KESUBOS - 022a – האשה שנתארמלה – פרק שני – כתובות, כב ע”א

It is two against two;^[1]

תרי ותרי נינהו - when others say he did not steal, it becomes two against two, and he is not made fit by this, for we hold later in our perek (26a): there is no challenge with fewer than two.

and if it is a challenge of a family blemish — it is merely a revealing of the matter!

דפגם משפחה - that they testified about him that he is a slave, and a slave is unfit to judge and to testify, by a kal vachomer from a woman, as it says in perek HaChovel (Bava Kamma 88a).

גלוי מילתא בעלמא הוא - once they have signed, why may they not testify about him? What suspicion of an interested witness is there here? This is a matter they need to clarify, and a thing that is bound to come to light, for they will investigate it until the matter is clarified; and the testimony of these does not depend on their statement — they merely reveal the matter.

In truth, I will tell you it is a challenge of robbery, and these say: We know of him that he did teshuvah.

דעבד תשובה - and returned the stolen property.

Rabbi Zeira said: This matter I heard from Rabbi Abba; and were it not for Rabbi Abba of Acco, I would have forgotten it:

ואי לאו רבי אבא דמן עכו - who reminded me of it later.

שכחתה - I would have forgotten it.

Three who sat to validate a document, and one of them died — they must write: We were sitting as three together, and one is not present.

ומת אחד מהן - before they signed.

צריכין למיכתב כו' - for the validation of a document is with three, and one who sees two signed on it will say that they validated it with two.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: And if it is written in it: This document came out before us, the beis din — it is no longer needed.

ואי כתב ביה שטרא דנן נפק קדמנא בי דינא תו לא צריך - for less than three is not called a beis din.

But perhaps it was an impudent beis din, and like Shmuel, for Shmuel said: Two who judged — their judgment is valid, but it is called an impudent beis din!^[2]

Where it is written in it: The beis din of Rabbana Ashi.

בי דינא דרבנא אשי - it speaks in the usual way of things, for he was head of the yeshivah in Masa Mechasya in the days of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who is the master of this teaching; and certainly the beis din of Rav Ashi would not act with two.

But perhaps the Rabbis of the house of Rav Ashi hold like Shmuel!

Where it is written in it: And Rabbana Ashi told us:

ואמר לנא רבנא אשי - to attend to it and validate it — since Rav Ashi himself engaged them, he certainly told it to three. Some explain: and Rabbana Ashi told us — they are three. But this does not seem right to me, for if Rav Ashi were one of them, what is and he told us that they write in it?

Mishnah

A woman who said: I was a married woman, and I am divorced — she is believed, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted.

But if there are witnesses that she was a married woman, and she says: I am divorced — she is not believed.

If she said: I was taken captive, and I am pure — she is believed, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted.

נשביתי - among the idolaters.

וטהורה אני - that I was not violated by an idolater.

נאמנת - and she is permitted to a kohen.

But if there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and she says: I am pure — she is not believed.

And if the witnesses came after she married — she does not leave:

ואם משניסת באו עדים - the Gemara explains which case this refers to.

Gemara

Rav Assi said: From where in the Torah do we know that the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted?

As it says (Devarim 22:16): I gave my daughter to this man as a wife — to the man, he forbade her; this, he permitted her.

נתתי לאיש אסרה - to the whole world, since we do not know to whom; and when he says this one, he permits her to him.

Why do I need a verse? It is logical: he forbade her, and he permits her!

Rather, the verse was needed for that of Rav Huna in the name of Rav,

for Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: From where in the Torah do we know that a father is believed to forbid his daughter?

שנאמן לאסור את בתו - when she is a minor or a naarah, whom he has the power to betroth, as we say in perek Naarah Shenispatsah: from where do we know that if he says, I betrothed her to so-and-so, he is believed to forbid her to everyone?

As it says: I gave my daughter to the man.

את בתי נתתי - so the giving depends on him, and the verse believed him to say so.

Why do I need this?

הזה למה לי - since it is not needed for the mouth that forbade.

It is needed for what Rabbi Yonah taught, for Rabbi Yonah taught: I gave my daughter to this man — to this one, and not to the yavam.

ולא ליבם - if he spread an evil report about his brother's marriage, the yavam is not judged as a motzi shem ra to be punished with a hundred silver pieces; and so it is proven later in perek Naarah.

The Rabbis taught: A woman who said: I am a married woman, and then said again: I am unmarried — she is believed.

But she has made herself a forbidden piece!^[3]

Rava bar Rav Huna said: Where she gave a reason for her words.^[4]

It was also taught so: If she said: I am a married woman, and then said again: I am unmarried — she is not believed; but if she gave a reason for her words, she is believed.

And there was also an incident with a certain grown woman who was great in beauty, and people leapt at her to betroth her, and she said to them: I am betrothed.

Some time later she went and betrothed herself.

The Sages said to her: What did you see to do so?

She said to them: At first, when unfit men came to me, I said I am betrothed; now that fit men have come to me, I went and betrothed myself.

And this halachah Rav Acha, the officer of the citadel, brought up before the Sages in Usha, and they said: If she gave a reason for her words, she is believed.

Shmuel asked Rav: If she said: I am impure, and then said again: I am pure — what is the law?

