Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 29, 2022 | 讗壮 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 23

This week’s learning is dedicated by Marcia Baum in loving memory of Chaim Simcha ben Aharon Halevi and Liba on his 19th yahrzeit today. “My father was a larger than life individual whose impact is still felt many years after his petirah. He is missed every day.”

The daughters of Shmuel were taken captive and yet knew how to save themselves from being prohibited to marry a kohen. If two women testify each about the other that they were not raped in captivity are they believed? Do we need to be concerned that they are lying for each other? What about two men testifying each about the other that he is a kohen?

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the baraita with regard to betrothal, where, if she married another, she need not leave her husband; and what is different in the second clause with regard to divorce, where, if she remarried, she must leave her husband?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讙诪讛 讘注讚 讗讞讚 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞转拽讚砖讛 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘驻谞讜讬讛 拽诪住讛讚讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 谞转拽讚砖讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐

Abaye said: Interpret the baraita in a case in which each testimony was given by one witness. If one witness says: She was betrothed, and one witness says: She was not betrothed, they are both testifying that she was unmarried. And that witness who says that she was betrothed is one witness, and the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses.

住讬驻讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞转讙专砖讛 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞转讙专砖讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 拽诪住讛讚讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 谞转讙专砖讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐

In the latter clause, if one witness says: She was divorced, and one witness says: She was not divorced, they are both testifying that she was a married woman. And that witness who says that she was divorced is one witness, and the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses. Therefore, even if she remarried she must leave her husband.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 转专讬 讜转专讬 讜讗讬驻讜讱 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讗讬谞讜讛 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 专讗讬谞讜讛 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讗 转谞砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗转 转爪讗

Rav Ashi said: Actually it is a case where there are two witnesses testifying that she is betrothed and divorced, and two testifying that she is not betrothed and divorced. And in order to explain the difference between the first and latter clauses, reverse the two rulings. In the first clause, if two witnesses say: We saw her that she was betrothed, and two witnesses say: We did not see her that she was betrothed, this woman may not marry, and if she marries she must leave her husband.

驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 专讗讬谞讜讛 讗讬谞讛 专讗讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讚讬讬专讬 讘讞爪专 讗讞讚 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚谞转拽讚砖讛 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛 诇诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪拽讚砖讬 讘爪谞注讗

The Gemara asks: In that case, it is obvious that she must leave her husband, as testimony that we did not see her is not effective proof. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the woman and the witnesses reside in one courtyard. Lest you say: If it is so that she was betrothed, the matter generates publicity, and the fact that the neighbors did not see that she was betrothed indicates that she was not, therefore the baraita teaches us that people are prone to betroth a woman in private, with even their neighbors unaware of the betrothal.

住讬驻讗 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讗讬谞讜讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 专讗讬谞讜讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讗 转谞砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗转 诇讗 转爪讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讚讬讬专讬 讘讞爪专 讗讞讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱

In the latter clause of the baraita, if two witnesses say: We saw her that she was divorced, and two witnesses say: We did not see her that she was divorced, this woman may not remarry, and if she remarries, she need not leave her husband. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita teaching us? In this case, too, the fact that the witnesses did not see the divorce proves nothing. The Gemara answers: It teaches that although the witnesses and the woman live in one courtyard and presumably the witnesses would know if she was divorced, their testimony proves nothing. The Gemara asks: This is identical to that novel element taught in the first clause, that neighbors are not necessarily aware of what transpires elsewhere in the courtyard.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讙讘讬 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪拽讚砖讬 讘爪谞注讗 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗讬讙专砖讗 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛 诇诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪拽讚砖讬 讜讚诪讙专砖讬 讘爪谞注讗

The Gemara explains that there is a novel element in this halakha. Lest you say that it is with regard to betrothal that people are prone to betroth a woman in private; however, with regard to divorce, if it is so that she was divorced, it would generate publicity, as divorce is typically the culmination of a period of incompatibility that is often public. Therefore, the latter clause teaches us that people are prone to both betroth and divorce in private. Consequently, the fact that the witnesses did not see that she was betrothed and divorced proves nothing.

讜讗诐 诪砖谞砖讗转 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 诇讗 转爪讗 讻讜壮 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗

搂 We learned in the mishna: And if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband. Two cases were cited in the mishna, one with regard to a divorc茅e and one with regard to a woman taken captive, and to which of these cases this halakha is referring is a matter of dispute. Rabbi Oshaya taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna, where the woman claims that she was divorced. Rabba bar Avin taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, where the woman claims that she was taken captive and remained pure.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗住讬驻讗 讚讘砖讘讜讬讛 讛拽讬诇讜 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗专讬砖讗 诇讗

The Gemara notes: The one who taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna, all the more so would he teach it in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, as, in general, with regard to the status of a captive woman, the Sages were lenient, because the prohibition is the result of suspicion and uncertainty as far as what transpired during her period of captivity. And with regard to the one who taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, however, in reference to the first clause of the mishna, no, he would not necessarily teach this halakha.

