Resources for Yevamos daf 118
1. The משנה says that if one wife says her husband died of illness and her cowife says he was killed, ר"מ says neither can get remarried since they contradict each other and cancel each other out. However, רבי יהודה ור"ש say that they can both get remarried since they both agree the husband is dead. The חשק שלמה here says that the way to understand this מחלוקת is based on the גמרא later on דף קכ"ב ע"ב. The גמרא there brings a ברייתא where ר"ע says we don’t do דרישה וחקירה to witnesses who testify that a husband is dead and ר׳ טרפון says we do since it affects דיני נפשות. דרישה וחקירה refers to questions like “what color shirt was he wearing?”. The חשק שלמה suggests that ר"מ holds like ר׳ טרפון that עדות אשה is similar to דיני נפשות and requires דרישה וחקירה. Consequently, since the two ladies contradict each other in some way then they can’t be believed. However, ר"י ור"ש hold like ר"ע that we don’t do דרישה וחקירה by עדות אשה. Therefore, even though the ladies contradict each other, it is irrelevant since we pasken that by cases where you don’t do דרישה וחקירה if the עדים contradict each other about a side point we accept their testimony.
2. The משנה says that if a woman says her husband died she is allowed to remarry but her cowife cannot. According to ר׳ טרפון, the צרה can continue to eat תרומה even if she is a בת ישראל שניסת לכהן. ר"ע disagrees and says she can no longer eat תרומה. Theשב שמעתתא in שמעתתא ז׳ פּרק ד brings the משנה למלך in הלכות גירושין פּרק י"ב הל׳ ט"ז ד"ה נסתפּקתי who has the following חקירה: when we say we don’t believe the צרה, do we mean that we not believe her at all “בתורת ודאות” or do we just not believe her לקולא but if the צרה was מקבל קידושין from someone else we would require a גט? He answers that this חקירה is the מחלוקת between ר׳ טרפון ור"ע as well as the מחלוקת רמב"ם וראב"ד in הלכות תרומות פּרק ט where theרמב"ם paskens like ר׳ טרפון that the צרה can eat תרומה and the ראב"ד paskens like ר"ע who holds she cannot. In other words, according to ר׳ טרפון, the wife’s words are completely discounted in relation to her צרה and we are not חושש for them at all. Therefore, she can continue to eat תרומה. However, ר"ע does not discount her words completely and is חושש for them לחומרא and she therefore cannot eat תרומה. The קצות himself disagrees and says that everyone agrees that if she received a קידושין from another man we would not be חושש for it at all. The reason is as follows: a wife shouldn’t be believed at all to testify about her husband being dead because אין דבר שבערוה פּחות משנים. We only believe her because the חכמים were עוקר דבר מן התורה because of עיגונא. Therefore, in cases where חז"ל didn’t believe her (like the case of a צרה), it goes back to the default where an עד אחד is not believed at all and קידושין would not be תופס. The מחלוקת about her eating תרומה is because we have a principle of עד אחד נאמן באיסורים. Therefore, even though the צרה may hate her, we should at least be חושש לחומרא that the other wife is telling the truth and not let her eat תרומה. ר׳ טרפון and the רמב"ם who paskens like him and say she can continue to eat תרומה hold like the ר"ן in ב"ב דף ל who says that if a given testimony is mostly about one thing (in his case ממונות) and it happens to affect something else (in his case איסור) then you must follow the rules of the עיקר testimony (in his case it would mean you need 2 עדים and not one). Therefore, the קצות suggests that ר׳ טרפון and the רמב"ם held that since the main testimony here is about a דבר שבערוה but it happens to affect איסור, we would still need two kosher עדים and a lone צרה would not be believed even for איסור.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Azriel Katz and Rabbi Pinchus Englander