Ketubot 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

Is it not the case that

they are two pairs of witnesses contradicting one another?

And we should therefore disqualify him due to the uncertainty ? But

if

it is speaking of a case in which a

challenge concerning flawed lineage

was raised against him, such as when they said, “He is a slave,” why are they not deemed reliable once they have signed, since this is merely

the disclosure of a fact,

that he is not a slave, and this is a matter that will ultimately be revealed? And with regard to a matter that will ultimately be revealed, people do not lie .

But if you say that, in any event, since they have a personal interest in their testimony, they should be disqualified, even though there is no concern that they are lying—for even Moses and Aaron are disqualified from testimony due to the disqualification of kinship, and therefore one who has a personal interest should likewise be disqualified from testimony because he is related to himself, even if there is no concern that he is lying

—one can say: Here, since all that is needed is merely the disclosure of a fact concerning his lineage, the laws of testimony do not apply, and therefore they are reliable. This is Rashi’s explanation, in accordance with Tosafot Rid.

And the Gemara answers:

I will always say to you

that a

challenge concerning robbery was raised against him, and

nevertheless this is not a case of two pairs of contradictory witnesses, because

this group says

: “We know concerning him that he repented!”

Thus, they do not contradict the testimony of the first witnesses, and therefore they are reliable.

Rav Zeira said: I heard this statement

which he will say below

from Rabbi Abba, and had it not been

that

Rabbi Abba from Akko

reminded me of it

later, I would have forgotten it.

If three sat to authenticate a document, and

after the witnesses testified before them, but before they signed the attestation,

one of them died, they must write

in the attestation:

“We were sitting as three, and one is no longer with us.”

[We were sitting as three, and one died and is no longer present.] Since the authentication of documents requires three, and only two signed this document, someone viewing it might say that this document was authenticated by two. Therefore, they write in the document that there were three present at the time of the authentication.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And if he wrote in it

—

“This document came before us in court”

—he no longer needs

to write in it, “and one is no longer with us,” since a court consists of no fewer than three.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Perhaps

the viewer will think that

it is an impudent court

that authenticated the document through two judges,

in accordance with

the opinion of

Shmuel, as Shmuel said: “If two judged a case, their judgment is a valid judgment, but they are called an impudent court,”

and if so, it is still necessary to write in the document, “and one is no longer with us,” to indicate that they did not rely here on Shmuel’s ruling.

And the Gemara answers:

It

is speaking of a case in which

it was written in it, “This document came before

the court of

our master Rav Ashi,”

who was an important court, and certainly did not judge with two.

And

the Gemara raises an objection:

Perhaps

the viewer will still think that

the Sages of the house of Rav Ashi, in accordance with

the opinion of

Shmuel, held,

and they judged with two?

And the Gemara answers:

It

is speaking of a case in which

it was written in it: “And our master Rav Ashi instructed us,”

and since it was done at Rav Ashi’s command, it certainly was not done with fewer than three.

Mishna:

A woman who said: “I was a married woman, but I am divorced,”

is deemed reliable.

Since

the mouth that prohibited

her by saying, “I was a married woman,”

is the mouth that permitted

her by saying, “I am divorced” .

And if there are witnesses that she was a married woman, and she says

—“I am divorced,” she is not deemed reliable.

Since now there is no principle of “the mouth that prohibited,” as she was prohibited by the witnesses.

If she said

—“I was taken captive

among the gentiles,

but I am pure,

and I was not violated by them”—and there are no witnesses that she was taken captive,

she is deemed reliable.

Because

the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted.

And if there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and she says

—“I am pure,” she is not deemed reliable.

And if, after she married, witnesses came,

then

she need not leave

the marriage. The Gemara will explain concerning what circumstance this ruling was stated.

Gemara:

Rav Asi said: From where

do we learn the law of

“the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted” from the Torah?

As it is stated

in the passage concerning one who gives his daughter a bad name:

“I gave my daughter to this man as a wife.”

And we interpret: When he said, “I gave my daughter

to a man,”

he

prohibited

her to the entire world, since we do not know to which man he gave her, and due to the uncertainty she is prohibited to everyone.

And when he added and said

“this,”

he

permitted

her to her husband. This proves that he is deemed reliable to permit her, since “the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted” .

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Why do I need a verse,

since

it is logical

that he should be deemed reliable to permit her, because

he prohibited her, and he permits her?

Rather,

indeed, no verse is needed to establish that the father is deemed reliable to permit his daughter,

but the verse is necessary for what Rav Huna said in the name of Rav.

As Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that a father is deemed reliable by Torah law to prohibit his daughter?

As it is stated

—“I gave my daughter to a man,”

and it is evident that the giving of the daughter is dependent upon the father; he is deemed reliable to say that he married her off and thereby prohibited her to the entire world .

And the Gemara raises an objection: Even now, what is the purpose of the verse’s addition of the word

“this”?

The fact that he is deemed reliable to permit her to her husband is logical, as stated above.

And we answer:

It is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Yona.

As Rabbi Yona taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning one who gives his daughter a bad name:

“I gave my daughter to this man,”

and we interpret: “To

this man”

specifically,

but not to a yavam.

That is to say: The husband is liable to lashes and one hundred silver coins under the law concerning one who gives his wife a bad name only when he is the man to whom the woman was given. But if the first husband died childless, his brother performed yibbum with her, and afterward he gave a bad name to the first brother’s marriage, he is not liable under the law concerning one who gives his wife a bad name.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

A woman who said

—“I am a married woman,” and afterward said

even after some time had passed

—“I am unmarried,”

is deemed reliable.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Why is she deemed reliable?

She has rendered herself a piece of forbidden matter .

And the Gemara answers:

Rava bar Rav Huna said:

The teaching that she is deemed reliable is speaking of a case

such as one in which she provided an amta’la

[a reason]

for her statement,

to explain why she retracted it, as the Gemara will explain below .

It was likewise taught:

She is deemed reliable to retract her statement by means of an amta’la: A woman who

said

—“I am a married woman,” and after some time

had passed

said

—“I am unmarried,” is not deemed reliable. But if she provided an amta’la for her statement, she is deemed reliable.

And there was likewise an incident involving a certain distinguished woman

[an important woman] who

also

in addition

was

also

distinguished in beauty, and men came rushing to betroth her, and she said to them

—“I am betrothed.”

After some time, she arose and betrothed herself.

The Sages said to her: What did you see that led you to do this,

since you had rendered yourself a piece of forbidden matter when you said, “I am betrothed”? How, then, did you go and betroth yourself?

She said to them: At first, when unsuitable men came to me, I said

—“I am betrothed.”

Now, when suitable men came to me, I arose and betrothed myself.

This provides an additional proof that she is deemed reliable to retract her statement by means of an amta’la.

And this halakha

concerned a woman who came before us and retracted her statement by means of an amta’la, and

Rav Aḥa, the minister of the citadel, presented

this case

was brought by Rav Aḥa, the minister of the city, before the Sages in Usha, and they said

that

if she provided an amta’la for her statement, she is deemed reliable.

The Gemara discusses further laws concerning an amta’la:

Shmuel asked Rav:

A woman who

said, “I am impure,” and afterward said, “I am pure,”

and provided an amta’la for her statement,

what is

the law? Is she deemed reliable to permit herself by means of an amta’la ?

He said to him

Rav to Shmuel:

In this case too, if she provided an amta’la for her statement, she is deemed reliable .