Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot Chapter 2

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְאַרְמְלָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאתִי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא אַלְמָנָה נְשָׂאתִיךְ אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁיָּצָאת בְּהִינוּמָא וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר אַף חִילּוּק קְּלָיוֹת רְאָיָיה. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְאַלְמְנָה כול׳. נִיחָא שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה. נִתְאַלְמְנָה. מִי עוֹרֵר. הַיּוֹרְשִין. וְהַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב וְרוֹב הַנִּישְּׂאוֹת בְּתוּלוֹת נִישְּׂאוֹת. אֱמוֹר מֵעַתָּה. בְּתוּלָה נִישֵּׂאת. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִילְּכוּ לְמִידַּת הַדִּין וּלְמָמוֹן אַחַר הָרוֹב. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הַפָּרָה וְנִמְצָא עוֹבְּרָהּ בְּצִידָּהּ. וְכִי רוֹב הַפָּרוֹת מַפִּילוֹת. אֱמוֹר. מַחְמַת נְגִיחָה הִפִּילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִילְּכוּ לְמִידַּת הַדִּין וּלְמָמוֹן אַחַר הָרוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. וּבְדָבָר אֶחָד הִלְּכוּ בְּמִידַּת הַדִּין וּלְמָמוֹן אַחַר הָרוֹב. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי אָחָא. גָּמָל שֶׁהָיָה אוֹחֵר בֵּין הַגְּמָלִים וְנִמְצָא שָׁם אֶחָד מֵהֶן מֵת. חַיָיב. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אוֹחֵר נְשָׁכוֹ. טְעָנוֹ מְנָה וְכָפַר בּוֹ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁחַיָיב לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים. רִבִּי חִיָיה רֹבָא אוֹמֵר. נִשְׁבַּע עַל הַשְּׁאָר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבַּע עַל הַשְּׁאָר. מִשְּׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית לָמַד רִבִּי חִיָיה רֹבָא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית. זֶה אוֹמֵר. אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ. זֶה שֶׁתּוֹפֵס בְּחֶצְיָיהּ כְּמֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁחֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וַהֲלָהּ אוֹמֵר. כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי. וְזֶה שֶׁהוּא תוֹפֵס בְּחֶצְיָיהּ כְּמֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁחֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וַהֲלָהּ אוֹמֵר. כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי. נִשְׁבַּע שֶׁאֵין כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְלֹא שְׁמִיעַ דָּמַר רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תְּקָנַת שְׁבוּעָה הִיא. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אָדָם רוֹאֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בַשּׁוּק וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ. טַלִּית שֶׁעָלֶיךָ שֶׁלִּי הוּא. בּוֹא וְחַלֵּק עִמִּי טַלִּיתָךְ. רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רַב. מוֹדֶה חֲבִיבִי בִשְׁטָר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. טְעָנוֹ מְנָה וְכָפַר בּוֹ וְהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁין. אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁין. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. כֶּסֶף סִילְעִין דִּי אִינּוּן וְנִמְחֲקוּ אֵין פּוֹחֵת מִשְּׁנַיִם. מִיכָּן וָאֵילָךְ הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר. חָמֵשׁ. וְהַלֹּוֶה אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדֶה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה יִשְׁבַּע. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵין הוֹדָאָה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין הוֹדָאָה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה. וְהָא אִם הוֹדָיָיה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה חַיָיב. וָכָא לֹא כְמִי שֶׁהוֹדָיָיה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה הִיא. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב לָהּ מְנָה. וְהִיא כְתוֹבַעַת בְּיָדוֹ מְנָה אֶחָד וְהוּא אֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה לָהּ. הַמּוֹצִיא מַחְבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָיה. בְּהִינוּמָה. תַּמָּן. נַמְנוּמָה. רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא אָמְרִין. פֹּירֵיוֹמָא. יוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּגִין אֵילּוּ שֶׁיָּצְאוּ בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָרוּעַ וְעֵידֶיהָ מֵעִידִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא בְּתוּלָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין הִיא. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת. בְּתוּלָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין אֵינָהּ יוֹצֵאת וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא מוּכַּת עֵץ הִיא. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. מוּכַּת עֵץ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא חָשׁוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר אַף חִילּוּק קְּלָיוֹת רְאָיָיה. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא בְּתוּלָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין הִיא. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת. בְּתוּלָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין אֵין לָהּ חִילּוּק קְלָיוֹת. תַּנֵּי. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. אַף מִי שֶׁהוֹלִיכוּ לְפָנֶיהָ חָבִית שֶׁלַּבְּסוֹרוֹת. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין הִיא. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת. בְּתוּלָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין אֵין לָהּ חָבִית שֶׁלַּבְּשׂוֹרוֹת.

MISHNAH: If a woman became widowed or divorced and she claims is lost or, if she married at a place of illiterates, it never was written. to have been married as a virgin, but he says not so, I married you as a widow, if there are witnesses that she went out in hinuma or with uncovered hair, her ketubah is 200 [ zuz ]. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels also is proof. HALAKHAH: “If a woman became widowed,” etc. We understand if she was divorced. If she became widowed, who opposes? The heirs. 27:6–11 . The widow can claim only her ketubah (in the absence of a will). . Should one follow the majority, and most women are married as virgins. Say then that she was married as a virgin! This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument 93a . . There 5:1 , we have stated: “If an ox gored a cow and one finds her fetus beside her.. 21:35 ) half of the damage done to the cow but only a quarter of the value of the fetus. It is clear that the proven fact of the goring creates a presumption that the miscarriage was induced by it. This presumption is not sufficient to force the owner of the ox to pay; the value of the fetus, had it grown to be a calf, is “money in dispute”. Money in dispute for which there are no proofs either way is split evenly between the parties ( Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 2b ). A similar text is in Baba Qama 5:1 . The Babli, Baba Qama 46a , denies the designation as “money in dispute” and puts the burden of proof on the claimant, the injured party. ” Do most cows have miscarriages? Say therefore that the goring induced the miscarriage. Rebbi Abbahu said, this implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Abun, R. Yose. said, in one case they applied a majority argument, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that the one in heat bit it 93a : It is known that the one in heat killed it. The Babli holds that this is not a case of majority but one of prima facie evidence: Proof that the camel was in heat implies proof that it did attack other males. Therefore, the owner of the camel in heat would have to prove that the attack by the male in heat on the male not in heat was not lethal. . If somebody claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced witnesses that the [defendant] owes him 50 [ zuz ]. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya said, [the defendant] has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he does not have to swear. 22:8 , where the expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה “if he agrees that this is so.” In Baba Meṣi‘a (1:1, 7d 1. 24; Babli 3a ) the reason of the older R. Ḥiyya is “that what he admits himself should not have greater force than the testimony of witnesses.” . The older Rebbi Ḥiyya learned it from two who are grabbing a toga, as we have stated there 1:1 . If two people come to court, each grabs half of a toga and asserts ownership of the entire piece because he found it, each of them has to swear that he owns no less than half of it (so the court should not force obvious perjury) and takes half of the piece since “it is money in dispute”. : “Two are grabbing a toga, one says, I found it, and the other says, I found it.” The one who grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that that half belongs to him. The other says, “it belongs to me entirely”, and the fact that he grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The one who says, “it belongs to me entirely”, swears that not the entire [toga] is the other’s. But he did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that this oath is a rabbinic institution, that a man should not see another in the market and tell him, the toga which you are wearing is mine, come and split your toga with me! 1:1, 7d 1. 33; Babli 3a ; both in the name of R. Joḥanan. Rabbinic institutions do not imply anything for biblical law. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rav: My uncle agrees in the case of a document. How is that? He claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced a document that the [defendant] owed him 50 [ zuz ]. He has only fifty. And Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we can understand it from the following 10:2. If the amount of indebtedness is illegible, the use of the plural proves that the amount was at least two. : “‘The amount of … tetradrachmas’ and it was illegible, he owes no less than two. “If it is more, if the lender says five but the borrower says three, Ben Azzay says since he partially agreed to the claim, he has to swear, but the Sages say, what he agreed to is not of the kind which was claimed 10:2 (by the editorial team of Neziqin , different from the editors of the rest of the Yerushalmi) and the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 4b , the “Sages” are identified as R. Aqiba. In the Babli, Ben Azzai is replaced by R. Simeon ben Eleazar, 2 generations younger than Ben Azzai and R. Aqiba. In both sources, the reason of R. Aqiba is given that the borrower, in agreeing to pay more than he could be forced to by the existing document, is like a person returning what the other had lost, not directly answering the lender’s claim. . Because it was not of the kind which was claimed! Therefore, if it were of the kind which was claimed, he would be obligated. And is it not here that the agreed sum was part of the claim even if there are no witnesses, since he agrees that he owes 100? {The heirs, not being able to swear, would have to pay.} ? Everybody agrees that he owes her a mina. But she claimsanother mina from him, to which he does not agree. The burden of proof is on the claimant 46b . . “In hinuma ”. There, a veil. The rabbis here say, a phorema 9:13, Note 189 ), the word hinuma changed its meaning. In Babylonia it became “a veil” ( Babli 17b ), literally “a slumber cloth” from נום “to sleep”, in Galilee φόρημα “that which is carried”, i. e., “a litter”. . “She went out with uncovered head.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, like those who went out on the Day of Atonement 4:8 ). . If she went out with uncovered head, the witnesses testify that she had not been cohabitated with. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, a virgin after final marriage does not go out with uncovered head. Should one not worry that she had been injured by wood? That must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 [ zuz ]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not worry about infrequent occurrences. “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels also is proof.” Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, for a virgin after final marriage one does not distribute roasted kernels. It was stated it is stated that it was a sign of a virgin’s wedding if one brought before her a cup of good news or danced at her wedding. : Abba Shaul says, also if one brought before her an amphora of good news. 18:12 ), the bride also represents a beginning. It probably is difficult to have a full amphora of heave wine; so one might think of the “good news amphora” as one of new wine which is opened for the first time at the wedding, just as the bride will be “opened” after the wedding. . Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, in front of a virgin after final marriage one does not bring an amphora of good news.

מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁלְּאָבִיךָ הָיְיתָה וּלְקַחְתִּיהָ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלְּאָבִיו וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לְקַחְתִּיהָ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. וּמוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כול׳. מוֹדֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְאֵין פְּלִיג בְּקַדְמִיתָא. אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָכְלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אֲבָל אִם אָכְלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה נֶאֱמָן. בִּשֶׁלֹּא מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. אֲבָל אִם מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ אֲפִילוּ (לֹא) אָכְלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה [אֵינוֹ] נֶאֱמָן. כְּהָדָא. רְאוּבֵן אוֹכֵל שָׂדֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְהֵבִיא שִׁמְעוֹן עֵדִים שֶׁמֵּת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. מַפְקִין לָהּ מֵרְאוּבֵן וּמַחֲזִירִין לֵיהּ לְשִׁמְעוֹן. חָזַר רְאוּבֵן וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. אֲנָא אַפִּיקְתֵּיהּ מֵרְאוּבֵן אֲנָא מַחֲזִיר לֵיהּ לִרְאוּבֵן. רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא סָבְרִין כֵּן. רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן אָמְרִין. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁיָּצָאת עֵדוּת בְּרוּרָה יָצָאת. כֵּן רַבָּנִן דְּהָכָא אָמְרִין. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת בְּעֵדוּת בְּרוּרָה נִישֵּׂאת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מוֹדוּ רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן שֶׁאִילּוּ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא מֵת מִתּוֹכָהּ. שֶׁהַשָּׂדֶה בְחֶזְקַת רְאוּבָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים מֵת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא מֵת. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. לֹא שַׁנְיָיה. הִיא מִיתָה הִיא גֵירוּשִׁין לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. עַל דַעֲתֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן נִיחָא. הִיא מִיתָה הִיא גֵירוּשִׁין. עַל דַעֲתֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא מַה בֵין מִיתָה מַה בֵין גֵּירוּשִׁין. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַדַּעַת מַכְרָעַת בְּעֵידֵי מִיתָה. שֶׁאִילּוּ יָבוֹא הוּא מַכְחִשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן כְּדַעְתִּין. כְּמַה דְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן אָמְרִין. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁיָּצָאת בְּעֵדוּת בְּרוּרָה יָצָאת. כֵּן רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא אָמְרִין. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת בְּעֵדוּת בְּרוּרָה נִישֵּׂאת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלָא מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתִין דְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. לֹא מוֹדוּ רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן שֶׁאִילּוּ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. שֶׁהַשָּׂדֶה בְּחֶזְקַת רְאוּבֵן. אִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְנִישֵּׂאת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. לֹא תֵצֵא. יְאוּת. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. פָּתַר לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַים אוֹמְרִים. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. מַה בֵּינָהּ לְקַדְמִיתָא. תַּמָּן הוּחְזְקָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בִּפְנֵי הַכֹּל. בְּרַם הָכָא לֹא הוּחְזְקָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ. זֶה הוּא שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא טְמֵיאָה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. טְהוֹרָה. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִין. טְמֵיאָה. כְּמִי שֶׁאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִשְּׁבֵּית. וַאֲנָן חַיִים מִפִּיהָ. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה מְדַמֵּי לָהּ לַחֲלָבִים. אִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. פְּלוֹנִי אָכַל חֵלֶב. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא אָכַל חֵלֶב. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי מִסָּפֵק. וָכָא יִתֵּן גֵּט מִסָּפֵק. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא תְדַמִּינָהּ לַחֲלָבִים. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ אָמַר. לִיבִּי נוֹקְדֵּינִי. מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְסוֹפָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹנָה. אִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. תִּינָּשֵׂא. וְלֹא רִבִּי יוֹנָה אוֹמֵר. אִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. לֹא אָמַר לָהּ אֶלָּא. לֹא תְדַמִּינָהּ לַחֲלָבִים. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ אָמַר. לִיבִּי נוֹקְדֵינִי. מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua agrees that if somebody says to another: “This field did belong to your father but I bought it from him,” that he is trustworthy since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that it did belong to [the second man’s] father and [the first] said, I bought it, he is not trustworthy. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua agrees,” etc. Rebbi Joshua agrees, but he does not disagree? In the former. “He is not trustworthy” if he did not eat the years of legal claim from it. But if he ate the years of legal claim from it, he is trustworthy if [the second person’s] father did not die in possession. But if [the second person’s] father died in possession, he is [not] trustworthy. 3:4 in a different editing. As the following: Reuben ate from a field claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands the title to Simeon. Reuben came back and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to Reuben 31b . . That is what the rabbis here think. The rabbis there say, from the time it was removed, by clear testimony it was removed. 19:15 ) “by the testimony of two or three witnesses the case shall be confirmed”, Reuben’s witnesses cannot be accepted unless they prove that Simeon’s witnesses were lying. It is difficult to see who “the rabbis from there” are since Rab Naḥman was the authority in Babylonia and the Babli ( loc . cit .) decides explicitly that later claims are admissible in money matters. . So the rabbis here say, from the time she married, by clear testimony she married. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis there agree that if during the first proceedings two [witnesses] say that his father died in possession and two say, he did not die in possession, Reuben’s claim is upheld. 10:4 , explained in Notes 99–114 . The variant readings are noted by י . Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: “Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses say, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses say, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave. 14:1 ” There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he returns he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certified testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, [and two say his father died while not in possession,] that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was divorced and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was preliminarily married, and two are saying, she was not preliminarily married, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others came and identified the man who was betrothed to her. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave. 2:2 . The kidnap victim who was raped cannot marry a Cohen. ” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says. If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rebbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two said, X ate fat, and two said, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rebbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not get married. The end disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rebbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice.

הָעֵדִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ כְּתָב יָדֵינוּ הוּא זֶה אֲבָל אֲנוּסִים הָיִינוּ קְטַנִּים הָיִינוּ פְּסוּלֵי עֵדוּת הָיִינוּ הֲרֵי אֶילּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא כְּתָב יָדָן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה כְּתָב יָדָן יוֹצֵא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין. הָעֵדִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ. כְּתָב יָדֵינוּ הוּא זֶה כול׳. תַּנֵּי. וְכֵן הָעֵדִים שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בֵּין לְטַמֵּא בֵין לְטָהֵר. בֵּין לְרָחֵק בֵּין לְקָרֵב. בֵּין לֶאֱסוֹר בֵּין לְהַתִּיר. בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין אָמְרוּ. מְבַדִּין הָיִינוּ. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ נֵאֱמָנִין. מִשֶּׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין אָמְרוּ. מְבַדִּין הָיִינוּ. אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. עָשׂוּ הָעֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין. הֵן אוֹמְרִים. כְּתָב יָדֵינוּ הוּא. וַאֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים. כְּתָב יָדָן הוּא. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא כְּתָב יָדָן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה כְּתָב יָדָן יוֹצֵא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין. הֵן אוֹמְרִים. כְּתָב יָדֵינוּ הוּא. וַאֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵינוֹ כְּתָב יָדָם. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. נַעֲשֶׂה כִשְׁטָר שֶׁנִּקְרָא עָלָיו עִרְעֵר. אָמַר אִסִּי. וּבִלְבַד בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁנִּקְרָא עָלָיו עִרְעֵר וְנִתְקַיֵים בְּבֵית דִּין. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. לֹא נִתְקַיֵים בְּבֵית דִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ הָעֵדִים לִהְיוֹת חֲתוּמִין בִּשְׁטָר כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין. רַב חָנָא אָמַר. לְמֵידִין מִסֵּפֶר מוּגָּה. כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין דְּאָמְרִין. סַפְרוֹי דְאִסִּי וּכְאִילֵּין אִיגְרָאתָא צְרִיכִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵירִבִּי בּוּן. וּבִלְבַד שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁלְּשְׁלֹשָׁה בְנֵי אָדָם. רַב חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב. נֶאֱמָנִין הָעֵדִים לוֹמַר. שְׁטָר אֲמָנָה וּשְׁטָר פִּוסְיטִיס הוּא. דְּרַב אָמַר. אָסוּר לַחֲתוֹם בִּשְׁטָר אֲמָנָה וּבִשְׁטָר פִּוסְיטִיס. מַה וּפְלִיג. אָמְרֵי בְשֵׁם רַב. נֶאֱמָנִין הָעֵדִים לוֹמַר. שְׁטָר אֲמָנָה וּשְׁטָר פִּוסְיטִיס הוּא. מִילְתָא דְרַב פְלִיגָא עַל מִילְתָא דְרַב. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּי. לֹא דְּרַב אָמַר. אָסוּר לַחֲתוֹם אֶלָּא אָסוּר לְקַיֵים. כְּהָדָא. אִם אָוֶן בְּיָ‍דְךָ הַרְחִיקֵהוּ. זֶה שְׁטָר אֲמָנָה וּשְׁטָר פִּוסְיטִיס. וְאַל תַּשְׁכֵּן בְּאוֹהָלֶיךָ עַוְולָה. זֶה שְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ.

MISHNAH: If witnesses said, this is our signature, but we were under duress, or underage, or disqualified, these are trustworthy. But if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or their signatures are confirmed from another document, they are not trustworthy. HALAKHAH: “If witnesses said, this is our signature,” etc. It was stated 2:1 , Sanhedrin 6:5 . : And similarly, the witnesses who testified whether to declare impure or pure, or to remove or include, or to forbid or permit, or to obligate or absolve must be interpreted to deal with money matters, to impose payment or to absolve from payment. , if they say we did invent this is also the text of the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta and most African, Spanish, and French authorities; cf. Tosefta ki-Fshutah , part 6, p. 199–200. before their testimony was investigated by the court, part 6, p. 200–202. , they can be believed; after their testimony was investigated by the court, they are not trustworthy.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been investigated by the court 3:4, Note 72 ). The Babli agrees, 18b . Cf. also Ševi‘it 10:5, Note 96 . . If they say, these are our signatures, and others say, these are their signatures, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Their [testimony] does not add and does not detract. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or if their signatures are confirmed from another document, they are not trustworthy.” They say, these are our signatures, but others say, not their signatures. Rebbi Mana said, that becomes a document which has been put under acloud. Issi said, only if it had been put under a cloud but was confirmed by the court. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it was not confirmed by a court. Rebbi Ila said, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar is, that after the witnesses were confirmed as the signatories of the document, it is as if their testimony had been investigated by the court. Rav Ḥana said, one learns from a corrected scroll, like those who say, Issi’s scribe. From letters it is problematic. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only from three documents in the hands of three people. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The witnesses can be trusted if they say, that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust the spelling is פיסיטיס; Musaphia reads פסטיס). A document which does not correspond to reality and is not intended ever to correspond to reality, but to make the holder appear richer than he really is. . But Rav said, it is forbidden to sign a document given in good faith, or a document in trust. Does this contradict what they say in the name of Rav, the witnesses can be trusted if they say, that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust? One word of Rav contradicts a word of Rav! Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rav did not say it is forbidden to sign but it is forbidden to keep. As the following 11:14 . In the Babli, 19b , this is attributed to R. Joshua ben Levi. , “if evil is in your hand, remove it,” that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust, “do not let injustice dwell in your house,” that is a document of indebtedness which was paid.

זֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי וְזֶה כְתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירִי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי וְזֶה כְתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירִי הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין. זֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶן אַחֵר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינָן צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶן אַחֵר אֶלָּא נֵאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי. זֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי כול׳. לְמָה נִצְרְכָה. לְרִבִּי. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי אוֹמֵר. צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵף אַחֵר עִמָּהֶן. מוֹדֶה הוּא הָכָא שֶׁהֵן נֶאֱמָנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. תַּנֵּי בִּכְתוֹבּוֹת דְּבֵית רַב. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי (לָעְזָר) עַל הַשְׁטָר וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים בְּמֵעִיד עַל הַמִּלְוֶה. תַּנֵּי. כּוֹתֵב אָדָם עֵדוּתוֹ וּמֵעִידָהּ אֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר כַּמָּה שָׁנִים. רַב חוּנָה אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר עֵדוּתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ זָכוּר עֵידוּתוֹ. וַתְיָיא דְּרַב חוּנָה כְרִבִּי וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבָּנִין. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רַב חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב. אֵין הוּא וְאַחֵר מִצְטָרְפִין עַל חֲתִימַת הָעֵד הַשֵּׁינִי. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיָה אֶחָד מַכִּיר כְּתָב יָדוֹ וּכְתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ וְאֶחָד אֵין אָדָם מַכִּירוֹ וַחֲבֵירוֹ מַכִּירוֹ. חֲבֵירוֹ מָה הוּא שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵף עִם אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק לְהָעִיד עָלָיו. הָדָא הוּא דָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. אֵין הוּא וְאַחֵר מִצְטָרְפִין עַל חֲתִימַת הָעֵד הַשֵּׁינִי. לֹא צוּרְכָה דְלֹא כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנַיִם. אֶחָד הַכֹּל מַכִּירִין כְּתָב יָדוֹ וְאֶחָד אֵין אָדָם מַכִּירוֹ וַחֲבֵירוֹ מַכִּירוֹ. חֲבֵירוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה כְּאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק לְהָעִיד עָלָיו. אִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן נִמְצֵאת כָּל הָעֵדוּת מִתְקַיֶימֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. וְיֵאוּת. אִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מֵעִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ גּוֹיִם כְּגוֹן הָדָא סוּסִיתָא. אֶחָד הַכֹּל מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד אֵין אָדָם מַכִּירוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ מַכִּירוֹ. מָהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה כְּאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק לְהָעִיד עָלָיו. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן לֹא נִמְצֵאת כָּל הָעֵדוּת מִתְקַיֶימֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד. וָכָא נִמְצֵאת כָּל הָעֵדוּת מִתְקַיֶימֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד. רִבִּי חַגַּיי אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְעָא. עֵד אֶחָד בְּפֶה וְעֵד אֶחָד בִּשְׁטָר מָהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ. עֵד אֶחָד בִּכְתָב כְּלוּם הוּא. לָכֵן צְרִיכָה. כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנַיִם. מָצְאוּ לְקַיֵים כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מָצְאוּ לְקַיֵים כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלַּשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי מָנָא בְעָא. עֵד אֶחָד בִּכְתָב מָהוּ לְזוֹקְקוֹ לִשְׁבוּעָה. עֵד אֶחָד בִּכְתָב כְּלוּם הוּא. לָכֵן צְרִיכָה. כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנַיִם מָצְאוּ לְקַיֵים כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מָצְאוּ לְקַיֵים כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלַּשֵּׁינִי. כְּהָדָא. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִן הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רָאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ רָאוּ זֶה אַחַר זֶה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בְּשֵׁם רַב. מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה בְעֵידֵי בְכוֹרָה וּבְעֵידֵי חֲזָקָה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אַף בְּעֵדֵי סֵימָנִים כֵּן. מַה דָא פְּשִׁיטָא. בְּשֶׁזֶּה אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בְּגַבּוֹ. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בְגַבּוֹ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בְּגַבּוֹ. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בִּכְרֵיסוֹ. לֹא כְּלוּם. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן גַּבּוֹ וְגַבּוֹ. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. רָאִינוּ שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בְגַבּוֹ. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. רָאִינוּ שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בִּכְרֵיסוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שַׁמַּאי. חַד אָמַר. פָּסוּל. וְחוֹרָנָא אָמַר. כָּשֵׁר. מָן דָּמַר. פָּסוּל. בְּמֵעִיד עַל חֲצִי סֵימָנִין. וּמָן דָּמַר. כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁמָּא נִשְׁרוּ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בְּגַבּוֹ. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בִּכְרֵסוֹ. רִבִּי בָּא אוֹמֵר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי חַגַּי אוֹמֵר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרִבִּי חַגַּי. וְהָא רִבִּי יוּדָן סָבַר דִּכְוָותִי. אָמַר. עַל דְּרַבֵּיהּ אֲנָא פְלִיג לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן עִלָוֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּי. אִלּוּ שְׁטָר שֶׁהוּא מְחוּתָּם בְּאַרְבַּע חוֹתָמוֹת וְקָרָא עָלָיו עִרְעֵר זֶה מֵעִיד עַל שְׁנַיִם וְזֶה מֵעִיד עַל שְׁנַיִם. שֶׁמָּא כְּלוּם הוּא. וְאֵין כָּל חֲתִימָה וַחֲתִימָה צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וָכָה כָּל סֵימָן וְסֵימָן צָרִיך שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא יְלִיף לָהּ מִשְּׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אִלּוּ אֶחָד מֵעִידָהּ שֶׁאָכְלָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁנִיָה וּשְׁלִישִׁית וְאֶחָד מֵעִידָהּ שֶׁאָכְלָהּ שָׁנָה רְבִיעִית חֲמִשִית וְשִׁשִּׁית שֶׁמָּא כְּלוּם הוּא. וְאֵין כָּל חֲזָקָה וַחֲזָקָה צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וָכָה כָּל סֵימָן וְסֵימָן צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים.

MISHNAH: If one says, this is my signature and that is my colleague’s signature, and the other says, this is my signature and that is my colleague’s signature, they are trustworthy. If each of them says, that ismy signature, each of them needs another with him, the words of Rebbi, but the Sages say, everybody is trustworthy to confirm his own signature. HALAKHAH: “If one says, this is my signature,” etc. Why was this necessary? For Rebbi. Even though Rebbi says, each of them needs another with him, here he agrees that they are trustworthy. Rebbi Ze‘ira said: It was stated in Rav’s Ketubot : The words of Rebbi (Eleazar), but does not fit the context. The correct text is in Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur (vol. 1, 14b, Note 74): אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי כְּמֵעִיד עַל הַשְׁטָר וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כְּ מֵעִיד עַל הַמִּלְוֶה. This is the basis of the translation. However, since it leaves out the irrelevant information about Rav’s Ketubot , it probably is not an exact copy of the Yerushalmi text. that he testifies about the document, the words of the Sages that he testifies about the loan’. It was stated: A person may write down his testimony and testify about it even some years later. 19:15 ) requires that “anything be confirmed by the mouth of two or three witnesses.” The disagreement of Rav Huna and R. Joḥanan is confirmed by the Babli, but not its explanation. . Rav Ḥuna said, only if he remembers his testimony. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he does not remember his testimony. It turns out that Rav Ḥuna follows Rebbi and Rebbi Joḥanan the Sages of the witnesses and not by his writing. (The explanation of Tosaphot 20a, s . v . ורבי יוחנן , is difficult to accept.) . Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market place cannot together certify the signature of the second witness 2:1, 57d. . How is that? If one identified his own signature and that of his colleague, but that second witness’s signature was not known to anybody except his colleague, may that colleague together with somebody from the market place testify on that signature? That is what Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, said in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market cannot together certify the signature of the second witness. Another case where there are no two persons: The signature of one is known by everybody, but that second witness’s signature is not known to anybody except his colleague. Can that colleague testify on his signature as if he were someone from the market place? If you say so, the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Rebbi Yudan said, that is correct. If two people come from a town that is mostly Gentile, like Hippos. One is known by everybody as a Jew, but the other is not known by anybody except his companion. Can the latter be considered one from the market place to testify about him? If you say so, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness! And in the prior case, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness. Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Can one witness testifying orally and one by a document be taken together? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything 10:2 : A document signed by a single witness is invalid. ? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second 165a , this is a question, if one signature was confirmed from another document and one by oral testimony. It is resolved that the document is valid. . Rebbi Mana asked, is one witness on a written document enough to force anybody to swear. 22:9 decrees that in all money matters in dispute, “if there is one who says, he is the one” who owes money, there should be an oath. This is interpreted to mean that the claimant can force the defendant to swear if he can support his claim by a single witness but does not have the two witnesses necessary to force the defendant to pay. ? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second. Chapter 1, Notes 46–71 . The text here is from the hand of the corrector; the scribe of the ms. only notes גרש בהילכתא קדמיתא דסוטה כולה עד וכה כל סימן וסימן צריך שני עדים “One reads all this in the first Halakhah of Soṭah up to ‘and here, every single hair needs two witnesses’.” There are several differences in the sequence of sentences in addition to systematic differences in spelling; it is clear that the corrector copied from a different ms. which now is lost. Parallel to it: One does not accept testimony from witnesses unless they had seen together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw one after the other 30b . . Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa for witnesses about primogeniture and rights of possession. Chapter 1, Notes 46–71 . The text here is from the hand of the corrector; the scribe of the ms. only notes גרש בהילכתא קדמיתא דסוטה כולה עד וכה כל סימן וסימן צריך שני עדים “One reads all this in the first Halakhah of Soṭah up to ‘and here, every single hair needs two witnesses’.” There are several differences in the sequence of sentences in addition to systematic differences in spelling; it is clear that the corrector copied from a different ms. which now is lost. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who saysid it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who said it is valid? Maybe they were rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw two hairs on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid [testimony]. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan, missing here. follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of possession. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי וּגְרוּשָׁה אֲנִי נֶאֱמֶנֶת שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת גְּרוּשָׁה אֲנִי אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי כול׳. תַּנֵּי. אִם מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת בָּאוֹ עֵדִים הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵצֵא. רַב חוּנָא וְרִבִּי חֲנִינָה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ הִתִּירוּהָ בֵית דִּין לְהִינָּשֵׂא. כְּהָדָא. חָדָא אִיתְּתָא אֲתַת לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרָה לֵיהּ. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי וּגְרוּשָׁה אֲנִי. וְהִתִּירוּהָ. מִן דְּנַפְקָת אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. רִבִּי. הֲרֵי עֵידֶיהָ בְּלוֹד. אָמַר. כָּךְ אֶנִי אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ עֵדֶיהָ בִקסוסנון תַּמְתִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר בּוּן. תְּרֵין עוֹבְדִין הֲווֹן. אֶחָד אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי עֵדֶיהָ בְּלוֹד. וְאֶחָד אָמַר לוֹ. הֲרֵי עֵידֶיהָ בְּקַסָרִין. וְכֵן הֲוָה. אֲמַר לוֹן. כָּךְ אוֹמֵר אֲנִי. אֲפִילוּ עֵדֶיהָ בִקסוסנון תַּמְתִּין. רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעָא. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי וְנִתְגָּרַשְׁתִּי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וּבָאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ. לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה אִשָּׁה בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. מַכְחִישִׁין הֵן אוֹתָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְעָא. אָמְרָה. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי וְנִתְגָּרַשְׁתִּי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה אִשָּׁה בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וּבָאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ. לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה אִשָּׁה בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. בְּהַכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת אָנוּ כְּחַיִין מִפִּיהָ. הַיּוֹם אָמְרָה. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי. וּלְמָחָר אָמְרָה. גְּרוּשָׁה אֲנִי. אָמְרִינָן לָהּ. אֶתְמוֹל אָמְרָת אָכֵין וְיוֹם דֵּין אָכֵין. אָמְרָה לוֹן. מִפְּנֵי כַּת שֶׁלְּפְרִיצִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָאִין לְהִזְדַּוֵוג לִי. רִבִּי אָבִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵבִיאָה מַתְלָא לִדְבָרֶיהָ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. כְּהָדָא. שְׁמוּאֵל בְּעָא אִיזְדְּקוּקֵי לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ. טְמֵיאָה אֲנִי. לְמָחָר אָמְרָה לֵיהּ. טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי. אֲמַר לָהּ. אֶתְמוֹל אָמְרָת טְמֵיאָה וְיוֹמָא דֵין טְהוֹרָה. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ. לָא הֲוָוה בְחֵיילִי הַיי שַׁעֲתָא. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרַב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵבִיאָה מַתְלָא לִדְבָרֶיהָ נֶאֱמֶנֶת.

