Yerushalmi Yevamot 16:5 ירושלמי יבמות ט״ז:ה׳

MISHNAH: It is sufficient even if somebody heard women say, the man X died⁹²A woman can be permitted to remarry on the basis of hearsay testimony based on statements overheard from people who themselves would not be accepted as witnesses.. Rebbi Jehudah said, even if he heard children say, we go to lament and bury X, whether intentional or unintentional. Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba said, if he is a Jew, only if he intends [to testify]⁹³Only if he knows the consequences of his testimony and is presumed to be as accurate as possible.; but if a Gentile intends to testify, it is no testimony⁹⁴He is suspected of ulterior motives; Ps. 144:8,11..

HALAKHAH: “Even if somebody heard women.” If one heard lamenting women eulogizing him among the dead, there is no better testinony than that. From the king’s commentariensis⁹⁷Latin commentarienses “ one who makes out a list of prisoners” (Cod. Just. 9,4,4). His certification that a certain person convicted of a capital crime appears on his list is insufficient since this might only indicate the civil death of the person, viz., that from the emperor’s prison the man was sold into slavery., “X died, X was killed”, one does not let his wife remarry. From a Jewish court⁹⁸As indicated in Note 96, this reading is from ms. A; it is suspect since it appears in the Babli, Giṭṭin 28b. The reading was conjectured by the earlier commentators on basis of the Babli. (One ms. of Giṭṭin reads: “If one heard from a Jewish judge,” cf. M. S. Feldblum, Tractate Giṭṭin, New York 1966). Both Babli readings make sense only if one assumes that the baraita dates at the latest to the first Century C. E. as detailed in the last Mishnah, before hearsay evidence became acceptable. But then the part dealing with the king’s secretary of prisons also would not represent current practice. The difficulty the Babli has with explaining the rejection of indications from a government secretary and the text of the Yerushalmi here make it clear that both Talmudim accept the baraita as reflecting practice.
Therefore, the reading “third party court”, while rejected by all commentators and questioned by the Academy of the Hebrew Language, seems to be the preferable one, appearing as, but not being, lectio difficilior. If we accept the reading, the evidence presented is still hearsay evidence., “X died, X was killed”, one lets his wife remarry.

X was lost, X was shaken off, X is not in the world¹⁰⁰It is shown that these expressions do not necessarily imply that X is dead; his wife cannot remarry.. “X was lost,” I say he was embarrassed¹⁰¹Arabic ربك.. “X was shaken off,” I say that X vomited his food¹⁰²He was sick and could not keep down his food.. “X is not in the world,” he is lost in tought. “His ship sank in the sea;” that parallels what Rebbi Abba bar Zavida said in the name of Rav: It happened that Abba Simai’s ship sank in the sea but he was not on it; here it is the same.

What means “intentional”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, anytime one mentions a woman¹⁰⁵If in a conversation one mentions any woman and somebody says, speaking of women I remember that here is a woman who became a widow and she does not know it yet. Such a statement is acceptable if made by a Jew but not by a Gentile.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anybody one asks and he responds¹⁰⁶In the Babli, 121b, R. Simeon ben Laqish states that the testimony of the Gentile is accepted if he wants to tell about the death of Mr. X if he did not know that X was married and that his testimony will let the widow remarry. R. Joḥanan points out that the case quoted here by R. Ḥaggai that R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position was not accepted. The Babli accepts the Gentile only if he tells his story without ulterior motives.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, does the Rabbi remember that ¹⁰⁷In the Babli, 121b, the argument was with 85 Elders supporting what in the next generation would become R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position. thirty and some Elders were up in arms against Rebbi Hoshaiah to follow the rule of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but he did not accept it¹⁰⁸The common position of R. Joḥanan and R. Hoshaia certainly defines practice, even against a majority of dissenting Elders.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel¹⁰⁹It is not necessary that the death be reported in a formal testimony; the information is accepted even if gleaned in an accidental way.. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob]¹¹⁰ר׳ עקיבה is a scribal error. bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination¹¹¹“Questions and investigations” are required in criminal inquiries (Deut. 13:15). חקירות are obligatory questions to determine time and place of the crime without which no prosecution can be successful. דרישות are questions which depend on the circumstances of the case.. ¹¹²The same story in the Babli, 122b; a short version is in Tosephta 14:9. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla¹¹³In the Tosephta כפר שחרא, in the Babli כפר שיחיא.. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan¹¹⁴It is obvious that one must read “Jonathan ben Joḥanan” as in the other two sources. the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry¹¹⁵In the Babli, R. Tarphon cross-examined the witness only for the purpose of permitting the wife of the deceased to remarry.. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination¹¹⁶In the Babli, 122b, that is the position of R. Aqiba., against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.