诇讬诪讗 讘讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗

The Gemara explains: Let us say it is with regard to the presumption of Rav Hamnuna that these amora鈥檌m disagree. The one who taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna and maintains that if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband, he holds in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna, who said that a woman is not insolent in the presence of her husband, and therefore her claim that she was divorced is accepted. And the one who taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna and rules that the woman taken captive need not leave her husband the priest, while the woman who claims that she was divorced must leave her husband, he does not hold in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诪注讬讝讛 讜诪专 住讘专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 诪注讬讝讛

The Gemara rejects that explanation: No, actually everyone holds in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna, and here it is with regard to this that they disagree, as one Sage, who holds that the woman who claims that she was divorced must leave her husband, maintains that when the presumption of Rav Hamnuna was stated, it was stated specifically in a case where she was in his presence; however, when she is not in his presence, she is insolent. And one Sage, who holds that the woman who claims that she was divorced need not leave her husband, maintains that when not in his presence she is also not insolent. Therefore, her claim that she was divorced is accepted.

讜讗诐 诪砖谞砖讗转 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 谞砖讗转 谞砖讗转 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讛转讬专讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞砖讗转 讜讛讗 诇讗 转爪讗 拽转谞讬 诇讗 转爪讗 诪讛转讬专讛 讛专讗砖讜谉

搂 We learned in the mishna: And if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband. The father of Shmuel said: Married does not mean actually married; rather, once the court permitted her to marry, although she has not yet married, she need not leave her husband. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna teach: She need not leave, meaning that she need not leave her husband? The Gemara explains: That phrase in this context means that even if witnesses come, she does not emerge from her initial permitted status.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专讛 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 讜讬砖 诇讬 注讚讬诐 砖讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞诪转讬谉 注讚 砖讬讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 诪转讬专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪讬讚 讛转讬专讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讗 讬讚注谞讜 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讗 转爪讗 讜讗诐 讘讗讜 注讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 诇讛 讻诪讛 讘谞讬诐 转爪讗

The Sages taught that if she said: I was taken captive but I am pure, and I have witnesses who were with me throughout captivity who can testify that I am pure, the court does not say: We will wait until those witnesses come. Rather, the court permits her to marry a priest immediately. If the court permitted her to marry a priest, and witnesses came thereafter and said: We do not know whether or not she remained pure, this woman need not leave her husband, as she was already permitted to marry a priest on the basis of her original statement. And if witnesses that she was violated came and testified, even if she has several children, she must leave the priest to whom she is married.

讛谞讬 砖讘讜讬讬转讗 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇谞讛专讚注讗 讗讜转讬讘 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 谞讟讜专讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讜注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讗谉 谞讟专讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讘谞转讱 讛讜讜讬谉 诪讬 讛讜讬转 诪讝诇讝诇 讘讛讜 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

The Gemara relates: There were these captive women who came to Neharde鈥檃 with their captors so that the local residents would redeem them. Shmuel鈥檚 father posted guards with them to ensure that they would not enter into seclusion with gentiles. Shmuel said to him: Until now who guarded them? If there is concern about their status, it should be with regard to the possibility that they engaged in intercourse while in captivity before they were brought to Neharde鈥檃. He said to Shmuel: If they were your daughters, would you treat them with contempt to that extent? They are no longer captives and deserve to be treated like any Jewish woman of unflawed lineage.

讛讜讗讬 讻砖讙讙讛 砖讬讜爪讗 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖诇讬讟 讜讗讬砖转讘讬讬谉 讘谞转讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗住拽讬谞讛讜 诇讗专注讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗讜拽诪谉 诇砖讘讜讬讬谞讛讜 诪讗讘专讗讬 讜注讬讬诇讬 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讗 讗诪专讛 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 砖专讬谞讛讜

The statement by the father of Shmuel was 鈥淟ike an error that emerges from before the ruler鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and it was realized. The daughters of Master Shmuel were taken captive, and their captors took them up to Eretz Yisrael and sought to sell them or ransom them. Shmuel鈥檚 daughters left their captors standing outside, so that they would not come before the court, and the women entered the study hall of Rabbi 岣nina. This daughter said: I was taken captive, and I am pure, and that daughter said: I was taken captive, and I am pure, and the court permitted them to marry into the priesthood.

