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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 2, 2015 | 讬状讗 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讛

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Ketubot 28

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诇讗 转讚讜专 注诪讜 讘诪讘讜讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻驻专 拽讟谉 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讻驻专 拽讟谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讻砖讻讜谞讛

And if he was a priest she may not live with him even in one alleyway that opens into several courtyards, even if she did not remarry, as she is forbidden to him forever. What is the ruling if it was a small village? May she live with her ex-husband in the same village? The Gemara relates that this case of his divorc茅e and a small village was an incident that transpired and the Sages said: A small village is judged as his immediate proximity.

诪讬 谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讗 谞讚讞讬转 诪驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬讛 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讞爪专 砖诇讛 讛讜讗 谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: In cases where they may not reside in the same courtyard or alleyway, who is ousted in favor of whom? Which of them must leave? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof as it is taught in a baraita: She is ousted in favor of him, and leaves, and he is not ousted in favor of her. But if it was her courtyard, he is ousted in favor of her.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬转讛 讞爪专 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讗 谞讚讞讬转 诪驻谞讬讜 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞爪专 砖诇讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讜讗诇讗 讘讞爪专 砖诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讞爪专 砖诇讛 讛讜讗 谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚诇诪讗 讚讗讙讬专 诪讬讙专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If it was a courtyard belonging to both of them, what is the halakha; who is ousted in favor of whom? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof as it is taught in a baraita: She is ousted in favor of him. The Gemara elaborates: With what circumstances are we dealing? If we say that the subject of the baraita is with regard to his courtyard, it is obvious that she is ousted. But rather, is it with regard to her courtyard? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If it was her courtyard, he is ousted in favor of her? Rather, is it not that the baraita is dealing with a case like this, where it was a courtyard belonging to both of them? The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the baraita is teaching that even in a case where he rented the courtyard she is ousted in his favor. Therefore, the dilemma with regard to a courtyard belonging to both of them is unresolved.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讛谞讛 讛壮 诪讟诇讟诇讱 讟诇讟诇讛 讙讘专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讟诇讟讜诇讬 讚讙讘专讗 拽砖讬谉 诪讚讗讬转转讗

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the verse: 鈥淭he Lord will dislocate you the dislocation of a man鈥 (Isaiah 22:17), and Rav said: This indicates that the dislocation of a man is more difficult for him than the dislocation of a woman is for her. Therefore, the woman is ousted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛 讗讬谞讛 谞驻专注转 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪谉 诇讚讬谞讗 诇讗 诪讝讚拽拽讬谞谉 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜转讬 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 谞讙讜讚讬 谞诪讬 诪谞讙讚讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗 讘讗讘诇 专讘转讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讻砖谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 谞驻专注转 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛

The Sages taught: With regard to a priest who borrowed from his wife from usufruct property that she inherited from her father and then he divorced her, she is repaid only by means of another person and not directly from her husband, to prevent them from engaging in business dealings. Rav Sheshet said: And if after engaging in business dealings they came before us for judgment, we do not attend to them because by engaging in those dealings they were in violation of a transgression. Rav Pappa said: We excommunicate them for violating that transgression. Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We also flog them with lashes. Rav Na岣an said: The tanna taught in Evel Rabbati, one of the minor tractates that deals primarily with the halakhot of mourning: In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where she was divorced from marriage. However, when she was divorced from betrothal, she is repaid even directly by means of receiving the money herself, because, in that case, he is not yet accustomed to her. Since they never shared intimacy, there is no concern that it will lead to transgression.

讛讛讜讗 讗专讜住 讜讗专讜住转讜 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讜拽讬 专讘讗 砖诇讜讞讗 讘讬谞转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗 讘讗讘诇 专讘转讬 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚拽讗 讙讬讬住讬 讘讛讚讚讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident concerning this divorced, betrothed man and his betrothed who came before Rava for judgment, and Rav Adda bar Mattana was sitting before him at the time. Rava placed an intermediary to separate between them. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: The tanna taught in Evel Rabbati that if she was divorced from betrothal she is paid directly? Rava said to him: This applies only in a case where they are not accustomed to each other. However, with regard to these people, we see that they are accustomed to each other, and therefore they must be separated.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗讜拽讬 专讘讗 砖诇讬讞 讘讬谞转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 谞讬拽讜诐 诪专 砖诇讜讞讗 讘讬谞转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 [讗诪专] 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗 讘讗讘诇 专讘转讬 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讙讬讬住讬 讘讛讚讚讬 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 拽讗 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讚讙讬讬住讬 讘讛讚讚讬

Some say that Rava did not place an intermediary to separate between them. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: Let the Master place an intermediary to separate between them. Rava said to Rav Adda bar Mattana: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: The tanna taught in Evel Rabbati that if she was divorced from betrothal she is paid directly? Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: This applies only in a case where they are not accustomed to each other. However, with regard to these people, we see that they are accustomed to each other, and therefore they must be separated.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘讙讜讚诇谉 诪讛 砖专讗讜 讘拽讜讟谞谉 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 讜讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讜讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讞讬

MISHNA: And these are deemed credible to testify in their majority with regard to what they saw in their minority. A person is deemed credible to say: This is my father鈥檚 handwriting, and to say: This is my teacher鈥檚 handwriting; and to say: This is my brother鈥檚 handwriting, even though he never saw their handwriting after reaching majority.