He said to him: In this too, if she gave^[5]

Tosafos

תרי ותרי נינהו - The Kuntres explained: and when others say he did not steal, it becomes two against two, and he is not made fit by this. And this is difficult, for here we stand according to Rav Huna, who holds (Shevuos 47b) that this set comes by itself and testifies, for we should say: leave the man in his presumed status. Moreover, Rav Chisda, who says (there) why do I need false witnesses, agrees here that this man becomes fit on his own; for if one of these sets testified about a man that he is unfit, according to Rav Chisda, who regards them as false witnesses, it would not be believed even though no one contradicts it — all the more so where there are witnesses who contradict, that they are not believed. And further, it is difficult for the Ri: it says if it is a challenge of a family blemish, it is merely a revealing of the matter, and the Kuntres explained that it is a thing bound to come to light, for they will investigate until the matter is clarified; and this is astonishing — how will the matter ever be clarified? Since these two say that he is a slave, the whole world cannot contradict them, for two are like a hundred. Therefore it seems like the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel, that it does not speak of the testimony of the judges but of the testimony of others. And this is the explanation: if before they signed a challenge was raised against one of them, two from the marketplace testify about him and he signs, for it is as if another beis din sat and declared him fit, and the session is not annulled. And they sign once two have signed and the third had not managed to sign before a challenge was raised against him: the challenge came and annulled the session of that beis din, even though afterwards others testified that he is fit — since that session was annulled, it is void, and a beis din must be convened again. On this it says: a challenge of what? If a challenge of robbery — it is two against two, and he is not disqualified, for we set two against two and leave the man in his presumed status; and since it has come to light that he was never unfit, the session of that beis din was not annulled. If a challenge of a family blemish, that they said he is a slave, and these refute them — for if they say he is not a slave, he would be disqualified, since we cannot say leave the man in his presumption, for if he is a slave he never had a presumption of fitness — then it is merely a revealing of the matter, for since it has come to light that he was fit, what do we care about that challenge? And the session was never annulled. In truth it is a challenge of robbery, and these witnesses say: we know of him that he did teshuvah. Since they agree with the first ones that he is a robber, their challenge is a challenge and annuls the session; for since it is true that he became unfit, he is in a presumption of unfitness until his fitness becomes known to us.

במותב תלתא כחדא הוינא וחד ליתוהי - This means he must write and one is not present, since he wrote explicitly we were sitting as three, and only two sign it; but certainly if he did not write and one is not present, it is valid. Know this, for it says: and if it is written in it beis din, it is no longer needed, and it speaks where he did not write and one is not present, since it asks: but perhaps it was an impudent beis din.

ודלמא רבנן דבי רב אשי כשמואל סבירא להו - This means: just as Shmuel holds in general, so they hold regarding the validation of documents. But Shmuel himself could well hold that validation of documents requires three; for Rav Nachman holds like Shmuel in the first perek of Sanhedrin (3a) that two who judged, their judgment is valid, and Rav Nachman himself holds that validation of documents is with three, in perek Chezkas HaBatim (Bava Basra 40a), regarding the three lands for chazakah.

מנין להפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר מן התורה שנאמר את בתי נתתי לאיש וגו' - This implies that the father is believed to permit his daughter after he forbade her only because of a migo. And this is astonishing: if someone came and said, I betrothed my daughter, and after an hour or the next day said, I betrothed her to so-and-so, he would not be believed, since now there is no migo! And the Ri says that in such a case, where he does not contradict his first words but only comes to explain his first words, he is believed even without a migo. And here it expounds from my daughter that the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted — for example, where the man who betrothed her stands before him and he says I gave my daughter to the man, and is silent; which certainly implies that he does not recognize that this is his son-in-law, since he did not say I gave my daughter to this one, or to this man, together, without a long pause. Therefore he would not be believed afterwards, only within the time of speech, where there is a migo. And further the Ri says that one could say that even in such a case he is believed without a migo, and it expounds an extra verse: if it is not needed for here — for even after time he is believed, since it is logical that he should be believed to explain to whom he gave her, even though he did not explain at first, since he did not think it necessary to explain — apply it to a case where he is not believed after time, that he is believed within the time of speech through a migo.

[מנין לאב שנאמן לאסור וכו' - It is astonishing: why is a verse needed? Derive it from his being believed since he has the power to betroth her, as it says in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Basra 134b): a husband who said, I divorced my wife, is believed, since he has the power to divorce her. And one can answer: here it is not so much in his power, for perhaps he will not find someone to betroth her (as in Kiddushin 64a); therefore a verse was needed. However, if he said about his daughter who is a bogeres, I betrothed her when she was a naarah or a minor, it seems that he is not believed, for now it is not in his power at all. For although later in perek Naarah Shenispatsah (46b) it asks: but say this applies to a minor, but a naarah can betroth herself — according to this one would have to say that he is believed to forbid even when he has no power to betroth her, for the verse is written of a naarah, and it means to say that he has no power to betroth her, and I gave my daughter when she was a minor, and it is a decree of the verse that he is believed even though it is not in his power; but according to the conclusion we do not say so.

חזרה ואמרה טהורה אני מהו - This means: does a reason help or not; but one cannot explain what is the law — whether she needs a reason or not — since it says: in this too, if she gave etc.

Notes

1. 1. Continues from [Kesubos 21b], on a challenge raised against one of three who sat to validate a document.
2. 2. An impudent beis din — two who judged without a third; their ruling stands, but they did not act properly.
3. 3. That is: by saying I am a married woman, she made herself like a forbidden piece; how can she retract?
4. 4. Amatla — an acceptable reason for her first words.
5. 5. The passage continues on [Kesubos 22b].