住讜祝 注讜诇 讗转讜 砖讘讜讬讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谞谉 讚诪讜专讬讬谉 讗讬谞讜谉 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘谞转讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讜讬谉

Ultimately, their captors came and entered, and it was clear that they were the captors of Shmuel鈥檚 daughters. However, since the daughters made their claim first and the court permitted them to marry into the priesthood, this remained permitted to them. This is based on the halakha that if witnesses subsequently arrive, her initial permitted status need not be revoked. Rabbi 岣nina said: It is clear from their actions that they are the daughters of great halakhic authorities, as they knew how to conduct themselves in order to retain their presumptive status of purity. The Gemara relates: Ultimately, the matter became clear, that they were the daughters of Master Shmuel.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 驻讜拽 讗讬讟驻诇 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 诇讬转谞讛讜 拽诪谉 注讚讬诐 讘爪讚 讗住转谉 讜转讗住专 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讗转讜 注讚讬诐 讛讗 讗转讜 注讚讬诐 诪讬转住专讗

Rabbi 岣nina said to Rav Shemen bar Abba, who was a priest: Go out and tend to your relatives, the daughters of Shmuel who were taken captive, and marry one of them. Rav Shemen said to Rabbi 岣nina: But aren鈥檛 there witnesses in a country overseas who knew before the daughters appeared in court that they were taken captive? Rabbi 岣nina said to him: Now, in any event, those witnesses are not before us. He then cited an adage: There are witnesses in the north [astan] side, i.e., in a distant place, and will the woman be forbidden? The Gemara infers from Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 statement: The reason that their testimony may be ignored is because the witnesses did not come to court. However, were the witnesses to come to court, Shmuel鈥檚 daughters would be forbidden to priests.

讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻讬讜谉 砖讛转讬专讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞砖讗转 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 注讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Shmuel鈥檚 father say: Once the court permitted a woman to marry, even if she has not yet married, she remains permitted? Rav Ashi said: The discussion between Rabbi 岣nina and Rav Shemen was stated with regard to witnesses who witnessed their violation. In that case, were the witnesses to come to court and testify, even if she has several children, she must leave the priest to whom she is married.

诪转谞讬壮 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖谞砖讘讜 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 讜讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讜转 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪注讬讚讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讜转

MISHNA: In a case where witnesses testify that there are two women who were taken captive, and this woman says: I was taken captive but I am pure, and that woman says: I was taken captive but I am pure, they are not deemed credible. And when this woman testifies about that woman that she is pure and vice versa, they are deemed credible.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗谞讬 讟诪讗讛 讜讞讘专转讬 讟讛讜专讛 谞讗诪谞转 讗谞讬 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 讞讘专转讛 讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟讛讜专讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 讞讘专转讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 注爪诪讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in the Tosefta (2:2): If one of the women says: I am tainted and my counterpart is pure, she is deemed credible on both counts. If she says: I am pure and my counterpart is tainted, she is not deemed credible with regard to herself nor with regard to her counterpart. If she says: I and my counterpart are both tainted, she is deemed credible with regard to herself but she is not deemed credible with regard to her counterpart. If she says: I and my counterpart are both pure, she is deemed credible with regard to her counterpart but she is not deemed credible with regard to herself.

讗诪专 诪专 讗谞讬 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 注诇 注爪诪讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 拽讗诪专讛 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐

The Master said in the baraita that if she says: I am pure and my counterpart is tainted, she is not deemed credible. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there are no witnesses that she was taken captive, why is she not deemed credible with regard to herself? If she is saying: I was taken captive and I am pure, she is deemed credible based on the principle that the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted. Rather, it is obvious that there are witnesses that she was taken captive.

讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 讞讘专转讛 讜讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: If so, say the middle clause of the baraita: If she says: I and my counterpart are both tainted, she is deemed credible with regard to herself but she is not deemed credible with regard to her counterpart. And if there are witnesses, why is she not deemed credible with regard to her counterpart? Once there is testimony that she was taken captive, she no longer has the presumptive status of purity. Rather, it is obvious that there are no witnesses that she was taken captive, and therefore her presumptive status of purity is intact.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟讛讜专讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 讞讘专转讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗注爪诪讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: If so, say the last clause of the baraita: If she says: I and my counterpart are both pure, she is deemed credible with regard to her counterpart but she is not deemed credible with regard to herself. And if there are no witnesses that they were taken captive, why is she not deemed credible with regard to herself? Rather, it is obvious that there are witnesses.

专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪爪讬注转讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪爪讬注转讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the baraita is formulated in an unusual fashion, with the first clause and the last clause pertaining to cases where there are witnesses, and the middle clause pertaining to a case where there are no witnesses? Abaye said: Yes, the first clause and the last clause pertain to cases where there are witnesses, and the middle clause pertains to a case where there are no witnesses.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讚拽讗 讗驻讬讱 讗诪专讛 讗谞讬 讟诪讗讛 讜讞讘专转讬 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注讚 讗讞讚 讗转 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘专转讱 讟诪讗讛 讗讬讛讬 砖讜讬转讗 诇谞驻砖讛 讞转讬讻讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讞讘专转讛 诪砖转专讬讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讬讚讛

Rav Pappa said: The baraita in its entirety can be explained in a case where there are witnesses, and there is one witness who is testifying to the reverse of the woman鈥檚 claim. If the woman said: I am tainted and my counterpart is pure, and one witness said to her: You are pure and your counterpart is tainted, although the witness testified that she was pure, because she admitted that she was tainted she rendered herself an entity of prohibition. Her counterpart is permitted on the basis of her claim, which is accepted despite being contradicted by the witness.