讝讻讜专 讛讬讬转讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬转 砖讬爪讗讛 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 讜砖讛讬讛 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转 讛住驻专 诇讟讘讜诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜砖讛讬讛 讞讜诇拽 注诪谞讜 注诇 讛讙讜专谉 讜讛诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜注讚 讻讗谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讗讬谉 讘砖讘转

搂 Similarly, one is deemed credible to say: I was reminded of the wedding of so-and-so, who went out with a hinnuma, or with her hair uncovered in a manner typical of virgins, and therefore, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars; and to say that so-and-so would leave school to immerse in order to partake of teruma, and that he would share teruma with us at the threshing floor and therefore he is a priest. Similarly, one is deemed credible to say: This place is a beit haperas, a field with a grave that was plowed, scattering the bones, and rendering the field a place of uncertain ritual impurity; and to say: Until here we would come on Shabbat and thereby determine the Shabbat boundary.

讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讚专讱 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 诪注诪讚 讜诪住驻讚 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛

However, a person is neither deemed credible to say: So-and-so had a path in this place; nor to say: So-and-so had a tract of land where they would perform the ritual of standing and sitting and deliver a eulogy in that place, thereby attesting that the land belongs to that person. The reason he is not deemed credible in those cases is that full-fledged testimony is required to remove property from the possession of its presumptive owner.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜讛讜讗 砖讬砖 讙讚讜诇 注诪讜

GEMARA: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: And the mishna said that one is deemed credible to testify about handwriting he saw as a minor only when there is a witness who saw the handwriting as an adult testifying with him.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗讘讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讻讬讞 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 专讘讜 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 专讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬诪转讬讛 讚专讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讘讬讜 诇讗

And all of these cases are necessary, as one could not have been derived from the other. As, if the tanna had taught us the case of his father鈥檚 handwriting, one might have thought that he is deemed credible due to the fact that he is often found with his father and is familiar with his handwriting; but with regard to his teacher鈥檚 handwriting, no, he is not deemed credible. And if the tanna had taught us the case of his teacher鈥檚 handwriting, one might have thought that he is deemed credible due to the fact that he has a sense of awe of his teacher and therefore pays attention to his handwriting; but with regard to his father鈥檚 handwriting, no, he is not deemed credible.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讗讘讬讜 讚砖讻讬讞 讙讘讬讛 讜专讘讜 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬诪转讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讞讬讜 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讗 讜诇讗 讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讬诪谞讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘讚专讘谞谉

And if the tanna had taught us these two cases, one might have thought that he is deemed credible with regard to his father鈥檚 handwriting due to the fact that he is often found with him, and his teacher鈥檚 handwriting due to the fact that he has a sense of awe of him. But with regard to his brother鈥檚 handwriting, which has neither this factor nor that factor, say no, he is not deemed credible. Therefore, the tanna teaches us: Since ratification of documents is required by rabbinic law, as by Torah law, the signatories are sufficient proof of a document鈥檚 validity; the Sages deemed him credible to testify in cases that he witnessed as a minor in matters that are by rabbinic law, including the case of his brother.

讝讻讜专 讛讬讬转讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬转 砖讬爪讗讛 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转 讙诇讜讬 诪诇转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

And the mishna states that one is deemed credible to say: I was reminded of the wedding of so-and-so, who went out with a hinnuma, or with her hair uncovered. What is the reason that he is deemed credible? Since most women are married as virgins, her presumptive status is that of a virgin even without his testimony. His testimony with regard to what he saw as a minor is merely revealing of a matter already presumed true, not actual testimony.

讜砖讛讬讛 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转 讛住驻专 诇讟讘讜诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讚诇诪讗 注讘讚 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬诇诪讚 讗转 注讘讚讜 转讜专讛

And the mishna states that one is deemed credible to say that so-and-so would leave school to immerse in order to partake of teruma, and therefore he is a priest. The Gemara asks: And perhaps he is the slave of a priest, who is also eligible to partake of teruma. The Gemara notes: This mishna provides support for the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited for a person to teach his slave Torah. Since the testimony is that he was in school, apparently he is not a slave. Therefore, the fact that he partook of teruma indicates that he is a priest.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 专讘讜 讗讜 砖注砖讗讜 专讘讜

The Gemara asks: And may one not teach his slave Torah? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A slave whose master borrowed from him, or whose master made him

讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜 讗讜 砖拽专讗 砖诇砖讛 驻住讜拽讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讛转诐 讚讗讬拽专讬 注讘讚 诪讚注转讜 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚拽讗 谞讛讬讙 讘讬讛 诪谞讛讙 讘谞讬诐 诇讟讘讜诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉

steward over his property, or who donned phylacteries in his master鈥檚 presence, or who read three verses from the Torah scroll in the synagogue, did not necessarily emerge to freedom. Apparently, there are slaves who learn Torah to the extent that they are capable of reading the Torah in the synagogue, and conceivably that Torah is learned in school. The Gemara answers that there is no proof from the baraita, as there it is a case where the slave read at his own initiative, and conceivably he taught himself to read the Torah as well. When we say in the mishna that it is proof that he is a priest, it is in a case where he treats him with treatment typical of children, not slaves, and sends him to school. When the mishna states that he is deemed credible to testify that as a minor he saw that others went to immerse in order to partake of teruma, the Sages permit them only to partake of teruma by rabbinic law.

