There is a different distinction: We are not concerned that perhaps he has already died, which is why the mishna rules that she may continue to partake of teruma. However, in the case of one who stipulates that the bill of divorce will take effect one hour before his death, we are concerned that perhaps he will die at an unknown moment in the future and she will no longer be permitted to partake of teruma.

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: But the concern in the case of the wineskin is that it might burst before one is able to separate the teruma and tithes, which is similar to the concern that perhaps he will die, as both are concerns with respect to the future, and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree. Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: A wineskin is different, as it is possible to give it to a watchman who will protect it from bursting, which is why Rabbi Meir is not concerned that it might burst. This reasoning does not apply to the concern that the husband might die.

Rav Mesharshiyya objects to this answer: Your guarantor himself needs a guarantor, as there is no way of knowing that the guardian will not be negligent, so the wineskin may burst. Rather, Rava said: Everyone agrees that we are not concerned that perhaps he has already died, in accordance with the mishna here. As to the issue of whether there is a concern that perhaps he will die, as in the case of the baraita, this is a dispute between tanna’im.

§ The mishna teaches that in the case of one who sends his sin-offering from a country overseas, the priests may sacrifice it on the altar, based on the presumption that the one who sent it is still alive. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t an offering require the placing of hands on the head of an offering by the one who brings the offering? In this case the owner of the offering is elsewhere and cannot place his hands on the offering. Rav Yosef says: The mishna states this ruling with regard to the offering of women, as women are not required to place their hands on the head of their offerings. Rav Pappa says: The mishna states this ruling with regard to a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering, where it is not required that the owner place his hands on the head of the offering.

Noting that the mishna states the same halakha, that the presumption is that one remains alive, in three different contexts, the Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the mishna to state this in all three cases, as, if it had taught us only the case of a bill of divorce, one might have said that it is due to the fact that it is not possible to take into account the possible death of the husband, as there would then be no way for the husband to send a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent. That is why the presumption that the husband is alive is relied upon. But with regard to teruma, where it is possible for the wife to partake of non-sacred produce, say the presumption is not relied upon, and there is a concern that he died.

And if it had taught us also the case of teruma, one might have said that there are times that it is not possible for the wife to avoid partaking of teruma, e.g., if she does not have sufficient non-sacred produce. But with regard to a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering, one might say that for a situation of uncertainty as to whether the sin-offering may be sacrificed, since its owners might not be alive, one should not bring non-sacred animals, i.e., an animal that may not be sacrificed, into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to mention all of these cases.

MISHNA: Rabbi Elazar ben Perata said three statements before the Sages as testimony from previous generations, and they upheld his statements: He spoke concerning the residents of a town that was surrounded by a camp of besiegers [karkom]; and concerning the travelers in a ship that is cast about in the sea; and concerning one who is going out to be judged in a capital case; that they are all presumed to be alive.

However, concerning the residents of a town that was conquered by a camp of besiegers; and the travelers on a ship that was lost at sea; and one who is going out to be executed after receiving his verdict; in these cases one applies to them the stringencies of the living and the stringencies of the dead. How so? An Israelite woman married to a priest in one of these situations or a daughter of a priest married to an Israelite in one of these situations may not partake of teruma. The first woman may not do so because she may partake of teruma only while her husband is alive, and the second may not do so because she may partake of teruma only if he has died.

GEMARA: Rav Yosef says: They taught that one applies the stringencies of the living only to one who is being taken to be executed in a Jewish court, where even once he is being taken to be executed, he will be released if the court finds evidence for his innocence; but in a court of the nations of the world, once he is sentenced to death, he is killed in any case. Therefore, he should be considered as a dead man in every regard.

Abaye said to him: In a court of the nations of the world as well, perhaps they will not execute him, as they accept bribes. Rav Yosef said to him: When they take a bribe, it is only before the verdict [puresei shenmag] has been sealed; but after the verdict has been sealed, they do not take bribes.

According to Rav Yosef, in a Jewish court, even after one’s verdict is complete the presumption is that he is alive. The Gemara raises an objection to this from a mishna (Makkot 7a) concerning one who fled from the court after his verdict had been issued: Any place where two witnesses arise and say: We testify about so-and-so that his judgment was finalized in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, the halakha is that this person should be killed. It is evident from the mishna in tractate Makkot that there is no concern that the court may have later found a reason to release him. The Gemara answers: Perhaps one who flees is different, as the court will not reconsider his verdict once he has fled.

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear: If one heard from a Jewish court that they were saying: The man so-and-so died, or: The man so-and-so was killed, then the court allows his wife to marry. If he heard from a gentile judicial registrar [komentirisin]: The man so-and-so died, or: The man so-and-so was killed, then the court does not allow his wife to marry.

The Gemara clarifies: What does it mean when it says: Died, and what does it mean when it says: Was killed? If we say that: Died, means that he actually died, and: Was killed, means that he was actually killed, such that the case concerning the gentiles is stated in a similar manner, i.e., that he heard from the gentile registrar that the person was actually dead, why may the court not allow his wife to marry? Don’t we maintain that with regard to any gentile who speaks offhandedly, the Sages deemed him credible? Therefore, the gentile should be deemed credible when he says that someone died or was killed.

Rather, is it not necessary to explain that when it says: Died, it means that he is going out to die, and when it says: Was killed, it means going out to be executed. And it teaches that if it occurred in a Jewish court then the court allows his wife to marry, as it is assumed that he was already executed, contrary to the statement of Rav Yosef.

The Gemara answers: Actually, it can be explained that he actually died, and actually was killed. And with regard to that which you said: Such that the case concerning the gentiles is stated in a similar manner, why may the court not allow his wife to marry? Don’t we maintain that with regard to any gentile who speaks offhandedly, the Sages deemed him credible? The answer is that this credibility applies only in a matter that is not relevant to the gentiles; but in a matter that is relevant to the gentiles, such as here, where they desire to publicize that they carried out their verdict, it is common for them to reinforce their false verdict, i.e., once they reach a verdict they will say that the accused was killed. Therefore, one cannot rely on their statements.

This is one version of the discourse; there is also another version: There are those who say that Rav Yosef said: They taught that one applies the stringencies of the living and the dead only in a court of the nations of the world;