讗谞讬 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注讚 讗讞讚 讗转 讟诪讗讛 讜讞讘专转讱 讟讛讜专讛 讗讬讛讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讛 讞讘专转讛 诪砖转专讬讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚注讚

If the woman said: I am pure and my counterpart is tainted, and one witness said to her: You are tainted and your counterpart is pure, then with regard to her, since there are witnesses testifying that she was taken captive, it is not in her power to permit herself on the basis of her claim. However, her counterpart is permitted on the basis of the testimony of the witness.

讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注讚 讗讞讚 讗转 讜讞讘专转讱 讟讛讜专讛 讗讬讛讬 砖讜讬转讗 诇谞驻砖讛 讞转讬讻讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讞讘专转讗 诪砖转专讬讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚注讚 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗

If the woman said: I and my counterpart are both tainted, and one witness said to her: You and your friend are both pure, she rendered herself an entity of prohibition. However, her counterpart is permitted on the basis of the testimony of the witness. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this additional case? This is identical to that which was taught in the in the first clause. The principles governing the first two cases, i.e., she claims that she is tainted and thereby renders herself as an entity of prohibition, and her counterpart is permitted by the testimony of one witness even if that testimony is contradicted, also apply in this case.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讟讛讜专讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专讛 讛讻讬 转诪讜转 谞驻砖讬 注诐 驻诇砖转讬诐 讛讬讗 讚拽讗 注讘讚讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Lest you say that in this case, both of them are deemed untainted in accordance with the testimony of the witness, and the fact that she said that they are both tainted was because she was acting with the intention termed: 鈥淟et me die with the Philistines鈥 (Judges 16:30), i.e., she was willing to implicate herself in order to bolster her credibility so that her testimony against her counterpart would be accepted, the tanna therefore teaches us that this is not a consideration.

讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注讚 讗讞讚 讗转 讜讞讘专转讱 讟诪讗讛 讗讬讛讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讛 讞讘专转讛 诪砖转专讬讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讬讚讛 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讚专讬砖讗

If the woman said: I and my counterpart are both pure, and one witness said to her: You and your counterpart are both tainted, with regard to her, since there are witnesses testifying that she was taken captive, it is not in her power to permit herself on the basis of her claim. However, her counterpart is permitted on the basis of her claim. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this additional case? This is identical to that which was taught in the first part of the first clause. The principles governing the first two cases, i.e., her claim that she is pure is not accepted when the fact that she was taken captive was established by witnesses, and her counterpart is permitted on the basis of her claim even if that claim is contradicted, also apply in this case.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讚驻住诇讛 谞驻砖讛 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讚诪讻砖专讗 谞驻砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Lest you say that when is she deemed credible to permit her counterpart, it is only in a case where she rendered herself unfit to marry a priest, but in a case where she rendered herself fit, say that she is not deemed credible with regard to her counterpart; the tanna therefore teaches us that each segment of the testimony is assessed independently, based on the criteria taught in the first clause.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻谉 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讻讛谉 讗谞讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讻讛谉 讗谞讬 讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬诪转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 注讜专专讬谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜专专讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讛住讙谉 诪注诇讬谉 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚

MISHNA: And likewise, with regard to two men whose lineage is unknown, and this man says: I am a priest, and that man says: I am a priest, they are not deemed credible. And when this man testifies about that man that he is a priest and vice versa, they are deemed credible. Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not elevate a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Two witnesses are required for that purpose. Rabbi Elazar says: When is that the ruling? In a case where there are challengers to his claim that he is a priest. However, in a case where there are no challengers, one elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest: One elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讚专专讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗讘诇 注讚讬诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚专专讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these different cases cited in the mishnayot in this chapter? Aren鈥檛 they all based on the principle: The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted? The Gemara answers: These cases are all necessary, as, if the tanna had taught only the case where Rabbi Yehoshua concedes, in a case where one says to another: This field, which is currently in my possession, belonged to your father, and I purchased it from him, then one might have thought that his claim is deemed credible due to the fact that there is financial significance [derara] in his contention that it belonged to the other鈥檚 father, and he would not have made that claim if it were not true. However, in the case of witnesses authenticating their signatures, where there is no financial significance for them in their testimony, say no, their claim is not accepted.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 注讚讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 讗讬讛讜 讚诇谞驻砖讬讛

And if the tanna taught only the case of witnesses, one might have thought that their claim is deemed credible due to the fact that their testimony is relevant to others. However, with regard to him, whose testimony is relevant to himself, as he claims that he purchased the field from the other鈥檚 father,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Ketubot 23: Women Testify

What happens if witnesses as to a woman's captivity only show up after she's already married (as per the mishnah)?...
father ben white unsplash

Father Knows Best

On Ketubot 23a we have a story about a father, a son and some daughters. The father and son appear...