讜砖讛讬讛 讞讜诇拽 注诪谞讜 注诇 讛讙讜专谉 讜讚诇诪讗 注讘讚 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 转谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 转专讜诪讛 诇注讘讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讘讜 注诪讜 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 转专讜诪讛 诇注讘讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讘讜 注诪讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 砖讬讗诪专 讗诐 讻讛谉 讗谞讬 转谞讜 诇讬 讘砖讘讬诇 注爪诪讬 讜讗诐 注讘讚 讻讛谉 讗谞讬 转谞讜 诇讬 讘砖讘讬诇 专讘讬

And the mishna states that he is deemed credible to say that they saw that so-and-so would share teruma with us at the threshing floor, and therefore he is a priest. The Gemara asks: And perhaps he is the slave of a priest? The Gemara answers: We learned the mishna according to the one who says: One distributes teruma to a slave only if his master is with him. Therefore, it is clear that the one sharing teruma with them was a priest, not a slave, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of the son of a priest鈥檚 wife and the son of a priest鈥檚 maidservant who were intermingled at birth, both mothers go to the threshing floor together based on the principle: One distributes teruma to a slave only if his master is with him; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is possible that each will say: If I am a priest, give me teruma for my own sake, and if I am the slave of a priest, give me teruma for the sake of my master.

讘诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讘诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉

The dispute in the baraita is based on the fact that in the place of Rabbi Yehuda, they would elevate one who eats teruma to the presumptive status of priesthood for the purpose of lineage. Therefore, he permitted distributing teruma to the slave of a priest only if his master is present, due to the concern that if he were given teruma directly, he would be elevated to priesthood. In the place of Rabbi Yosei, they would not elevate from teruma to lineage. Therefore, he permitted distributing teruma directly to the slave of a priest, as there is no concern that the slave would be mistaken for a priest.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 讛注讚转讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛注讚转讬 讜讛注诇讜 注讘讚 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 讛注诇讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讘讛诪转谉 砖诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 转拽诇讛 注诇 讬讚诐 爪讚讬拽讬诐 注爪诪诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: In all my days, I never had occasion to testify in court. One time I testified, and the court elevated a slave to priesthood on the basis of my testimony. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that they actually elevated the slave to priesthood? Now, just as with regard to the animals of the righteous the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not engender a pitfall on their account, as the Gemara relates with regard to the donkey of Rabbi Pin岣s ben Yair that it would not eat untithed produce (岣llin 7a), all the more so will He not engender a pitfall on account of the righteous themselves.

讗诇讗 讘拽砖讜 诇讛注诇讜转 注讘讚 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讝讗 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗讝诇 讜讗住讛讬讚 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rather, the Gemara emends the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei: They sought to elevate a slave to priesthood on the basis of my testimony, but ultimately they did not. Rabbi Elazar saw teruma distributed directly to the slave of a priest in the place of Rabbi Yosei, where one does not elevate from teruma to priesthood, and he went and testified about what he saw in the place of Rabbi Yehuda, where one elevates from teruma to priesthood.

讜砖讛诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 砖诇讗 谞讬讚砖 讘专讙诇

And the mishna states that one is deemed credible to testify in his adulthood that as a minor he saw that this place is a beit haperas. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he is deemed credible to testify what he witnessed as a minor? The Gemara answers: The ritual impurity of a beit haperas is by rabbinic law, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person who passes through a beit haperas may blow on the dust before taking each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it, avoid it, and proceed. One may not rely on that method of examination with regard to impurity by Torah law. And Rav Yehuda bar Ami, in the name of Rav Yehuda, said: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot, creating a path, is pure. What is the reason? It is that it is impossible for a bone the size of a grain of barley, whose possible presence led to the decree of impurity, not to have been trodden underfoot and rendered smaller. This presumption is possible only in cases of impurity by rabbinic law.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讗讬谉 讘砖讘转 拽住讘专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚专讘谞谉

And the mishna states that one is deemed credible to testify, in his adulthood, that he saw as a minor: Until here we would come on Shabbat. The Gemara explains: This tanna maintains that the Shabbat boundaries, beyond which one may not go outside the city on Shabbat, are mandated by rabbinic law, and the Sages deemed him credible in matters of rabbinic law.

讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讚专讱 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 诪注诪讚 讜诪住驻讚 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉

And the mishna states that one is neither deemed credible to say: So-and-so had a path in this place; nor to say: So-and-so had a tract of land where they would perform the ritual of standing and sitting and deliver a eulogy in that place. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he is not deemed credible? It is due to the fact that we do not remove money from the possession of its presumptive owner on the basis of testimony about a matter that he witnessed as a minor.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讗诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽 诇讜诪专 讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讘讗 诪砖驻讞讛 讝讜 讟讛讜专讛 诪砖驻讞讛 讝讜 讟诪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讟诪讗讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 诪砖驻讞讛 讝讜 讻砖专讛 讜诪砖驻讞讛 讝讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Sages taught: A child is deemed credible to say when he reaches majority that this is what my father told me when I was a minor: This family is pure, that family is impure. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that his father said pure and impure? What do those concepts mean with regard to a family? Rather, his father said to him: This family is of unflawed lineage, and this family is of flawed lineage.

讜砖讗讻诇谞讜 讘拽爪爪讛 砖诇 讘转 驻诇讜谞讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜砖讛讬讬谞讜 诪讜诇讬讻讬诐 讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讜转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讜讻讜诇谉 讗诐 讛讬讛 讙讜讬 讜谞转讙讬讬专 注讘讚 讜谞砖转讞专专 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讚专讱 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 诪注诪讚 讜诪住驻讚 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谞讬诐

And he is deemed credible to say that we ate at the ketzatza that took place to publicize that the marriage of the daughter of so-and-so to so-and-so was unsuitable; and to say that we would bring 岣lla and priestly gifts to so-and-so, who is a priest. In that case, he is deemed credible only to testify that he brought the 岣lla by himself, but not by means of another, as one is certain of matters that he performed himself, even as a minor. However, he is not deemed credible to testify about actions performed by others when he was a minor. And with regard to all these testimonies, if he was a gentile and he converted, or a slave and he was liberated, they are not deemed credible to testify after their conversion and liberation about matters that transpired beforehand when they were disqualified as witnesses. And one is neither deemed credible to say that he remembers that when he was a minor, so-and-so had a path in this place; nor that so-and-so had a tract of land where they would perform the ritual of standing and sitting and deliver a eulogy in that place. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: They are deemed credible.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗专讬砖讗 讜讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讛讬讛 讙讜讬 讜谞转讙讬讬专 注讘讚 讜谞砖转讞专专 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to which clause in the baraita is Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka disputing? If we say he is disputing the last clause of the baraita, which concerns testimony about a path or a place for mourning, it is a case of removing money from the possession of its presumptive owner. How could his testimony be deemed credible? Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka is certainly disagreeing with the former clause of the baraita: And with regard to all these testimonies, if he was a gentile and he converted, or a slave and he was liberated, they are not deemed credible. It is with regard to that halakha that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: They are deemed credible.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讙讜讬 讛讜讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讚讬讬拽 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讚注转讬讛 诇讗讬讙讬讜专讬 诪讬讚拽 讛讜讛 讚讬讬拽

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains that the first tanna maintains: Since he was a gentile, he was not exacting in scrutinizing the matter, as it was irrelevant to him. Therefore, even after he converted he is not deemed credible. And Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka maintains: Since it was his intention to convert, he took interest in Judaism and he was exacting in scrutinizing the matter, and he is deemed credible.

诪讗讬 拽爪爪讛 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 拽爪爪讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖谞砖讗 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇讜 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讘讬转 诪诇讬讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讜砖讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讗诪爪注 专讞讘讛 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讬谞讜 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪注讜 讗讞讬谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇讜 讜诪转讬讬专讗讬诐 讗谞讜 砖诪讗 讬转注专讘 讝专注讜 讘讝专注讬谞讜 讘讜讗讜 讜拽讞讜 诇讻诐 讚讜讙诪讗 诇讚讜专讜转 砖诇讗 讬转注专讘 讝专注讜 讘讝专注讬谞讜 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 拽爪爪讛 砖讛转讬谞讜拽 谞讗诪谉 诇讛注讬讚 注诇讬讛

The Gemara asks about a term employed in the baraita: What is the meaning of ketzatza? It is as the Sages taught: How is ketzatza performed? If a situation where one of the brothers who married a woman who is unsuited for him, due to flawed lineage, occurs, the family members come and bring with them a barrel full of fruits, and break it in the middle of a public square to publicize the matter, and they say: Our brothers, the house of Israel, listen. Our brother so-and-so married a woman who is unsuited for him, and we fear lest his descendants become intermingled with our descendants. In order to further underscore the matter, they continue: Come and take for yourselves a sample as an indicator for future generations, so that his descendants will not intermingle with our descendants. The gathering of the large crowd to take the fruit generates publicity. And this is the ketzatza that a child who witnessed it is deemed credible to testify about it when he is an adult.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗砖讛 砖谞转讗专诪诇讛

 

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 28-34 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will finish the second chapter of Masechet Ketuvot that discusses who鈥檚 testimony is believed in court. The...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 28: Childhood Memories

The Gemara makes assumptions about couples that have divorced to protect them against future inappropriate intimacy. Also, a mishnah on...