MISHNAH: If a woman said, I was married but I am divorced, she is to be trusted, since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that she is married and she says, I am divorced, she is not trustworthy. HALAKHAH: “If a woman said, I was married,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses came after she remarried, she should not leave. Rav Ḥuna and Rebbi Ḥanina both say, not only after she remarried but even after the court authorized her to remarry. As the following: A woman came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him, I was married but I am divorced, and he permitted her. After she left, they said to him, are not her witnesses at Lod? He said, so I am saying: Should she wait even if her witnesses are at קסוסנון, the spelling is קסוסנין. {Perhaps cf. Greek κασαυρεῖον, τό, also κασώριον, “brothel”, with assimilation of σ from Greek ρ. The implication is that witnesses in any case would not be considered [E. G.].} ? Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said, there were two cases. In one case, they said to him, are not her witnesses at Lod? In the other case, they said to him, are not her witnesses at Caesarea? And so it was!He said to them, so I am saying: Should she wait even if her witnesses are at קסוסנון? Rebbi Yudan asked: “I had been married but I was divorced at place X”; if two [witnesses] come and say, no woman was divorced at place X, do they contradict her? Rebbi Yose asked, if she said, I had been married but I was divorced at place X at a certain date,” and two came and said, a woman was divorced at that place, but two [others] came and said, no woman was divorced at that place? That is a contradiction of the essence of the testimony; we live off her mouth. One day, she said, I am married. The next day, she said, I am divorced. We asked her, yesterday you said this, today you say otherwise? She said to them, because of a group of amoral people who wanted to start up with me. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ila: Since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed. A similar case: Samuel wanted to sleep with his wife, but she said to him, I am impure. The next day, she said, I am pure. He said to her, yesterday, you said impure, today pure? She said to him, I did not feel well enough at that moment. He came and asked Rav, who told him, since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed. v . ואפילו . .

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי נֶאֱמֶנֶת שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאִם מִשֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת בָּאוּ עֵדִים לֹא תֵצֵא. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי כול׳. רַב חוּנָא אָמַר. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ הִתִּירוּהָ בֵית דִּין לִינָּשֵׂא. נָשִׁים נִשְׁבּוּ לְשָׁם. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי אַבָּא בַר בָּא וְלֵוִי וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמְרוּ. וּמָסְרוּ לָהֶן עֵדִים נִיסְקוֹן לְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וּמַה נַעֲשֶׂה לַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁנִּתְיַיחֲדוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָא בַר בָּא. אִילּוּ הֲוִינָן בְּנָתָךְ כֵּן הָיִיתָה אוֹמֵר. וְאִישְׁתַּבְּיָין בְּנָתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל כִּשְׁגָגָה שֶׁיּוֹצָא מִלִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁלִּיט. כַּד סַלְקוֹן לְהָכָא סַלְקָן שַׁבְיָין עִמְּהוֹן. עֲלִין קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אוֹקִימָן שַׁבְיָין מִלְּבַר. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. נִשְׁבִּינוּ וּטְהוֹרוֹת אָנוּ. וְהִתִּירָן. מִן דְּנַפְקָן שְׁלָחוֹן שַׁבְיִין עָלִין אָמַר. נִיכָּרוֹת אֵילּוּ שֶבְּנוֹת חָכָם הֵן. מִן דְּאִיתוּ דְּעִין מָאן הַוְיָין אָמְרִין לְשִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא. אִיטְפַּל בִּקְרִיבָתָךְ. נְסַב לְקַדְמִיתָא וּמִיתַת. לְתִנְיָינא וּמִיתַת. לָמָּה. בְּגִין דְשָׁקְרוֹן. חַס וְשָׁלוֹם. לָא שָׁקְרוֹן. אָלָּא מִן חַטָּאת דַּחֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁעִיבֵּר אֶת הַשָּׁנָה בְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

MISHNAH: 6 : If a woman said, I was kidnapped but I am pure, she is to be trusted, since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that she was kidnapped and she says, I am pure, she is not trustworthy. If the witnesses came after she was married, she should not leave. HALAKHAH: “If a woman said, I was kidnapped,” etc. Rav Ḥuna said, not only after she remarried but even after the court authorized her to remarry. Women were kidnapped and brought there. The case came before Abba bar Abba, and Samuel. They ordered and gave them over to chaperones who were to return them to the Land of Israel. He said to him: What did we do for the earlier times when they were alone with them? Abba bar Abba said to him, would you say so if they were your daughters? Samuel’s daughters were kidnapped, “like an error which comes from the ruler”. 10:5 . From the story of another daughter of Samuel, Rachel, who was kidnapped and raped during the destruction of Nahardea by a soldier of Odenathus who later converted and married her, it seems that one has to date this at 259 C.E., after Samuel’s death. . When they were brought here, their kidnappers came with them. They came before Rebbi Ḥanina and left their kidnappers outside. They said to him, we were kidnapped but we are pure. He permitted them. After they left, their kidnappers sent after them. He said, it is obvious that these are the daughters of a Sage. When they came to know who they were, they said to Simeon bar Abba, take care of your relatives. He married the first one, but she died. The second one and she died. Why? Because they lied? God forbid, they did not lie. But because of the sin of Ḥanania, Rebbi Joshua’s nephew, who intercalated the year outside the Land 6:13, Notes 118–129 , Babli Berakhot 63a . The last sentences of this paragraph have no parallel in the Babli. .

שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְזֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנוֹת. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מֵעִידוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ נֶאֱמָנוֹת. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים. זֶה אוֹמֵר כֹּהֵן אֲנִי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֹּהֵן אֲנִי אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מֵעִידִים זֶה אֶת זֶה נֶאֱמָנִים. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים כול׳. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַתְנִיתִין לְעִנְיָין קָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל. אֲבָל לְעִנְיָין מִשְׁפָּחָה וּלְקוֹדְשֵׁי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וְהָא תַנֵּי. מַעֲלִין לִכְהוּנָּה לִלְוִיָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל פִּי אֶחָד. נִיחָא לִכְהוּנָּה לִלְוִיָּה. לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא לְעִנְיָין מִשְׁפָּחָה. לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי. שְׁתֵּי חֲזָקוֹת לִכְהוּנָּה בְארֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם וְחִילּוּק גְּרָנוֹת וּבְסוּרִיָּא נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם אֲבָל לֹא חִילּוּק גְּרָנוֹת. עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁלוּחֵי הַחוֹדֶשׁ מַגִּיעִין עַד נִמְרִין וּבָבֵל כְּסוּרִיָּא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. אַף בְּאַלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיאָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּתֵּי דִינִין יוֹשְׁבִין שָׁם. תַּנֵּי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַתְּרוּמָה חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה כָּךְ מַעֲשֶׂר רִאשׁוֹן חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה. וְהַחוֹלֵק עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה לוֹ מֵאֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹהֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִיָּמַיי לֹא הֵעַדְתִּי עֵדוּת. וּפַעַם אַחַת הֵיעַדְתִּי וְהַעֲלֵיתִי עֶבֶד לִכְהוּנָּה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק חֲקוּלָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּרִבִּי. חַד הֶעֱלָה אָח מִפִּי אָחִיו וְחָרָנָה הֶעֱלָה בֶן מִפִּי אָבִיו. חַד לִכְהוּנָּה וְחַד לִלְוִיָּה. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אָתָא לְגַבֵּי דְרִבִּי אִילָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּנִי הוּא זֶה וְכֹהֵן הוּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בִּנְךָ הוּא וְאֵינוֹ כֹהֵן. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה. אִם מַאֲמִינוֹ אַתְּ שֶׁהוּא בְנוֹ הֶאֱמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא כֹהֵן. וְאִם אֵין אַתְּ מַאֲמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא בְנוֹ אַל תַּאֲמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא כֹהֵן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּנוֹ הוּא אֶלָּא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. בֵּן גְּרוּשָׁה הוּא אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אָכֵין אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִם מַאֲמִינוֹ אַתְּ שֶׁהוּא בְנוֹ הֵאֱמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא כֹהֵן. וְאִם אֵין אַתְּ מַאֲמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא כֹהֵן אַל תַּאֲמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא בְנוֹ. וְיֵיעָשֶׂה כְהַרְחֵק עֵדוּת וִיהֵא נֶאֱמָן עָלָיו. אָמַר לוֹ. בְּנוֹ הוּא אֶלָּא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. בֵּן גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה הוּא. לֹא כֵן אָמְרוּ. רִבִּי יִצְחָק חֲקוּלָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּרִבִּי. חַד הֶעֱלָה אָח עַל פִּי אָחִיו וְחָרָנָה הֶעֱלָה בֶן מִפִּי אָבִיו. נֵימָא. מִשֶּׁהֶעֱלָה רִבִּי אָח מִפִּי אָחִיו. אֲפִילוּ תֵימָא בֶּן מִפִּי אָבִיו. לַלְּוִיָּה.

MISHNAH: Two women who were kidnapped and each one of them says I am pure, are not trustworthy. But if they testify one for the other they can be trusted. Similarly, if of two men each one says that he is a Cohen, the cannot be trusted. But if they testify for one another, they can be trusted. HALAKHAH: “Similarly, if of two men,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah is valid for countryside sanctified food. In the Babli, 24a , that is a tannaïtic statement. . But for family matters and the sanctified food of the altar 4:4 requires a check on the families of bride and groom for several generations to ascertain that no ancestor is a bastard or desecrated. one needs two witnesses. But was it not stated: One raises to priesthood, levitic status, or Israel, by the testimony of one witness. One understands priesthood and levitic status. But the status of an Israel? Is that not regarding family status? To give him the tithe of the poor. 4:6; Babli Ketubot 25a , 26a . “In the Land of Israel there are two legal claims to priestly status, the priestly blessings and the distribution from the threshing floor in the Land of Israel are biblical obligations, the rabbinic authorities would not empower a man to receive heave unless they checked his credentials. . In Syria 7:6, Note 119 . , priestly blessings but not distribution from the threshing floor. Up to the place where the messengers for the New Moon arrive, up to Nimerin 1:3–4. {The place of Nimerin has not been determined, cf. Ševi‘it 6:1, Note 50 ; it could be biblical Bet Nimra ( Jos . 13:27 ) in the territory of the tribe of Gad in Gilead.) . Babylonia is like Syria. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, also in Alexandria in the time when regular courts are sitting there. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Just as heave establishes a legal claim to priesthood, so First Tithe establishes a legal claim to priesthood 5:5, Notes 88–89.) One has to assume a copyist’s error; in the absence of parallel sources this cannot be confirmed. . If somebody gives his heave to the court to distribute he has no legal claim to priesthood;” I am saying that the heave came to him from his mother’s father, a Cohen. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, I never testified except once, when I raised a slave to priestly status. Rebbi Isaac Ḥaqula and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one raised a brother on the testimony of his brother, the other a son on the testimony of his father; one to the priesthood, the other to levitic status. A person came before Rebbi Hila; he said to him, this is my son and he is a Cohen. He answered him, he is your son but he is no Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder said to him, if you believe him that he is his son, believe him that he is a Cohen. If you do not believe him that he is his son, do not believe him that he is a Cohen. He answered, he is his son but I say that he is the son of a divorcee or one who had performed ḥalîṣah . Rebbi Abin said, so he said to him: If you believe him that he is his son, believe him that he is a Cohen. If you do not believe him that he is a Cohen, do not believe him that he is his son. In that case, he would be unrelated and trustworthy in his testimony! He answered, he is his son but I say that he is the son of a divorcee or one who had performed ḥalîṣah . Did they not say, Rebbi Isaac Ḥaqula and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one raised a brother on the testimony of his brother, the other a son on the testimony of his father? Let us say that Rebbi elevated a brother on the testimony of his brother. You may even say, a son on the testimony of his father, to levitic status.

רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין מַעֲלִין לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֵימָתַי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עוֹרְרִין אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹרְרִין מַעֲלִין לִכְהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן הַסְּגָן מַעֲלִין לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין מַעֲלִין כול׳. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין עִרְעֵר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְעָא. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁהֶעֱלוּ אוֹתוֹ בְאֶחָד יוֹרִידוּ אוֹתוֹ בְאֶחָד. וְאִם בְּשֶׁהֶעֱלוּ אוֹתוֹ בִשְׁנַיִם אֲפִילוּ כַמָּה לֹא יוֹרִידוּ אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא. אַתְיָיא כְרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. בְּרַם רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא וּכְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ בִשְׁנַיִם כָּךְ מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ בִשְׁנַיִם.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not elevate to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness. Rebbi Eleazar said, when is this? If there are protesters; but if there are no protesters, one elevates to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the son of the second in command, that one elevates to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not elevate,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A complaint needs at least two [plaintiffs]. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, how do we hold? If they elevated him on the testimony of one person, they should demote him on the testimony of one person. If they elevated him on the testimony of two persons, even if there are many [opposed] they should not demote him! Rebbi Ḥuna said, it follows the rabbis there. But following the rabbis here and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob, just as one elevates him on the testimony of two persons, one demotes him on the testimony of two persons.