Ketubot 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 23

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the baraita with regard to betrothal, where, if she married another, she need not leave her husband; and what is different in the second clause with regard to divorce, where, if she remarried, she must leave her husband?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讙诪讛 讘注讚 讗讞讚 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞转拽讚砖讛 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘驻谞讜讬讛 拽诪住讛讚讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 谞转拽讚砖讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐

Abaye said: Interpret the baraita in a case in which each testimony was given by one witness. If one witness says: She was betrothed, and one witness says: She was not betrothed, they are both testifying that she was unmarried. And that witness who says that she was betrothed is one witness, and the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses.

住讬驻讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞转讙专砖讛 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞转讙专砖讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 拽诪住讛讚讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 谞转讙专砖讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐

In the latter clause, if one witness says: She was divorced, and one witness says: She was not divorced, they are both testifying that she was a married woman. And that witness who says that she was divorced is one witness, and the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses. Therefore, even if she remarried she must leave her husband.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 转专讬 讜转专讬 讜讗讬驻讜讱 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讗讬谞讜讛 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 专讗讬谞讜讛 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讗 转谞砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗转 转爪讗

Rav Ashi said: Actually it is a case where there are two witnesses testifying that she is betrothed and divorced, and two testifying that she is not betrothed and divorced. And in order to explain the difference between the first and latter clauses, reverse the two rulings. In the first clause, if two witnesses say: We saw her that she was betrothed, and two witnesses say: We did not see her that she was betrothed, this woman may not marry, and if she marries she must leave her husband.

驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 专讗讬谞讜讛 讗讬谞讛 专讗讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讚讬讬专讬 讘讞爪专 讗讞讚 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚谞转拽讚砖讛 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛 诇诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪拽讚砖讬 讘爪谞注讗

The Gemara asks: In that case, it is obvious that she must leave her husband, as testimony that we did not see her is not effective proof. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the woman and the witnesses reside in one courtyard. Lest you say: If it is so that she was betrothed, the matter generates publicity, and the fact that the neighbors did not see that she was betrothed indicates that she was not, therefore the baraita teaches us that people are prone to betroth a woman in private, with even their neighbors unaware of the betrothal.

住讬驻讗 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讗讬谞讜讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 专讗讬谞讜讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讗 转谞砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗转 诇讗 转爪讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讚讬讬专讬 讘讞爪专 讗讞讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱

In the latter clause of the baraita, if two witnesses say: We saw her that she was divorced, and two witnesses say: We did not see her that she was divorced, this woman may not remarry, and if she remarries, she need not leave her husband. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita teaching us? In this case, too, the fact that the witnesses did not see the divorce proves nothing. The Gemara answers: It teaches that although the witnesses and the woman live in one courtyard and presumably the witnesses would know if she was divorced, their testimony proves nothing. The Gemara asks: This is identical to that novel element taught in the first clause, that neighbors are not necessarily aware of what transpires elsewhere in the courtyard.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讙讘讬 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪拽讚砖讬 讘爪谞注讗 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗讬讙专砖讗 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛 诇诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪拽讚砖讬 讜讚诪讙专砖讬 讘爪谞注讗

The Gemara explains that there is a novel element in this halakha. Lest you say that it is with regard to betrothal that people are prone to betroth a woman in private; however, with regard to divorce, if it is so that she was divorced, it would generate publicity, as divorce is typically the culmination of a period of incompatibility that is often public. Therefore, the latter clause teaches us that people are prone to both betroth and divorce in private. Consequently, the fact that the witnesses did not see that she was betrothed and divorced proves nothing.

讜讗诐 诪砖谞砖讗转 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 诇讗 转爪讗 讻讜壮 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗

搂 We learned in the mishna: And if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband. Two cases were cited in the mishna, one with regard to a divorc茅e and one with regard to a woman taken captive, and to which of these cases this halakha is referring is a matter of dispute. Rabbi Oshaya taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna, where the woman claims that she was divorced. Rabba bar Avin taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, where the woman claims that she was taken captive and remained pure.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗住讬驻讗 讚讘砖讘讜讬讛 讛拽讬诇讜 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗专讬砖讗 诇讗

The Gemara notes: The one who taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna, all the more so would he teach it in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, as, in general, with regard to the status of a captive woman, the Sages were lenient, because the prohibition is the result of suspicion and uncertainty as far as what transpired during her period of captivity. And with regard to the one who taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, however, in reference to the first clause of the mishna, no, he would not necessarily teach this halakha.

