Nedarim 91a — the Talmud in English

And the man’s field was flooded -

I, for my part, am fit for you, and I did not cause the prohibition; rather, because of the sanctity of your priesthood I became forbidden to you, and if so, I do not need to lose my ketuba.

And we say to him

[and we resolved it for Rava]:

It is a Mishna

[for this is an explicit Mishna].

As we learned in the Mishna:

“A woman who says, ‘I am impure to you,’ has a ketuba.”

And the Gemara explains how it is proven from this Mishna.

With what are we dealing

[in what circumstance is the Mishna speaking],

If you say -

if it is said that it is speaking

of the wife of an Israelite,

then it will be difficult from whichever perspective,

if

the woman says that she committed adultery

willingly, does she have a ketuba at all?

Is it not she who caused the prohibition?!

And if

she says that she committed adultery

under coercion, is she forbidden to the man at all!?

And if so, why is he obligated to divorce her?

Rather

we will have to establish the Mishna

as speaking of the wife of a koen,

and

if

we explain that the woman says that she committed adultery

willingly, does she have a ketuba at all?

Is it not she who caused the prohibition?!

How is she inferior to the wife of an Israelite who committed adultery willingly -

and what difference is there between the wife of a koen and the wife of an Israelite when she commits adultery willingly?

Rather, is it not -

it must be that the Mishna is speaking of a case in which the woman says that she committed adultery

under coercion.

And it teaches, “she has a ketuba,” -

and it is proven from our Mishna that the wife of a koen who was raped does not lose her ketuba.

It was asked of them,

She said to her husband, “You divorced me,”

and the bill of divorce was lost or torn, and the husband denies it,

what is

whether she is believed and permitted to marry another, or whether she is not believed.

And we resolve it:

Rav Hamnuna said, ta shma: “A woman who says, ‘I am impure to you,’

she is believed according to the First Mishna.

And if so, there is proof for our uncertainty, since

even according to the Last Mishna, which teaches

that

she is not believed,

that is specifically in the circumstance of the Mishna, in which she says, “I am impure to you,” for specifically

there she lies, because she knows that her husband does not know about it -

for in such a case we are concerned that she is lying, since her husband does not know whether she is lying or not; therefore, she is not afraid to brazenly oppose him and lie.

But concerning “You divorced me,” since he knows about it, she is believed -

but when she says, “You divorced me,” since her husband knows whether she is lying or not, she is believed because

there is a presumption that a woman does not brazenly oppose her husband.

Rava said to him -

Rava rejects Rav Hamnuna’s reasoning.

On the contrary,

one should say the opposite reasoning,

even according to the First Mishna, which teaches

that

she is believed,

that is specifically when she says, “I am impure to you,” for specifically

there

she is believed

because she would not act to disgrace herself -

because this is a disgrace for her, and a woman is not inclined to disgrace herself if it were not true,

but here,

when she says, “You divorced me,”

for sometimes, when anger overcomes her against her husband, she brazenly opposes him and brazenly opposes him -

since there is no disgrace for her in this, and she may sometimes become angry with her husband, we must be concerned that she is lying, and in truth she was not divorced.

Rav Mesharsheya raised an objection -

Rav Mesharsheya raises an objection against Rava’s words.

“Heaven is between me and you,” of the First Mishna, is a teyuvta against Rava,

that is to say: from what we learned in the First Mishna, that when she says, “Heaven is between me and you,” she is believed, there is a difficulty against Rava, for Rava says that in a case in which the woman has no disgrace from it, even according to the First Mishna she is not believed; and if so, the difficulty is that

here she has no shame

[when she says, “Heaven is between me and you,” there is no disgrace for her in this],

and

nevertheless

it teaches

in the First Mishna

that she is believed.

And we answer:

Rava holds: there

[when she says, “Heaven is between me and you,”]

since she has no alternative but to say, “He does not shoot like an arrow,” -

since she is not believed with the mere claim that she has no children, but must claim that it is the husband who does not discharge his seed like an arrow and therefore cannot father children,

and if so,

if it is not as she says, she would not have said it to him -

there is no concern that she is lying, since if this were not true, she would not have dared to make such a claim, which is a great disgrace.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against Rav Hamnuna’s reasoning.

“Heaven is between me and you,” of the Last Mishna—let it be a teyuvta against Rav Hamnuna.

That is to say: from what we learned in the Last Mishna, that when she says, “Heaven is between me and you,” she is not believed, there is a difficulty against Rav Hamnuna, for Rav Hamnuna says that when the husband knows whether she is lying, she is believed, since she does not brazenly oppose her husband;

but here,

when she claims, “Heaven is between me and you,”

she knows, and her husband knows about it

[the woman knows that her husband knows whether she is lying], and if so, she does not brazenly oppose her husband,

and

nevertheless

it teaches

in the Last Mishna

that she is not believed.

And we answer:

Rav Hamnuna holds: here too, she herself said: Although he knows about intercourse, who knows about shooting like an arrow? And therefore she lies,

that is to say: even when she says, “Heaven is between me and you,” she brazenly opposes him, since she says in her heart: although the husband knows that he discharges seed, nevertheless he does not know whether he shoots like an arrow, and if so, he does not know whether I am lying; therefore she brazenly opposes him to lie, and she is not believed.

There was a certain woman

[there was an incident involving a woman]

who, every day of intercourse, would rise early and bring water to the man’s hands -

every time after intercourse she would bring him water to wash his hands.

One day she brought him water for washing -

and on one of the days she brought him water as was her custom,

he said to her, “This matter was not [done] today,” -

for we did not do this thing just now, so why are you bringing me water?