MISHNAH: If somebody declared his jealousy to [his wife] and she went to a secluded place, even if he heard about it from a bird flying by he has to divorce her since the divorce is a result of his own action. and pay the ketubah , the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, from the moment she is the subject of talk of women spinning by moonlight.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he warned her and said to her, do not be at a secluded place with man X, after he declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if she did not go to a secluded place. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa: Not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees, only he is lenient about witnesses to the hiding. We have stated a disagreement. Some state it anonymously. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Rebbi Joshua does not disagree with what Rebbi Eliezer said, only that we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua says, only if she is the subject of talk of women carding by moonlight.” Rebbi Abba Mari asked: There, Chapter 2, Note 30 . , Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. And here he says so?
We have stated: carders. Some Tannaїm state: spinners. He who said carders, they card wool. He who said spinners, they spin flax.
Where do we hold? If about him who heard and did not know from whom he heard, it is like a bird flying by. If about him who heard and knew from whom he heard, it is a witness reporting the words of another witness. But here we deal with the case that X [heard] from Y and Y from Z; a word without foundation. Arukh explains as Greek θεμέλιος “of the foundation”; Krauss suggests θεμελίωσις, ἡ, -εως “foundation”. .
MISHNAH: If a single witness said “I saw her when she became impure”, she could not drink since, as stated at the end of Halakhah 4 , his testimony “has feet”, i. e., after two witnesses for the declaration of jealousy and two witnesses that she went to a secluded place, the testimony that he saw them having sex is credible (if his testimony holds up under cross examination). . Not only that, but even a slave or a slave-girl are believed to cause her to lose her ketubah . Her mother-in-law, the mother-in-law’s daughter, her co-wife, her sister-in-law, and her husband’s daughter are trustworthy 15:4, Notes 81 ,82) because they are presumed to hate her. . They said this not to make her lose her ketubah but that she could not drink pay the ketubah , which is not in the personal interest of these women. .
HALAKHAH: “If a single witness said ‘I saw her when she became impure’,” etc. “And there is no witness against her 5:13 . ”; not only a witness [of good standing], from where even a male or female slave? The verse says, “ and there is no witness against her”, any one 9(6 )]. . And following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael said30a , and Sifry Num. 7, this is quoted as everybody’s opinion. , at any place where the Torah mentions “a witness”, in principle that means two witnesses unless the verse makes it clear that he is a single witness. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says two witnesses. 7. The Babli, 31b , explains the problem away by reading the verse “and two witnesses are not against her,” meaning that one is. If one does not need two witnesses, one does not need quality witnesses. .
Was our Mishnah [formulated] after Rebbi Aqiba agreed with Rebbi Ṭarphon the Mishnah follows R. Aqiba before he changed his mind. ? As it was stated: Rebbi Ṭarphon says, a single witness is believed to declare her impure but not to let her lose her ketubah . Rebbi Aqiba says, just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah . Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him: Where do we find that a single witness proves anything in money matters. 19:15 ), the same verse is interpreted to mean that the testimony of a single witness in support of a claim of one of the parties can obligate a defendant to swear that he owes nothing ( Šebuot 6:1 fol. 36d; Babli Ketubot 87b ). In the case here, there is no claim from any of the concerned parties. ? Rebbi Aqiba answered him, but where do we find that a single witness proves anything in matrimonial matters Chap. 15). ? But just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah . Rebbi Aqiba changed his mind and taught following Rebbi Ṭarphon.
Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If her mother-in-law said “I saw her when she became impure”, [you say that she did not drink. If then somebody else came and said, “I saw her when she became impure”], about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness ( Note 18 ), this is because the court is biblically empowered to forbid her to her husband on the testimony ( Note 24 ). But if the acceptable testimony is not needed, it is questionable whether its consequence should be enforced. ! Rebbi Yose asked: If he heard from a bird flying by: “I saw her when she became impure”, you say that she did not drink. If then somebody came and said, “I saw her when she became impure”, about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness ( Note 18 ), this is because the court is biblically empowered to forbid her to her husband on the testimony ( Note 24 ). But if the acceptable testimony is not needed, it is questionable whether its consequence should be enforced. !