诇讬诪讗 讘讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗

The Gemara explains: Let us say it is with regard to the presumption of Rav Hamnuna that these amora鈥檌m disagree. The one who taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna and maintains that if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband, he holds in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna, who said that a woman is not insolent in the presence of her husband, and therefore her claim that she was divorced is accepted. And the one who taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna and rules that the woman taken captive need not leave her husband the priest, while the woman who claims that she was divorced must leave her husband, he does not hold in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诪注讬讝讛 讜诪专 住讘专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 诪注讬讝讛

The Gemara rejects that explanation: No, actually everyone holds in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna, and here it is with regard to this that they disagree, as one Sage, who holds that the woman who claims that she was divorced must leave her husband, maintains that when the presumption of Rav Hamnuna was stated, it was stated specifically in a case where she was in his presence; however, when she is not in his presence, she is insolent. And one Sage, who holds that the woman who claims that she was divorced need not leave her husband, maintains that when not in his presence she is also not insolent. Therefore, her claim that she was divorced is accepted.

讜讗诐 诪砖谞砖讗转 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 谞砖讗转 谞砖讗转 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讛转讬专讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞砖讗转 讜讛讗 诇讗 转爪讗 拽转谞讬 诇讗 转爪讗 诪讛转讬专讛 讛专讗砖讜谉

搂 We learned in the mishna: And if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband. The father of Shmuel said: Married does not mean actually married; rather, once the court permitted her to marry, although she has not yet married, she need not leave her husband. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna teach: She need not leave, meaning that she need not leave her husband? The Gemara explains: That phrase in this context means that even if witnesses come, she does not emerge from her initial permitted status.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专讛 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 讜讬砖 诇讬 注讚讬诐 砖讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞诪转讬谉 注讚 砖讬讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 诪转讬专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪讬讚 讛转讬专讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讗 讬讚注谞讜 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讗 转爪讗 讜讗诐 讘讗讜 注讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 诇讛 讻诪讛 讘谞讬诐 转爪讗

The Sages taught that if she said: I was taken captive but I am pure, and I have witnesses who were with me throughout captivity who can testify that I am pure, the court does not say: We will wait until those witnesses come. Rather, the court permits her to marry a priest immediately. If the court permitted her to marry a priest, and witnesses came thereafter and said: We do not know whether or not she remained pure, this woman need not leave her husband, as she was already permitted to marry a priest on the basis of her original statement. And if witnesses that she was violated came and testified, even if she has several children, she must leave the priest to whom she is married.

讛谞讬 砖讘讜讬讬转讗 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇谞讛专讚注讗 讗讜转讬讘 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 谞讟讜专讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讜注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讗谉 谞讟专讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讘谞转讱 讛讜讜讬谉 诪讬 讛讜讬转 诪讝诇讝诇 讘讛讜 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

The Gemara relates: There were these captive women who came to Neharde鈥檃 with their captors so that the local residents would redeem them. Shmuel鈥檚 father posted guards with them to ensure that they would not enter into seclusion with gentiles. Shmuel said to him: Until now who guarded them? If there is concern about their status, it should be with regard to the possibility that they engaged in intercourse while in captivity before they were brought to Neharde鈥檃. He said to Shmuel: If they were your daughters, would you treat them with contempt to that extent? They are no longer captives and deserve to be treated like any Jewish woman of unflawed lineage.

讛讜讗讬 讻砖讙讙讛 砖讬讜爪讗 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖诇讬讟 讜讗讬砖转讘讬讬谉 讘谞转讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗住拽讬谞讛讜 诇讗专注讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗讜拽诪谉 诇砖讘讜讬讬谞讛讜 诪讗讘专讗讬 讜注讬讬诇讬 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讗 讗诪专讛 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 砖专讬谞讛讜

The statement by the father of Shmuel was 鈥淟ike an error that emerges from before the ruler鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and it was realized. The daughters of Master Shmuel were taken captive, and their captors took them up to Eretz Yisrael and sought to sell them or ransom them. Shmuel鈥檚 daughters left their captors standing outside, so that they would not come before the court, and the women entered the study hall of Rabbi 岣nina. This daughter said: I was taken captive, and I am pure, and that daughter said: I was taken captive, and I am pure, and the court permitted them to marry into the priesthood.

