאור הגר"א in אבן העזר סימן י"ז אות קמ"ז says that the רמב"ם didn’t have the גירסא on our דף that we do. The רמב"ם ’s גמרא just asked if we believe a single witness when there is קטטה and didn’t give the צדדים why we would or would not believe him like our גירסא does. Therefore, since the earlier גמרא already paskened that we trust an עד אחד because of מילתא דעבידא לאגלויי, it must be that in a case of קטטה there is an added concern which theרמב"ם understood to be that the woman would hire a false witness. That would explain both the רי"ף and רמב"ם being מחמיר by anעד אחד by קטטה yet being מקיל by מלחמה.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Azriel Katz and Rabbi Pinchus Englander