Ketubot 22b — the Talmud in English

He taught it to him forty times [ [A0003]Samuel reviewed Rav’s words forty times],

Шмуэль повторил слова Рава сорок раз],

and even so, Samuel did not act upon it himself,

when his wife came to him and said, “I am impure,” and afterward said, “I am pure,” and gave an amtaala for her words, Samuel did not rely upon the amtaala to permit her.

The Sages taught in a beraita:

A woman whose husband went overseas, and it was not known what had become of him, and

two

and

say:

“He died.” And two

others

say:

“He did not die.”

And likewise, if

two say:

“She was divorced,” and two say:

“She was not divorced.”

She may not marry

because of the uncertainty, since they are two witnesses against two witnesses,

but if she married, she need not leave.

The reason why she need not leave will be explained below.

Rabbi Menahem bar Yosei says:

Even after the fact, if she married,

she must leave.

Rabbi Menahem bar Yosei said: When do I say

that even after the fact, if she married,

she must leave?

When witnesses came

who said, “He did not die,” or “She was not divorced,”

and afterward she married. But

if

she married, and afterward witnesses came

for the prohibition,

she need not leave .

And we challenge this:

Since they are two witnesses against two witnesses,

and

the one who has relations with her

is subject to a provisional guilt-offering ,

since he had relations with a possible married woman; if so, why, if she married, does she not leave?

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said:

Here we are dealing

with a case where she married one of her witnesses,

and since he knows that her husband died, it is permitted for him to have relations with her. Therefore, after the fact, she need not leave.

And we challenge:

She herself

still does not know with certainty that her husband died, and therefore

she is subject to a provisional guilt-offering;

why did we permit her to continue living with the witness?

And we answer: This is a case where she

says

the woman

“It is certain to me”

that my husband died, as the witness says .

The Gemara brings another statement concerning the law of two witnesses against two witnesses:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

A woman whose husband went overseas, and

two

and

say:

“He died. And two

others

say:

“He did not die.”

She may not marry

because of the uncertainty,

but

after the fact,

if she married

she need not leave.

But if

two say:

“She was divorced,” and two say:

“She was not divorced,”

she may not marry, and

even after the fact,

if she married

she must leave!

And we challenge:

What is different in the first clause,

where you said that after the fact she need not leave,

and what is different in the latter clause,

where after the fact she must leave?

And we answer:

Abaye said: Interpret it [ [A0094]establish the words of Rabbi Yohanan]

то есть установи высказывание рабби Йоханана]

as referring to one witness.

And this is the explanation of his words:

One witness says:

“He died,”

and behold,

the Rabbis rendered him trusted like two witnesses,

as explained in Yevamot, that one relies on one witness in order to permit the woman to her husband.

And

as

Ulla said, for Ulla said: Wherever the Torah rendered

an

one witness trusted, here there is

the force of that witness, as

two.

And

if so,

this one [ [A0112]that is, the second witness]

то есть второй свидетель]

who says:

“He did not die,” is

a single

witness, and the words of

a

single witness

are not heard

in the presence of

the

two

who testify against him. Therefore, if she married, she need not leave, since we rely on the witness who permits her as on two witnesses .

And we challenge:

If so,

since you relied on the witness who permits her as on two witnesses,

even initially also

should we permit her to marry? And we answer: Indeed, as a matter of basic law she is permitted to marry even initially; rather, we prohibited her initially

because of

that verse

of Rav Asi

which he was accustomed to bring.

For Rav Asi said:

It is written in Proverbs:

“Remove from yourself crookedness of mouth, and distance from yourself perversity of lips,”

and therefore we prohibited her initially in order to remove slander from her marriage.

But in the

latter clause

of Rabbi Yohanan, where

one witness says:

“She was divorced,” and one witness says:

“She was not divorced,”

there she is prohibited even after the fact, because

both of them testify concerning her as a married woman, [ [A0146]that is, according to the testimony of both of them she was a married woman and is prohibited from marrying] ,

то есть согласно свидетельству обоих она была замужней женщиной и ей запрещено выходить замуж] .

and this

witness

who says:

“She was divorced,” is

a single

witness, and the words of

a

single witness

are not heard

in the presence of two,

and therefore she is prohibited even after the fact.

Rava said,

to explain Rabbi Yohanan’s words: Why, when they say “He died” and “He did not die,” if she married does she not leave, whereas when they say “She was divorced” and “She was not divorced,” if she married must she leave?

Actually,

Rabbi Yohanan is dealing with a case where

they are two witnesses against two witnesses,

and not as Abaye, who established it as referring to one witness,

and

the reason for Rabbi Yohanan is that

Rabbi Yohanan saw

the

words of Rabbi Menahem bar Yosei

who said that if she married she must leave—in the case of

d

i

vorce, and he did not see

his words in the case of

d

i

e.

What is the reason?

Because

death cannot

the woman

deny him

if he comes before her; therefore, if she had not investigated carefully to establish that he died, she would not have married, and therefore she need not leave.

But concerning the claim of

divorce,

even if he comes before her, she

can deny him

by saying, “You divorced me.” She does not investigate so thoroughly, and therefore even if she married, she must leave.

And we challenge:

Would she be so brazen

as to deny him to his face and say, “You divorced me,” although he did not divorce her?

But

surely

Rav Hamnuna said: A woman who says to her husband:

“You divorced me!” is believed!

because

“There is a presumption that a woman does not brazenly set her face before her husband,”

and if so, here too we should believe her that he divorced her, because she does not brazenly set her face to lie?

And we answer:

These words

that she does not brazenly set her face apply only

where there are no witnesses assisting her; but where there are witnesses assisting her,

and saying that she was divorced,

she becomes brazen and becomes brazen!

Therefore here there are witnesses that she was divorced, and so she brazenly sets her face to say, “You divorced me,” even though he did not divorce her.

Rav Asi said,

to explain Rabbi Yohanan’s words: This is a case where

the witnesses say:

“He has just died!”

or

“He has just divorced her!”

Therefore, regarding the claim of

death,

there

is no way to clarify it

when he died; and if they said, “He has just drowned in the water,” there is no possibility of clarifying the matter. Therefore, if she married, she need not leave. (And this is a case where she married one of her witnesses, in accordance with the Rabbis.)

But regarding the claim of

divorce, there is a way to clarify it, for we say to her:

“If this is indeed so,

that you were divorced just now,

show us your bill of divorce!”

And she is not believed to say that she lost it in so short a time; therefore, if she cannot show her bill of divorce, she must leave !

The Sages taught:

A woman who comes before us, and we do not know whether she is a married woman or an unmarried woman, and

two

and

say:

“She became betrothed! And two

others

say:

“She did not become betrothed!”

She may not marry

because of the uncertainty,

but if she married

she need not leave.

But if it was known that she had been a married woman, and

two

and

say:

“She was divorced,” and two

others

say:

“She was not divorced!”

She may not marry, and

even

if she married

after the fact,

she must leave!