住讜祝 注讜诇 讗转讜 砖讘讜讬讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谞谉 讚诪讜专讬讬谉 讗讬谞讜谉 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘谞转讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讜讬谉

Ultimately, their captors came and entered, and it was clear that they were the captors of Shmuel鈥檚 daughters. However, since the daughters made their claim first and the court permitted them to marry into the priesthood, this remained permitted to them. This is based on the halakha that if witnesses subsequently arrive, her initial permitted status need not be revoked. Rabbi 岣nina said: It is clear from their actions that they are the daughters of great halakhic authorities, as they knew how to conduct themselves in order to retain their presumptive status of purity. The Gemara relates: Ultimately, the matter became clear, that they were the daughters of Master Shmuel.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 驻讜拽 讗讬讟驻诇 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 诇讬转谞讛讜 拽诪谉 注讚讬诐 讘爪讚 讗住转谉 讜转讗住专 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讗转讜 注讚讬诐 讛讗 讗转讜 注讚讬诐 诪讬转住专讗

Rabbi 岣nina said to Rav Shemen bar Abba, who was a priest: Go out and tend to your relatives, the daughters of Shmuel who were taken captive, and marry one of them. Rav Shemen said to Rabbi 岣nina: But aren鈥檛 there witnesses in a country overseas who knew before the daughters appeared in court that they were taken captive? Rabbi 岣nina said to him: Now, in any event, those witnesses are not before us. He then cited an adage: There are witnesses in the north [astan] side, i.e., in a distant place, and will the woman be forbidden? The Gemara infers from Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 statement: The reason that their testimony may be ignored is because the witnesses did not come to court. However, were the witnesses to come to court, Shmuel鈥檚 daughters would be forbidden to priests.

讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻讬讜谉 砖讛转讬专讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞砖讗转 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 注讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Shmuel鈥檚 father say: Once the court permitted a woman to marry, even if she has not yet married, she remains permitted? Rav Ashi said: The discussion between Rabbi 岣nina and Rav Shemen was stated with regard to witnesses who witnessed their violation. In that case, were the witnesses to come to court and testify, even if she has several children, she must leave the priest to whom she is married.

诪转谞讬壮 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖谞砖讘讜 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 讜讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讜转 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪注讬讚讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讜转

MISHNA: In a case where witnesses testify that there are two women who were taken captive, and this woman says: I was taken captive but I am pure, and that woman says: I was taken captive but I am pure, they are not deemed credible. And when this woman testifies about that woman that she is pure and vice versa, they are deemed credible.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗谞讬 讟诪讗讛 讜讞讘专转讬 讟讛讜专讛 谞讗诪谞转 讗谞讬 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 讞讘专转讛 讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟讛讜专讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 讞讘专转讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 注爪诪讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in the Tosefta (2:2): If one of the women says: I am tainted and my counterpart is pure, she is deemed credible on both counts. If she says: I am pure and my counterpart is tainted, she is not deemed credible with regard to herself nor with regard to her counterpart. If she says: I and my counterpart are both tainted, she is deemed credible with regard to herself but she is not deemed credible with regard to her counterpart. If she says: I and my counterpart are both pure, she is deemed credible with regard to her counterpart but she is not deemed credible with regard to herself.

讗诪专 诪专 讗谞讬 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 注诇 注爪诪讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 拽讗诪专讛 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐

The Master said in the baraita that if she says: I am pure and my counterpart is tainted, she is not deemed credible. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there are no witnesses that she was taken captive, why is she not deemed credible with regard to herself? If she is saying: I was taken captive and I am pure, she is deemed credible based on the principle that the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted. Rather, it is obvious that there are witnesses that she was taken captive.

讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 讞讘专转讛 讜讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: If so, say the middle clause of the baraita: If she says: I and my counterpart are both tainted, she is deemed credible with regard to herself but she is not deemed credible with regard to her counterpart. And if there are witnesses, why is she not deemed credible with regard to her counterpart? Once there is testimony that she was taken captive, she no longer has the presumptive status of purity. Rather, it is obvious that there are no witnesses that she was taken captive, and therefore her presumptive status of purity is intact.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟讛讜专讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 讞讘专转讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 注诇 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗注爪诪讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: If so, say the last clause of the baraita: If she says: I and my counterpart are both pure, she is deemed credible with regard to her counterpart but she is not deemed credible with regard to herself. And if there are no witnesses that they were taken captive, why is she not deemed credible with regard to herself? Rather, it is obvious that there are witnesses.

专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪爪讬注转讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪爪讬注转讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the baraita is formulated in an unusual fashion, with the first clause and the last clause pertaining to cases where there are witnesses, and the middle clause pertaining to a case where there are no witnesses? Abaye said: Yes, the first clause and the last clause pertain to cases where there are witnesses, and the middle clause pertains to a case where there are no witnesses.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讚拽讗 讗驻讬讱 讗诪专讛 讗谞讬 讟诪讗讛 讜讞讘专转讬 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注讚 讗讞讚 讗转 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘专转讱 讟诪讗讛 讗讬讛讬 砖讜讬转讗 诇谞驻砖讛 讞转讬讻讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讞讘专转讛 诪砖转专讬讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讬讚讛

Rav Pappa said: The baraita in its entirety can be explained in a case where there are witnesses, and there is one witness who is testifying to the reverse of the woman鈥檚 claim. If the woman said: I am tainted and my counterpart is pure, and one witness said to her: You are pure and your counterpart is tainted, although the witness testified that she was pure, because she admitted that she was tainted she rendered herself an entity of prohibition. Her counterpart is permitted on the basis of her claim, which is accepted despite being contradicted by the witness.