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּחְבְּשָׁה בִּידֵי גוֹיִם עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן מוּתֶּרֶת לְבַעֲלָהּ עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֲסוּרָה לְבַעֲלָהּ. עִיר שֶׁכְּבָשָׁהּ כַּרָקוֹם כָּל הַכֹּהֲנוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בְתוֹכָהּ פְּסוּלוֹת וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים אֲפִילוּ עֶבֶד אֲפִילוּ שִׁפְחָה הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין שֶׁאֵין אָדָם נֶאֱמָן עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב הַמָּעוֹן הַזֶּה לֹא זָזָה יָדָהּ מִיָּדִי מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ הַגּוֹיִם לִירוּשָׁלֵם וְעַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אֵין אָדָם מֵעִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּחְבְּשָׁה בִּידֵי גוֹיִם כול׳. תַּ[מָּ]ן תַּנִּינָן. הֵעִיד רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן וְרִבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב עַל תִּינּוֹקֶת שֶׁהוּרְהֲנָה בְאַשְׁקְלוֹן וְרִיחֲקוּהָ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה. וְעֵידֶיהָ מֵעִידִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְלֹא נִטְמְאָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָעֵדִים מֵעִידִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמְאָה. הָא אִם אֵין עֵידֶיהָ מֵעִידִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמְאָה לֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא בְהִירְהוֹן שֶׁהָרַבִּים נוֹהֲגִין לוֹ בְהֵתֵר. עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֲסוּרָה. רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָמָא דִּכְפַר תְּחֻמִין בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה. וְהוּא שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינָהּ לַהֲרִיגָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לֹא נִגְמַר דִּינָ[הּ] לַהֲרִיגָה. אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵשֶׁת לֵיסְטֵיס כְּלֵיסְטֵיס. אֵי זֵהוּ כַרָקוֹם. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב חִיָיה בַּר אַשִּׁי. כְּגוֹן זוֹגִין וְשַׁלְשֶׁלָיוֹת וּכְבָלִים וַאֲוָוזִים וְתַרְנְגֹלִין וְאַפָּרָטוֹטוֹת מַקִּיפִין אֶת הָעִיר. וָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב חָמָא בַּר אַשִּׁי. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וּבָרְחָה מִשָּׁם סוּמָה אַחַת. הָיָה שָׁם פִּירְצָה אַחַת מַצֶּלֶת אֶת הַכֹּל. הָיוּ שָׁם מַחְבּוּיִים צְרִיכָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָה רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר חֲקוּלָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָן נְשִׂיאָה. וּבִלְבַד כַּרָקוֹם שֶׁלְּאוֹתָהּ מַלְכוּת אֲבָל כַּרָקוֹם שֶׁלְּמַלְכוּת אֲחֶרֶת כְּלֵיסְטֵיס הֵן. וַאֲפִילוּ קָטָן. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֲפִילוּ קָטָן אֲפִילוּ קָרוֹב. אֲפִילוּ קָטָן וְקָרוֹב. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. חֲנַנְיָה קַרְתִּיסָיָה אִישְׁתַּבַּאי הוּא וּבְנֵיהּ וְאִיתְּתֵיהּ. אֲתוֹן לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְלָא קִבְּלוֹן. אֲתוֹן לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי וְקִבְּלוֹן. הָדָא אָמְרָה אֲפִילוּ קָטָן וְקָרוֹב. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר יוֹסֵף שָׁלַח בָּתָר אִיתְּתֵיהּ. אָמַר. יִסְקוּן עִימָּהּ תְּלָתָא תַּלְמִידִין. שֶׁאִם יַפְנֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְצוֹרְכוֹ תִּתְיָיחֵד עִם שְׁנַיִם. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. מוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ בַדֶּרֶךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. וּבַעֲלָהּ. הֲרֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. אַף הוּא שָׂכַר לָהּ אֶת הַבַּיִת וְהוּא מַעֲלֶה לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא הָיָה מִתְיָיחֵד עִמָּהּ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי בָנֶיהָ. וְקָרָא עַל עַצְמוֹ הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה יָגַעְתִּי בְאַנְחָתִי וּמְנוּחָה לֹא מָצָאתִי.

MISHNAH: A woman who was jailed by Gentiles, if because of money matters, she is permitted to her husband; if because of criminal matters, she is prohibited to her husband. If a city was conquered after a siege, all wives of priests in it are disqualified; but if they have witnesses, even a slave, even a slave girl, those are trustworthy; but 1:2 ). nobody is trustworthy about himself. Rebbi Zachariah, the son of the butcher, said, by the Temple! Her hand did not leave my hand from the moment the Gentiles entered Jerusalem until they left! They said to him, nobody testifies on his own behalf. HALAKHAH: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles,” etc. There, we have stated 8:2 ; quoted in extenso in the Babli, 26b/27a . The argument is about the part of the Mishnah not quoted here, that the Sages forced the family to accept her as marriageable by a Cohen. : “Rebbi Yose the Cohen and Rebbi Zachariah the son of the butcher testified about a girl who was given as a pledge in Ascalon and her family excluded her, but her witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure.” Because the witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure; therefore, not if no witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure! Rebbi Eleazar said, there is a difference about a pledge, because many treat her as permitted. “If because of criminal matters she is prohibited.” Rebbi Yudan the son of Rav Ḥama from Kefar Teḥumim in the name of Ḥizqiah: Only if she was sentenced to death. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if she was not sentenced to death. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A robber’s wife is like a robber’. What are palisades? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: For examples if bells, chains, and ropes reads וְאִיסְטְרָטִיּוֹת soldiery . , and geese, and chickens and machinery כְּלָבִים “dogs”. The same in the Babli, 27a . surround the town. And Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥama bar Ashi said, it happened that a blind woman was able to flee from there. If there was one breach, it saves all. If there were hiding places, it is questionable. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula, in the name of Rebbi Yudan the prince: Only if there were palisades of that government. כאן ), the same statement appears in the Babli, 27a , in the name of Ḥizqiah. . But palisades from another government are like robbers. And even a minor. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even a minor, even a relative. Even an underage relative? Let us hear from the following: Ḥananiah from Cartes was kidnapped, he, his son, and his wife. They came before Rebbi Ḥanina who did not receive them. They came before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who received them. This implies, even an underage relative. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef sent after his wife. He said, three students should accompany her, so that if one has to absent himself for his needs, she should still be with two of them. But did we not state: “And they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip”? Rebbi Abin said, with her husband that makes three. Also he rented a house for her and looked after her upkeep but was never alone with her except in the presence of her children. He applied to himself the verse. 45:3 . : “I exercised myself in my worry but found no rest”.

וְאֵילּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין לְהָעִיד בְּגוֹדְלָן מַה שֶׁרָאוּ בְקוֹטְנָן. נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר זֶה כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלְּאַבָּא וְזֶה כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי וְזֶה כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלְּאָחִי. זָכוּר הָיִיתִי בִּפְלוֹנִית שֶׁיָּצְתָה בְּהִינוּמָא וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ וְשֶׁהָיָה אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר לִטְבּוֹל לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה וְשֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֵק עִמָּנוּ עַל הַגּוֹרֶן וְהַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה בֵּית הַפְּרַס וְעַד כָּאן הָיִינוּ בָאִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר דֶּרֶךְ הָיָה לִפְלוֹנִי בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה מַעֲמָד וּמִסְפֵּד הָיָה לִפְלוֹנִי בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה. תַּנֵּי. וּבִלְבַד דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן רְגִילִין בָּהֶן. תַּנֵּי. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵף עִם אֲחֵרִים. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא עֶבֶד הוּא. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְהַהִיא דָמַר רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּרִבִּי חֲנִינָה. אָסוּר לָאָדָם לְלַמֵּד אֶת עַבְדּוֹ תוֹרָה. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה. הָעֶבֶד עוֹלֶה מִשִּׁבְעָה קִרְייוֹת. וַיְדַבֵּר עוֹלֶה מִ[גֹ] פְסוּקִים. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁלָּמַד מֵאֵילָיו אוֹ שֶׁלִּמְּדוֹ רַבּוֹ כְטֶבִי. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא עֶבֶד הוּא. מְסַיְיעָא לְהַהִיא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין עַל הַגּוֹרֶן אֲבָל נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָיה מִתּוֹךְ הַבַּיִת. מָהוּ לְהוֹצִיא מָמוֹן מִתּוֹךְ עֵדוּתָן. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיוּ הַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין עַד שְׂדֵה רְאוּבֵן תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת. וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ. עַד כָּאן הָיִינוּ בָאִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. וְנִמְצֵאת הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלְּשִׁמְעוֹן. מָהוּ מֵפִיקְתָהּ מִן שִׁמְעוֹן וּמַחֲזִרָתָהּ לִרְאוּבֵן. מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר. יוֹצְאִין הָיוּ לְלַקֵּט בְּפָגֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְשָׁמַעְנוּ פְלוֹנִי מְמַלֵּל עַל פְּלוֹנִית אִשְׁתּוֹ. אִשָּׁה פְלֹנִית מְמַלֶּלֶת עַל בְּנֶיהָ. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בָּעֵי. הוּזְּמוּ מָהוּ שֶׁיְּשַׁלְּימוּ. אוֹ יָיבֹא כַיי דְאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. אֵין לוֹמְדִין דָּבָר מִדָּבָר בְּעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין. וָכָא כֵן. תַּנֵּי. שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ בִקְצִיצַת פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. מָהוּ בִקְצִיצַת. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה אָדָם מוֹכֵר אֶת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ הָיוּ קְרוֹבִין מְמַלִּין חָבִיּוֹת קְלָיוֹת וְאֶגּוֹזִים וְשׁוֹבְרִין לִפְנֵי הַתִּינּוֹקוֹת. וְהַתִּינּוֹקוֹת מְלַקְּטִין וְאוֹמְרִים. נִקְצַץ פְּלוֹנִי מֵאֲחוּזָּתוֹ. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיְתָה חוֹזֶרֶת לוֹ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין לוֹ כֵן וְאוֹמְרִים. חָזַר פְּלוֹנִי לַאֲחוּזָּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַף מִי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֶׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ קְרוֹבָיו מְמַלִּין חָבִיּוֹת קְלָיוֹת וְאֶגּוֹזִים וְשׁוֹבְרִין לִפְנֵי הַתִּינּוֹקוֹת. וְהַתִּינּוֹקוֹת מְלַקְּטִין וְאוֹמְרִים. נִקְצַץ פְּלוֹנִי מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה מְגָרְשָׁהּ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין לוֹ כֵן וְאוֹמְרִים. חָזַר פְּלוֹנִי לְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ. אֵילּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין לְהָעִיד בְּגוֹדְלָן מַה שֶׁרָאוּ בְקוֹטְנָן כול׳. אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין אֶלָּא בְגוֹדְלָן מַה שֶׁרָאוּ בְקוֹטְנָן. הָא בְקוֹטְנָן לֹא. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. נֶאֱמֶנֶת אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן לוֹמַר. מִיכָּן יָצָא נְחִל. מְהַלֵּךְ לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְנוֹטֵל אֶת נְחִילוֹ. וָכָה הוּא אוֹמֵר כֵּן. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אֶלָּא עַל נְחִיל שֶׁלַּדְּבוֹרִים שֶׁאֵין גְּזֵילוּ דְבַר תּוֹרָה. תַּנֵּי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָה. וּבִלְבַד בְּמַפְרִיחַ. אֲבָל בְּשׂוֹכוֹ לֹא. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא עַל אָתָרּ. הָא לְאַחַר זְמַן לֹא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַף אֲנָא סָבוּר כֵּן. וְתַנִּינָן. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בְּמַאֲמָרָן. אֲבָל יָצְאוּ וְחָזְרוּ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מִפְּנֵי יִרְאָה וּפִיתּוּי אָמְרוּ.

MISHNAH: In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what one saw in one’s minority. A man is trustworthy to say, this is my father’s handwriting, my teacher’s handwriting, my brother’s handwriting; I remember that this person went out in hinuma 9:13, Note 189 ), the word hinuma changed its meaning. In Babylonia it became “a veil” ( Babli 17b ), literally “a slumber cloth” from נום “to sleep”, in Galilee φόρημα “that which is carried”, i. e., “a litter”. and uncovered hair; but this is not the direct text of the testimony. , or that this man left school to immerse himself to eat heave, or that he took his part with us on the threshing floor, or that this place is bet happeras , or this far we went on the Sabbath. But a person is not trustworthy to say that X had a right of way at this place, or that X had a space for eulogies at this place.. 17:5 ) “he who mocks the poor insults his Maker”. There were public places on the road from the town to the graveyard where eulogies were held; some families had their own spots for eulogies of their deceased. The right to hold these eulogies has monetary value. HALAKHAH: It was stated: Only these which they are used to. It was stated: Only if they are supported by others. Should one not worry that he might be a slave. 22:11 )? ? This supports what Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: It is forbidden for a man to teach Torah to his slave. But did not Rebbi Ze‘ira say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A slave is counted as one of the seven readers; wayedabber is counted as one of three verses 21b . This was the version written by the scribe. The corrector crossed out “3” and replaced it by “7”; followed in the editio princeps . ! Explain it, if he learned it by himself or his master taught him like Tebi 2:8 . . Should one not worry that he might be a slave? This supports what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Women 10a ). and slaves cannot share in the distribution on the threshing floor, but one gives them the gifts of priesthood and levitic status from the house. May one act in money matters on their testimony? How is that? If everybody knew that the Sabbath boundary was at Reuben’s field; they came and said, this far we came on the Sabbath, and it turns out that this field is in Simeon’s hand. May one take it from Simeon and return it to Reuben? Would they be trustworthy to say, we went out to collect unripe figs in the sabbatical year and heard X talking about his wife Y, or woman Z talking about her children? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel asked: If they were proven to be false witnesses. 19:16–21 ), the punishment of a false witness is that he suffers the punishment that would have been imposed on the defendant had the testimony stood up in court. Since the entire Mishnah is interpreted to speak about money matters, the punishment in this case would be monetary. (In rabbinic theory, a witness can be proven false only if it is shown that his testimony is impossible, i. e., that he was not at the place he testifies about at the time in question.) , do they have to pay? 1:1, Note 44 . Or it might be, following what Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah, said in the name of Samuel: One does not infer one thing from another in the matter of false witnesses. And here it is so. It was stated: “That we ate in X or Y’s clipping.” What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he bought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his realtives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. Whe he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family. “In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what he saw in his minority,” etc. They are only trustworthy as adults about what they saw as minors; therefore, not as minors! There 10:2 , a statement of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa. , we have stated: “A woman or a minor are trustworthy when they said, from there a swarm of bees left. He then can enter another’s field and take his swarm.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said this only about a swarm of bees because taking it is not robbery by biblical standards 10:2 : “Because taking it is not robbery by stipulation.” There, the stipulation is attributed to Joshua at the time of the distribution of the Land. The moment the bees swarm, they really become ownerless. If the right of the beekeeper to the swarm which leaves his hive is by stipulation, then the testimony of a minor also can be accepted by stipulation; cf. 13:7, Note 110 . The Babli ( Baba Qama 114b ) agrees. . Rav Oshaiah stated, only if it is swarming 47b ), one for whom it is not clear whether he is a minor or an adult. That does not make sense, in particular because in the Yerushalmi ( Berakhot 7:2, Note 66 ) he is simply called “doubtful”. . But not if it clings to a branch (part 2, p. 115a, Note 135) reads אֲבָל בְּשָׁכֵן לֹא “but not when it is resting.” The text of the ms. is preferable since (a) it is confirmed by the different editorship of Baba Qama and (b) the Mishnah continues with a dispute whether the beekeeper is entitled to cut off the tree branch on which the bees have settled (and then pay the tree’s owner.) . Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Is that not reasonable only when it happens, but not after some time? He said to him, I agree. And we have stated: When is this said? When they testified to what they said( loc. cit .) reads: בִּוְמַן שֶׁהָעֵדִים בְּמַעֲמָדָן “as long as the witnesses stand (before the court).” The text of the ms. is preferable since (a) by the general rules of procedure no witnesses can testify twice in the same matter ( Note 56 ) and (b) the reference is to the Mishnah here which is interpreted to mean that they are only trustworthy in matters that have pecuniary implications if their testimony is taken as soon as they indicate that they have knowledge of the matter, but not if in the meantime they were subject to outside influences. The Babli ( Baba Qama 114b ) admits the testimony of the minor about the swarm of bees “if he speaks without being prompted.” . But if they left and came back, I am saying that they speak out of fear or were seduced.