From what Rebbi Yose said, “X ate suet, and they warned him,” he is not whipped. 7:23 , 25 ). If a single witness comes and accuses somebody of having eaten suet criminally, i. e., after having been duly informed by two adults that eating that suet would be a criminal offense, his testimony is nothing since he is a single witness. The entire paragraph is also in Nazir 8:1, fol. 57a . If one person said to him, that is suet, and two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Jehudah is saying: “X is a nazir . 6 . The witness testified that he heard X declaring a vow of nazir (cf. Berakhot Chapter 7, Note 79 ) but that he did not keep it. Again he is a single witness whose word carries no weight in court. , he became defiled, and I had warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, you are a nazir , and based on this testimony he behaved like a nazir , when then he drank wine or became impure in the impurity of the dead, if two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Mana said, “X is the wife of a Cohen and whored; her husband, a Cohen, then had relations with her but I had warned him;” he is [not] whipped. If she went to a secluded place in the presence of two, and one said, I saw her that she became impure; when her husband, the Cohen, had relations with her but two had warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness?
MISHNAH: It would have been logical: Since the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, is not confirmed if not from two [witnesses], the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, should reasonably only be confirmed by [witnesses]. The verse says: “There is no witness about her. 5:13 . ”, any kind of testimony about her. There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony! Since the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, is confirmed from a single witness, the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, should logically be confirmed from a single witness. The verse says, “for he found out about her a matter of sexual misbehavior,. 24:1 . For the House of Shammai, this is the only reason admitted for a divorce ( Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:10 ); for the House of Hillel, this is a reason why there must be a divorce. ” and further, it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses a matter should be confirmed.. 19:15 . The verse proves that in any judicial proceedings, דבר means a proof by two witnesses. Since the husband cannot make his wife drink unless he presents his case to the Temple court, all judicial rules apply here. But a divorce because of the wife’s adultery can be given by the husband on his own (even though to deprive her of her ketubah after the divorce he needs the judgment of a court.) ”
HALAKHAH: “It would have been logical: Since the first testimony,” etc. The first testimony is about being in a secluded place; the last testimony is about impurity. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Joshua says, “he declares his jealousy and warns her by the testimony of two [witnesses], and makes her drink by the testimony of two [witnesses].” Rebbi Mana said, it even follows the Tanna, about whom was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: He declares his jealousy before one witness or by himself, but makes her drink by the testimony of two [witnesses].”
MISHNAH: If one witness says, she became impure, but another witness says, she did not become impure, or one woman says, she became impure, but another woman says, she did not become impure, she would drink. If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she did drink. If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one [witness] says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.
HALAKHAH: “There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony,” etc. Chapter 15, Notes 135–138 and here, Chapter 9, Halakhah 7. Gidul bar Miniamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. Then one should state: “A witness says that she became impure, and a woman says that she did not become impure; a woman said that she became impure and a witness said that she did not become impure.” In the House of Rebbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.
Rav Ada bar Aḥawah said, a single witness is believed to declare her impure, but a single witness is not believed to make her lose her ketubah . Rav Ḥisda said, why did they say that a single witness is believed to declare her impure? Because the thing has feet to stand on is a rabbinic institution.) .
הא, the discussion starts: עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר נִיטְמֵאת וְעֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִיטְמֵאת. “A single witness says, she became impure, but another single witness says, she did not become impure, …” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here 32b , 47b ; Yebamot 88b , 117b ; Ketubot 22b ): “In any case where the Torah declared that a single witness can be believed, he has the status of two.” If the Yerushalmi would accept such a statement, it would have to accept R. Joḥanan’s statement here. One has to assume that the second witness states that he observed the woman and the other man during the entire time they were together in a secluded place and that nothing untoward happened. , she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it. 21:1–9 . If two witnesses came and one said that he saw the murderer but the other one said that he saw the murder but not the murderer, there is no testimony which has any standing in court. Therefore, the murderer is unknown. . Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid 3:3–4), or a woman or a slave. These have no standing against a single believable witness; one needs at least two, following R. Neḥemiah in the first paragraph. In the Babli, 32b , the problem is solved in a first explanation that in the case of the first sentence, the two contradicting witnesses came to court together. Then there never was testimony and the woman is not held to be an adulteress. For the second case, the single witness came first and his testimony was accepted as fact. Then one needs two witnesses to annul the first testimony. The second explanation follows the Yerushalmi. . But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rav say, she would drink? הא, the discussion starts: עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר נִיטְמֵאת וְעֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִיטְמֵאת. “A single witness says, she became impure, but another single witness says, she did not become impure, …” Rebbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rebbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink? They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid. They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous”? He said to him, so says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two [witnesses]. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion and about impurity. After the time of seclusion, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony? They said in the name of Rebbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on.