|  |  | Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth ### Folio 23a What is the difference between the first case and the second case? — Abaye said: Explain it1 [that it speaks] of one witness.2 When one witness says [that] she has been betrothed and one witness says [that] she has not been betrothed, they both testify to an unmarried woman, and he who says [that] she has been betrothed is one, and the words of one have no validity against two. In the second case [where] one witness says [that] she has been divorced and one witness says [that] she has not been divorced, they both testify to a married woman, and he who says that she has been divorced is one, and the words of one have no validity against two. R. Ashi said: Indeed, they are two and two, and reverse it.3 When two say, 'we have seen4 that she has been betrothed', and two Say, we have not seen that she has been betrothed, she shall not marry [another man], and if she has married she goes out.' [But] this is obvious! 'We have not seen' is no evidence! — It is not [so obvious], as it is needed for the case when they dwelt in one courtyard; one might say, 'if she had been betrothed it would have been known,'5 so he lets us hear that there are people who get betrothed quietly. In the second case, when two say, 'we have seen that she has been divorced,' and two say, 'we have not seen that she has been divorced, she shall not marry again, and if she has married she shall not go out,' what does he let us hear [by this case]?6 Although they live in the same courtyard! [But then] this is the same!7 — One might say that with regard to betrothal it happens that people get betrothed quietly. but with regard to divorce. if she had been divorced, it would have been known, so he lets us hear that there are people who get betrothed and get divorced quietly. AND IF WITNESSES COME AFTER SHE GOT MARRIED. SHE SHALL NOT GO OUT. R. Oshaia refers it8 to the first clause.9 Rabbah b. Abin refers it to the second clause.10 He who refers it to the first clause, how much more [does he refer it] to the second clause, for in the case of a captive woman they have made it lenient.11 But he who refers it to the second clause does not refer it to the first clause.12 Is it to say that they differ concerning the view of R. Hamnuna: that he who refers it to the first clause holds the view of R. Hamnuna,13 and he who refers it [only] to the second clause does not hold the View of R. Hamnuna? — No, all hold the view of R. Hamnuna. and here they differ in this: one argues: When was that of R. Hamnuna said?14 In his presence,15 but in his absence she is impudent,16 and one holds [that] in his absence also she is not impudent.17 AND IF WITNESSES CAME AFTER SHE GOT MARRIED. etc. The father of Samuel said: 'SHE GOT MARRIED', does not mean, 'she actually got married'. but 'as soon as they18 allowed her to get married', even if she did not get married yet. But it says: SHE SHALL NOT GO OUT'!19 — [This means] she shall not go out from her first permission.20 Our Rabbis taught: When she says. 'I was taken captive. and I am pure, and I have witnesses that I am pure. they18 do not say: We will wait until the witnesses come, but they18 allow her at once [to marry]. If they18 allowed her to marry and then the witnesses came and said, 'we do not know',21 then she shall not go out. But if witnesses of defilement22 came, even if she has many children she shall go out.23 Certain women captives came once to Nehardea. The father of Samuel24 placed watchmen with them.25 Said Samuel to him: And who watched them till now? Said he to him: 'If they had been thy daughters wouldst thou also have spoken of them so lightly?' It was 'as an error which proceedeth from before the ruler,'26 and the daughters of Mar Samuel were taken captive. And they were brought27 to the Land of Israel. They let their captors stand outside and they went in into the school of R. Hanina. This One28 said, 'I was taken captive and I am pure,' and that one said. 'I was taken captive and I am pure. [So] they18 allowed them.29 Then the captors entered. R. Hanina [thereupon] said: They are the children of a Scholar.30 It [then] became known31 that they were the daughters of Mar Samuel. R. Hanina [thereupon] said to R. Shaman b. Abba: Go and take care of thy relatives.32 Said he to R. Hanina: But there are witnesses in the country beyond the sea!33 — Now, however. they are not before us. Witnesses are in the North,34 and [therefore] she shall be forbidden [to marry]? [Now] the reason35 is because no witnesses came,36 but if witnesses came she37 is forbidden! But did not the father of Samuel say: As soon as they allowed her to get married, even if she did not get married?38 R. Ashi said: It was stated: Witnesses of defilement.39 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The Baraitha just quoted. For each evidence. In the first case she has to go out, and in the second case she need not go out. This, too, is a new element. Lit., 'there is a voice in the matter'. 