讗谞讬 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注讚 讗讞讚 讗转 讟诪讗讛 讜讞讘专转讱 讟讛讜专讛 讗讬讛讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讛 讞讘专转讛 诪砖转专讬讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚注讚

If the woman said: I am pure and my counterpart is tainted, and one witness said to her: You are tainted and your counterpart is pure, then with regard to her, since there are witnesses testifying that she was taken captive, it is not in her power to permit herself on the basis of her claim. However, her counterpart is permitted on the basis of the testimony of the witness.

讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注讚 讗讞讚 讗转 讜讞讘专转讱 讟讛讜专讛 讗讬讛讬 砖讜讬转讗 诇谞驻砖讛 讞转讬讻讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讞讘专转讗 诪砖转专讬讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚注讚 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗

If the woman said: I and my counterpart are both tainted, and one witness said to her: You and your friend are both pure, she rendered herself an entity of prohibition. However, her counterpart is permitted on the basis of the testimony of the witness. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this additional case? This is identical to that which was taught in the in the first clause. The principles governing the first two cases, i.e., she claims that she is tainted and thereby renders herself as an entity of prohibition, and her counterpart is permitted by the testimony of one witness even if that testimony is contradicted, also apply in this case.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讟讛讜专讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专讛 讛讻讬 转诪讜转 谞驻砖讬 注诐 驻诇砖转讬诐 讛讬讗 讚拽讗 注讘讚讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Lest you say that in this case, both of them are deemed untainted in accordance with the testimony of the witness, and the fact that she said that they are both tainted was because she was acting with the intention termed: 鈥淟et me die with the Philistines鈥 (Judges 16:30), i.e., she was willing to implicate herself in order to bolster her credibility so that her testimony against her counterpart would be accepted, the tanna therefore teaches us that this is not a consideration.

讗谞讬 讜讞讘专转讬 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注讚 讗讞讚 讗转 讜讞讘专转讱 讟诪讗讛 讗讬讛讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讛 讞讘专转讛 诪砖转专讬讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讬讚讛 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讚专讬砖讗

If the woman said: I and my counterpart are both pure, and one witness said to her: You and your counterpart are both tainted, with regard to her, since there are witnesses testifying that she was taken captive, it is not in her power to permit herself on the basis of her claim. However, her counterpart is permitted on the basis of her claim. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this additional case? This is identical to that which was taught in the first part of the first clause. The principles governing the first two cases, i.e., her claim that she is pure is not accepted when the fact that she was taken captive was established by witnesses, and her counterpart is permitted on the basis of her claim even if that claim is contradicted, also apply in this case.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讚驻住诇讛 谞驻砖讛 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讚诪讻砖专讗 谞驻砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Lest you say that when is she deemed credible to permit her counterpart, it is only in a case where she rendered herself unfit to marry a priest, but in a case where she rendered herself fit, say that she is not deemed credible with regard to her counterpart; the tanna therefore teaches us that each segment of the testimony is assessed independently, based on the criteria taught in the first clause.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻谉 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讻讛谉 讗谞讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讻讛谉 讗谞讬 讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬诪转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 注讜专专讬谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜专专讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讛住讙谉 诪注诇讬谉 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚

MISHNA: And likewise, with regard to two men whose lineage is unknown, and this man says: I am a priest, and that man says: I am a priest, they are not deemed credible. And when this man testifies about that man that he is a priest and vice versa, they are deemed credible. Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not elevate a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Two witnesses are required for that purpose. Rabbi Elazar says: When is that the ruling? In a case where there are challengers to his claim that he is a priest. However, in a case where there are no challengers, one elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest: One elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讚专专讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗讘诇 注讚讬诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚专专讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these different cases cited in the mishnayot in this chapter? Aren鈥檛 they all based on the principle: The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted? The Gemara answers: These cases are all necessary, as, if the tanna had taught only the case where Rabbi Yehoshua concedes, in a case where one says to another: This field, which is currently in my possession, belonged to your father, and I purchased it from him, then one might have thought that his claim is deemed credible due to the fact that there is financial significance [derara] in his contention that it belonged to the other鈥檚 father, and he would not have made that claim if it were not true. However, in the case of witnesses authenticating their signatures, where there is no financial significance for them in their testimony, say no, their claim is not accepted.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 注讚讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 讗讬讛讜 讚诇谞驻砖讬讛

And if the tanna taught only the case of witnesses, one might have thought that their claim is deemed credible due to the fact that their testimony is relevant to others. However, with regard to him, whose testimony is relevant to himself, as he claims that he purchased the field from the other鈥檚 father,

Scroll To Top