Ketubot 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 28

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诇讗 转讚讜专 注诪讜 讘诪讘讜讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻驻专 拽讟谉 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讻驻专 拽讟谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讻砖讻讜谞讛

And if he was a priest she may not live with him even in one alleyway that opens into several courtyards, even if she did not remarry, as she is forbidden to him forever. What is the ruling if it was a small village? May she live with her ex-husband in the same village? The Gemara relates that this case of his divorc茅e and a small village was an incident that transpired and the Sages said: A small village is judged as his immediate proximity.

诪讬 谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讗 谞讚讞讬转 诪驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬讛 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讞爪专 砖诇讛 讛讜讗 谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: In cases where they may not reside in the same courtyard or alleyway, who is ousted in favor of whom? Which of them must leave? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof as it is taught in a baraita: She is ousted in favor of him, and leaves, and he is not ousted in favor of her. But if it was her courtyard, he is ousted in favor of her.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬转讛 讞爪专 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讗 谞讚讞讬转 诪驻谞讬讜 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞爪专 砖诇讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讜讗诇讗 讘讞爪专 砖诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讞爪专 砖诇讛 讛讜讗 谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚诇诪讗 讚讗讙讬专 诪讬讙专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If it was a courtyard belonging to both of them, what is the halakha; who is ousted in favor of whom? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof as it is taught in a baraita: She is ousted in favor of him. The Gemara elaborates: With what circumstances are we dealing? If we say that the subject of the baraita is with regard to his courtyard, it is obvious that she is ousted. But rather, is it with regard to her courtyard? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If it was her courtyard, he is ousted in favor of her? Rather, is it not that the baraita is dealing with a case like this, where it was a courtyard belonging to both of them? The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the baraita is teaching that even in a case where he rented the courtyard she is ousted in his favor. Therefore, the dilemma with regard to a courtyard belonging to both of them is unresolved.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讛谞讛 讛壮 诪讟诇讟诇讱 讟诇讟诇讛 讙讘专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讟诇讟讜诇讬 讚讙讘专讗 拽砖讬谉 诪讚讗讬转转讗

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the verse: 鈥淭he Lord will dislocate you the dislocation of a man鈥 (Isaiah 22:17), and Rav said: This indicates that the dislocation of a man is more difficult for him than the dislocation of a woman is for her. Therefore, the woman is ousted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛 讗讬谞讛 谞驻专注转 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪谉 诇讚讬谞讗 诇讗 诪讝讚拽拽讬谞谉 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜转讬 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 谞讙讜讚讬 谞诪讬 诪谞讙讚讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗 讘讗讘诇 专讘转讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讻砖谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 谞驻专注转 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛

The Sages taught: With regard to a priest who borrowed from his wife from usufruct property that she inherited from her father and then he divorced her, she is repaid only by means of another person and not directly from her husband, to prevent them from engaging in business dealings. Rav Sheshet said: And if after engaging in business dealings they came before us for judgment, we do not attend to them because by engaging in those dealings they were in violation of a transgression. Rav Pappa said: We excommunicate them for violating that transgression. Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We also flog them with lashes. Rav Na岣an said: The tanna taught in Evel Rabbati, one of the minor tractates that deals primarily with the halakhot of mourning: In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where she was divorced from marriage. However, when she was divorced from betrothal, she is repaid even directly by means of receiving the money herself, because, in that case, he is not yet accustomed to her. Since they never shared intimacy, there is no concern that it will lead to transgression.

讛讛讜讗 讗专讜住 讜讗专讜住转讜 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讜拽讬 专讘讗 砖诇讜讞讗 讘讬谞转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗 讘讗讘诇 专讘转讬 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚拽讗 讙讬讬住讬 讘讛讚讚讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident concerning this divorced, betrothed man and his betrothed who came before Rava for judgment, and Rav Adda bar Mattana was sitting before him at the time. Rava placed an intermediary to separate between them. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: The tanna taught in Evel Rabbati that if she was divorced from betrothal she is paid directly? Rava said to him: This applies only in a case where they are not accustomed to each other. However, with regard to these people, we see that they are accustomed to each other, and therefore they must be separated.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗讜拽讬 专讘讗 砖诇讬讞 讘讬谞转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 谞讬拽讜诐 诪专 砖诇讜讞讗 讘讬谞转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 [讗诪专] 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗 讘讗讘诇 专讘转讬 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讙讬讬住讬 讘讛讚讚讬 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 拽讗 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讚讙讬讬住讬 讘讛讚讚讬

Some say that Rava did not place an intermediary to separate between them. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: Let the Master place an intermediary to separate between them. Rava said to Rav Adda bar Mattana: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: The tanna taught in Evel Rabbati that if she was divorced from betrothal she is paid directly? Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: This applies only in a case where they are not accustomed to each other. However, with regard to these people, we see that they are accustomed to each other, and therefore they must be separated.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘讙讜讚诇谉 诪讛 砖专讗讜 讘拽讜讟谞谉 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 讜讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讜讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讞讬

MISHNA: And these are deemed credible to testify in their majority with regard to what they saw in their minority. A person is deemed credible to say: This is my father鈥檚 handwriting, and to say: This is my teacher鈥檚 handwriting; and to say: This is my brother鈥檚 handwriting, even though he never saw their handwriting after reaching majority.

