פירוש על יבמות 16:1

A woman whose husband went overseas, and has been testified to be dead, even by one witness, even the witness being a slave or a maidservant or a woman or a relative, is free. and even a witness from the words of a witness, or a woman from the words of a woman, or a slave or a maidservant or a relative, are worthy of this testimony. and testimony invalids, if by Rabbis, are fit for this testimony. but testimony invalids by Torah, are invalid. and if [they are] innocently speaking, [they are] fit. and so a Cuthean or an Israelite converted to idolatry and for the whole torah, if he's innocently speaking, [he is] trustworthy. ???: no witness came in the above manners, only a rumour is going out in town, that [he's] dead, his wife is not wedded.

A woman whose husband went overseas, and has been testified to be dead, even by one witness, even the witness being a slave or a maidservant or a woman or a relative, is free. and even a witness from the words of a witness, or a woman from the words of a woman, or a slave or a maidservant or a relative, are worthy of this testimony. and testimony invalids, if by Rabbis, are fit for this testimony. but testimony invalids by Torah, are invalid. and if [they are] innocently speaking, [they are] fit. and so a Cuthean or an Israelite converted to idolatry and for the whole torah, if he's innocently speaking, [he is] trustworthy. ???: no witness came in the above manners, only a rumour is going out in town, that [he's] dead, his wife is not wedded.

We have already said that a witness who stated: "I heard that so-and-so died," even if he heard from a woman who heard from a (Canaanite) slave, this is still acceptable for testimony, and we allow a woman to remarry on his word. Note: Even if did not say from whom he had heard the information, and only said that he heard the information, it is still acceptable, and we do not worry that the original witness was an invalid witness. But if the witness or woman or witness said: "So-and-so died, and I saw him die," we ask him: "How did you see, and how do you know [he died]?" If he testifies clearly in the matter, he is believed. But if he testified that most people die [in such circumstances], we do not allow the woman to remarry, because we do accept testimony regarding death unless he certainly died, without any doubt. Note: If he heard professional weepers who mentioned his name among the dead and eulogized him, we allow the wife to remarry (so wrote Magid Mishna in the name of Tosefta). Therefore we caution women not to eulogize someone on the basis of accepted suppositions (i.e. circumstantial evidence) that a man died, and not to weep for him until we know [certainly] that he died. Similarly, his wife is forbidden to mourn him or to wear black clothes as long as there is no definitive evidence sufficient to allow her to remarry (logical derivation of the Rav, and so writes Rivash chaper 508). Similarly no court should give a writ of testimony to a woman as to what the witnesses testified in front of them, if that testimony is insufficient to allow her to remarry, unless the explicitly write why they did not permit her to remarry on the basis of that testimony, for we worry of potential pitfalls which may occur with inexpert courts (ibid. in Responsa Rivash).