'We have not seen' is no evidence! As in the first case. The sentence just quoted. Of our Mishnah, referring to the claim of the woman that she was divorced. Referring to her claim that she remained chaste in captivity. Since it is only presumed that she may have been cohabited with. Lit., 'but to the first clause, no'. V. supra 22b. I.e., with regard to what case did R. Hamnuna express that view. In the presence of the husband. [And therefore she would have to go out if witnesses came after she married and said that she was a married woman.] And therefore she need not go out. The Court. This would imply that she did get married. I.e., from the permission given her by the Court to get married. That permission stands. Whether she is pure or not. I.e., witnesses who say that she was defiled while in captivity. If the husband is a priest. Abba the son of Abba. To guard them until they had been redeemed. V. Eccl. X, 5. The words that escaped the lips of Samuel had bad results. Lit., and they (the captors) brought them'. One of the daughters of Samuel. To marry even a priest. Since they left the captors outside they were their own witnesses, and the principle of 'the mouth that forbids is the mouth that permits' applied. Lit., 'the matter was revealed'. I.e., marry one of them. [R. Shaman was a priest and relative of Samuel (Rashi).] I.e., 'There are witnesses in a far country, and they may come and testify to the daughters of Samuel having been in captivity. [And defiled; (v. Tosaf.).] [H]. Assyrian, istan, 'north', v. Kid. 12b. Why she is allowed to marry. To testify. cf. n. 2. I.e., each one of the daughters. And if witnesses came afterwards, she may get married. Only to witnesses who testify that the woman was actually defiled during her captivity, would annul the permission given for bet to get married but witnesses who testify only to bet having been in captivity would not affect that permission. There is then no conflict between R. Hanina and the father of Samuel. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Kethuboth 23b MISHNAH. IF TWO WOMEN WERE TAKEN CAPTIVE, [AND NOW] ONE SAYS, 'I WAS TAKEN CAPTIVE AND I AM PURE, AND THE OTHER ONE SAYS. I WAS TAKEN CAPTIVE AND I AM PURE.' THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED. BUT WHEN THEY TESTIFY TO ONE ANOTHER, THEY ARE BELIEVED. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [If she says]. 'I am impure and my friend is pure,' she is believed; 'I am pure and my friend is impure', she is not believed; 'I and my friend are impure', she is believed as to herself and she is not believed as to her friend; 'I and my friend are pure'; she is believed as to her friend and she is not believed as to herself. The Master said: '[If she says]. "I am pure and my friend is impure", she is not believed'. How shall we imagine this case? If there are no witnesses,1 why is she not believed as to herself? She says, 'I was taken captive and I am pure!'2 Hence it is plain that there are witnesses. [Now] read the middle clause: '"I and my friend are impure"; she is believed as to herself and she is not believed as to her friend'. But if there are witnesses, why is she not believed?3 Hence it is plain that there are no witnesses. [Now] read the last clause: '"l and my friend are pure"; she is believed as to her friend and she is not believed as to herself'. But if there are no witnesses, why is she not believed as to herself? Hence it is plain that there are witnesses. The first clause and the last clause when there are witnesses, [and] the middle clause when there are no witnesses? — Abaye said: Yes, the first clause and the last clause when there are witnesses, [and] the middle clause when there are no witnesses. R. Papa said: The whole of it [speaks] of where there are witnesses, but there is one witness who reverses.4 [If] she says, 'I am impure and my friend is pure', and the one witness says to her, 'thou art pure and thy friend is impure', she has declared herself forbidden,5 [and] her friend becomes permitted through her testimony.6 If [she says] 'I am pure and my friend is impure', and the one witness says to her, 'Thou art impure and thy friend is pure', since there are witnesses,7 she is not believed8 [as to herself], [and] her friend becomes permitted through the testimony9 of the [one] witness. [If she says], 'I and my friend are impure.' and the one witness says to her, 'thou and thy friend are pure,' she has declared herself forbidden, [and] her friend becomes permitted through the testimony of the [one] witness. What