讝讻讜专 讛讬讬转讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬转 砖讬爪讗讛 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 讜砖讛讬讛 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转 讛住驻专 诇讟讘讜诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜砖讛讬讛 讞讜诇拽 注诪谞讜 注诇 讛讙讜专谉 讜讛诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜注讚 讻讗谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讗讬谉 讘砖讘转

搂 Similarly, one is deemed credible to say: I was reminded of the wedding of so-and-so, who went out with a hinnuma, or with her hair uncovered in a manner typical of virgins, and therefore, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars; and to say that so-and-so would leave school to immerse in order to partake of teruma, and that he would share teruma with us at the threshing floor and therefore he is a priest. Similarly, one is deemed credible to say: This place is a beit haperas, a field with a grave that was plowed, scattering the bones, and rendering the field a place of uncertain ritual impurity; and to say: Until here we would come on Shabbat and thereby determine the Shabbat boundary.

讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讚专讱 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 诪注诪讚 讜诪住驻讚 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛

However, a person is neither deemed credible to say: So-and-so had a path in this place; nor to say: So-and-so had a tract of land where they would perform the ritual of standing and sitting and deliver a eulogy in that place, thereby attesting that the land belongs to that person. The reason he is not deemed credible in those cases is that full-fledged testimony is required to remove property from the possession of its presumptive owner.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜讛讜讗 砖讬砖 讙讚讜诇 注诪讜

GEMARA: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: And the mishna said that one is deemed credible to testify about handwriting he saw as a minor only when there is a witness who saw the handwriting as an adult testifying with him.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗讘讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讻讬讞 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 专讘讜 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 专讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬诪转讬讛 讚专讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讘讬讜 诇讗

And all of these cases are necessary, as one could not have been derived from the other. As, if the tanna had taught us the case of his father鈥檚 handwriting, one might have thought that he is deemed credible due to the fact that he is often found with his father and is familiar with his handwriting; but with regard to his teacher鈥檚 handwriting, no, he is not deemed credible. And if the tanna had taught us the case of his teacher鈥檚 handwriting, one might have thought that he is deemed credible due to the fact that he has a sense of awe of his teacher and therefore pays attention to his handwriting; but with regard to his father鈥檚 handwriting, no, he is not deemed credible.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讗讘讬讜 讚砖讻讬讞 讙讘讬讛 讜专讘讜 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬诪转讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讞讬讜 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讗 讜诇讗 讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讬诪谞讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘讚专讘谞谉

And if the tanna had taught us these two cases, one might have thought that he is deemed credible with regard to his father鈥檚 handwriting due to the fact that he is often found with him, and his teacher鈥檚 handwriting due to the fact that he has a sense of awe of him. But with regard to his brother鈥檚 handwriting, which has neither this factor nor that factor, say no, he is not deemed credible. Therefore, the tanna teaches us: Since ratification of documents is required by rabbinic law, as by Torah law, the signatories are sufficient proof of a document鈥檚 validity; the Sages deemed him credible to testify in cases that he witnessed as a minor in matters that are by rabbinic law, including the case of his brother.

讝讻讜专 讛讬讬转讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬转 砖讬爪讗讛 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转 讙诇讜讬 诪诇转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

And the mishna states that one is deemed credible to say: I was reminded of the wedding of so-and-so, who went out with a hinnuma, or with her hair uncovered. What is the reason that he is deemed credible? Since most women are married as virgins, her presumptive status is that of a virgin even without his testimony. His testimony with regard to what he saw as a minor is merely revealing of a matter already presumed true, not actual testimony.

讜砖讛讬讛 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转 讛住驻专 诇讟讘讜诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讚诇诪讗 注讘讚 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬诇诪讚 讗转 注讘讚讜 转讜专讛

And the mishna states that one is deemed credible to say that so-and-so would leave school to immerse in order to partake of teruma, and therefore he is a priest. The Gemara asks: And perhaps he is the slave of a priest, who is also eligible to partake of teruma. The Gemara notes: This mishna provides support for the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited for a person to teach his slave Torah. Since the testimony is that he was in school, apparently he is not a slave. Therefore, the fact that he partook of teruma indicates that he is a priest.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 专讘讜 讗讜 砖注砖讗讜 专讘讜

The Gemara asks: And may one not teach his slave Torah? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A slave whose master borrowed from him, or whose master made him

讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜 讗讜 砖拽专讗 砖诇砖讛 驻住讜拽讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讛转诐 讚讗讬拽专讬 注讘讚 诪讚注转讜 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚拽讗 谞讛讬讙 讘讬讛 诪谞讛讙 讘谞讬诐 诇讟讘讜诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉

steward over his property, or who donned phylacteries in his master鈥檚 presence, or who read three verses from the Torah scroll in the synagogue, did not necessarily emerge to freedom. Apparently, there are slaves who learn Torah to the extent that they are capable of reading the Torah in the synagogue, and conceivably that Torah is learned in school. The Gemara answers that there is no proof from the baraita, as there it is a case where the slave read at his own initiative, and conceivably he taught himself to read the Torah as well. When we say in the mishna that it is proof that he is a priest, it is in a case where he treats him with treatment typical of children, not slaves, and sends him to school. When the mishna states that he is deemed credible to testify that as a minor he saw that others went to immerse in order to partake of teruma, the Sages permit them only to partake of teruma by rabbinic law.

讜砖讛讬讛 讞讜诇拽 注诪谞讜 注诇 讛讙讜专谉 讜讚诇诪讗 注讘讚 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 转谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 转专讜诪讛 诇注讘讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讘讜 注诪讜 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 转专讜诪讛 诇注讘讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讘讜 注诪讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 砖讬讗诪专 讗诐 讻讛谉 讗谞讬 转谞讜 诇讬 讘砖讘讬诇 注爪诪讬 讜讗诐 注讘讚 讻讛谉 讗谞讬 转谞讜 诇讬 讘砖讘讬诇 专讘讬

And the mishna states that he is deemed credible to say that they saw that so-and-so would share teruma with us at the threshing floor, and therefore he is a priest. The Gemara asks: And perhaps he is the slave of a priest? The Gemara answers: We learned the mishna according to the one who says: One distributes teruma to a slave only if his master is with him. Therefore, it is clear that the one sharing teruma with them was a priest, not a slave, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of the son of a priest鈥檚 wife and the son of a priest鈥檚 maidservant who were intermingled at birth, both mothers go to the threshing floor together based on the principle: One distributes teruma to a slave only if his master is with him; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is possible that each will say: If I am a priest, give me teruma for my own sake, and if I am the slave of a priest, give me teruma for the sake of my master.

讘诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讘诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉

The dispute in the baraita is based on the fact that in the place of Rabbi Yehuda, they would elevate one who eats teruma to the presumptive status of priesthood for the purpose of lineage. Therefore, he permitted distributing teruma to the slave of a priest only if his master is present, due to the concern that if he were given teruma directly, he would be elevated to priesthood. In the place of Rabbi Yosei, they would not elevate from teruma to lineage. Therefore, he permitted distributing teruma directly to the slave of a priest, as there is no concern that the slave would be mistaken for a priest.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 讛注讚转讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛注讚转讬 讜讛注诇讜 注讘讚 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 讛注诇讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讘讛诪转谉 砖诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 转拽诇讛 注诇 讬讚诐 爪讚讬拽讬诐 注爪诪诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: In all my days, I never had occasion to testify in court. One time I testified, and the court elevated a slave to priesthood on the basis of my testimony. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that they actually elevated the slave to priesthood? Now, just as with regard to the animals of the righteous the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not engender a pitfall on their account, as the Gemara relates with regard to the donkey of Rabbi Pin岣s ben Yair that it would not eat untithed produce (岣llin 7a), all the more so will He not engender a pitfall on account of the righteous themselves.

讗诇讗 讘拽砖讜 诇讛注诇讜转 注讘讚 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讝讗 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗讝诇 讜讗住讛讬讚 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rather, the Gemara emends the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei: They sought to elevate a slave to priesthood on the basis of my testimony, but ultimately they did not. Rabbi Elazar saw teruma distributed directly to the slave of a priest in the place of Rabbi Yosei, where one does not elevate from teruma to priesthood, and he went and testified about what he saw in the place of Rabbi Yehuda, where one elevates from teruma to priesthood.

讜砖讛诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 砖诇讗 谞讬讚砖 讘专讙诇

And the mishna states that one is deemed credible to testify in his adulthood that as a minor he saw that this place is a beit haperas. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he is deemed credible to testify what he witnessed as a minor? The Gemara answers: The ritual impurity of a beit haperas is by rabbinic law, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person who passes through a beit haperas may blow on the dust before taking each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it, avoid it, and proceed. One may not rely on that method of examination with regard to impurity by Torah law. And Rav Yehuda bar Ami, in the name of Rav Yehuda, said: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot, creating a path, is pure. What is the reason? It is that it is impossible for a bone the size of a grain of barley, whose possible presence led to the decree of impurity, not to have been trodden underfoot and rendered smaller. This presumption is possible only in cases of impurity by rabbinic law.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讗讬谉 讘砖讘转 拽住讘专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚专讘谞谉

And the mishna states that one is deemed credible to testify, in his adulthood, that he saw as a minor: Until here we would come on Shabbat. The Gemara explains: This tanna maintains that the Shabbat boundaries, beyond which one may not go outside the city on Shabbat, are mandated by rabbinic law, and the Sages deemed him credible in matters of rabbinic law.

讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讚专讱 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 诪注诪讚 讜诪住驻讚 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉

And the mishna states that one is neither deemed credible to say: So-and-so had a path in this place; nor to say: So-and-so had a tract of land where they would perform the ritual of standing and sitting and deliver a eulogy in that place. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he is not deemed credible? It is due to the fact that we do not remove money from the possession of its presumptive owner on the basis of testimony about a matter that he witnessed as a minor.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讗诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽 诇讜诪专 讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讘讗 诪砖驻讞讛 讝讜 讟讛讜专讛 诪砖驻讞讛 讝讜 讟诪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讟诪讗讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 诪砖驻讞讛 讝讜 讻砖专讛 讜诪砖驻讞讛 讝讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Sages taught: A child is deemed credible to say when he reaches majority that this is what my father told me when I was a minor: This family is pure, that family is impure. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that his father said pure and impure? What do those concepts mean with regard to a family? Rather, his father said to him: This family is of unflawed lineage, and this family is of flawed lineage.

讜砖讗讻诇谞讜 讘拽爪爪讛 砖诇 讘转 驻诇讜谞讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜砖讛讬讬谞讜 诪讜诇讬讻讬诐 讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讜转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讜讻讜诇谉 讗诐 讛讬讛 讙讜讬 讜谞转讙讬讬专 注讘讚 讜谞砖转讞专专 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讚专讱 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 诪注诪讚 讜诪住驻讚 讛讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讝讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谞讬诐

And he is deemed credible to say that we ate at the ketzatza that took place to publicize that the marriage of the daughter of so-and-so to so-and-so was unsuitable; and to say that we would bring 岣lla and priestly gifts to so-and-so, who is a priest. In that case, he is deemed credible only to testify that he brought the 岣lla by himself, but not by means of another, as one is certain of matters that he performed himself, even as a minor. However, he is not deemed credible to testify about actions performed by others when he was a minor. And with regard to all these testimonies, if he was a gentile and he converted, or a slave and he was liberated, they are not deemed credible to testify after their conversion and liberation about matters that transpired beforehand when they were disqualified as witnesses. And one is neither deemed credible to say that he remembers that when he was a minor, so-and-so had a path in this place; nor that so-and-so had a tract of land where they would perform the ritual of standing and sitting and deliver a eulogy in that place. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: They are deemed credible.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗专讬砖讗 讜讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讛讬讛 讙讜讬 讜谞转讙讬讬专 注讘讚 讜谞砖转讞专专 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to which clause in the baraita is Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka disputing? If we say he is disputing the last clause of the baraita, which concerns testimony about a path or a place for mourning, it is a case of removing money from the possession of its presumptive owner. How could his testimony be deemed credible? Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka is certainly disagreeing with the former clause of the baraita: And with regard to all these testimonies, if he was a gentile and he converted, or a slave and he was liberated, they are not deemed credible. It is with regard to that halakha that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: They are deemed credible.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讙讜讬 讛讜讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讚讬讬拽 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讚注转讬讛 诇讗讬讙讬讜专讬 诪讬讚拽 讛讜讛 讚讬讬拽

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains that the first tanna maintains: Since he was a gentile, he was not exacting in scrutinizing the matter, as it was irrelevant to him. Therefore, even after he converted he is not deemed credible. And Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka maintains: Since it was his intention to convert, he took interest in Judaism and he was exacting in scrutinizing the matter, and he is deemed credible.

诪讗讬 拽爪爪讛 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 拽爪爪讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖谞砖讗 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇讜 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讘讬转 诪诇讬讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讜砖讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讗诪爪注 专讞讘讛 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讬谞讜 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪注讜 讗讞讬谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇讜 讜诪转讬讬专讗讬诐 讗谞讜 砖诪讗 讬转注专讘 讝专注讜 讘讝专注讬谞讜 讘讜讗讜 讜拽讞讜 诇讻诐 讚讜讙诪讗 诇讚讜专讜转 砖诇讗 讬转注专讘 讝专注讜 讘讝专注讬谞讜 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 拽爪爪讛 砖讛转讬谞讜拽 谞讗诪谉 诇讛注讬讚 注诇讬讛

The Gemara asks about a term employed in the baraita: What is the meaning of ketzatza? It is as the Sages taught: How is ketzatza performed? If a situation where one of the brothers who married a woman who is unsuited for him, due to flawed lineage, occurs, the family members come and bring with them a barrel full of fruits, and break it in the middle of a public square to publicize the matter, and they say: Our brothers, the house of Israel, listen. Our brother so-and-so married a woman who is unsuited for him, and we fear lest his descendants become intermingled with our descendants. In order to further underscore the matter, they continue: Come and take for yourselves a sample as an indicator for future generations, so that his descendants will not intermingle with our descendants. The gathering of the large crowd to take the fruit generates publicity. And this is the ketzatza that a child who witnessed it is deemed credible to testify about it when he is an adult.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗砖讛 砖谞转讗专诪诇讛

 

Scroll To Top