need is there again for this?10 It is [the same as in] the first part!11 — You might have said [that] they are both pure and the reason why she says so12 is that she acts [in accordance with the saying:] 'Let me die with the Philistines',13 so he lets us hear.14 [If she says] 'I and my friend are pure', and the one witness says to her, 'Thou and thy friend are impure', since there are witnesses,15 she is not believed,' [and] her friend becomes permitted through her testimony.16 What need is there again for this? It is [the same as in] the very first clause!17 — You might have said [that] she is believed18 only when she declares herself as unfit,19 but when she declares herself as fit20 I might say that she is not believed,21 so he lets us hear22 [that this is not so]. MISHNAH. AND LIKEWISE TWO MEN, [IF] ONE SAYS, 'I AM A PRIEST',23 AND THE OTHER SAYS. 'I AM A PRIEST', THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED.24 BUT WHEN THEY TESTIFY TO ONE ANOTHER, THEY ARE BELIEVED. R. JUDAH SAID: ONE DOES NOT RAISE [A PERSON] TO THE PRIESTHOOD THROUGH THE TESTIMONY25 OF ONE WITNESS. R. ELEAZAR SAID: ONLY THEN, WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO OBJECT;26 BUT WHEN THERE ARE NO PEOPLE WHO OBJECT. ONE RAISES [A PERSON] TO THE PRIESTHOOD THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS IN THE NAME OF R. SIMEON: THE SON OF THE CHIEF OF THE PRIESTS:27 ONE RAISES [A PERSON] TO THE PRIESTHOOD THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS. GEMARA. What need is there for all these [cases]?28 They are needed. For if he had stated [only the case of] 'R. Joshua admits'29 [I might have said that only in that case is that principle applied]. because there is a possible loss of money.30 but [in the case of] 'If witnesses say this is our handwriting'31 where there is no possible loss of money.32 I would not say so.33 And if he had stated [the case of] 'If witnesses say this is our handwriting'. [I might have said that Only in that case does that principle apply] because [their statement concerns] other people.34 but where it concerns himself35 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files That she and bet friend were taken captive. And in accordance with the principle in the Mishnah, supra 22a, she should be believed. As to her friend. Her testimony. V. supra p. 121. n. 9. Lit., 'through her mouth'. [For in regard to a captive woman, he evidence of one in favour of her chastity is sufficient, v. infra 27a.] That she and her friend were taken captive. Lit., 'all is not as if from her', i.e., as if dependent on her, (Jast.). The fact that she was taken captive is known from the evidence of the witnesses and not only from her testimony. Lit., 'mouth'. The last statement. [From the two cases in the first part we learn the two principles that her own evidence as to her having become impure must stand, and that the evidence of the witness in favour of chastity is sufficient.] Lit., 'and this that she says so', — that they ate both impure. Judg., XVI, 30. She applies to herself and to her friend the well-known Saying of Samson, that is, though she is pure she says that she is impure, so that she should be believed as to her friend, of whom she says that she is impure. That she is believed as to herself but not as to her friend. That she and her friend were taken captive. Lit., 'through her mouth'. From here we learn that one witness is believed to attest the purity of the captive woman, even if there is another one contradicting him. As to her friend. Impure. Pure. As to her friend. Also the last case. Of priestly stock. To be given terumah; (v. Glos.). Lit., 'mouth'. Lit., 'when? In the place in which there are objectors'. — The objectors say that he is not of priestly descent or legitimate origin. Segan, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 97, n. 1. In the preceding Mishnahs from the beginning of this chapter (supra 15b)to this last Mishnah. All these have been cases taught in illustration of the same principle of 'the mouth that forbids is the mouth that permits'. Supra 15b. [His first statement that 'This field belonged to thy father', carries with It a possible loss of money. and it must therefore be taken in conjunction with the subsequent statement, 'But I bought it of him'.] Supra 18b. [There the witnesses themselves stand to lose nothing by this statement.] Lit., 'I would say, no'. I.e., I would not apply here the principle of 'the mouth that forbids is the mouth that permits', and their second statement that they acted under constraint etc. is not accepted. Lit., 'because for the world' — The statement of the witnesses does not concern themselves but others. As in the case of 'R. Joshua admits'. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |