Nedarim 91a (צא.) — the Talmud in English

And it is the man whose field was inundated -

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. Therefore, I should not have to forfeit my ketuba.

And we said to him [

and we resolved the matter for Rava]:

It is the Mishna [

for this is an explicit Mishna].

As we learned in the Mishna:

A woman who says, “I am impure to you,” is entitled to her ketuba.

And the Gemara explains how this can be proven from this Mishna.

With what are we dealing [

in what case 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 either way:

if

the woman says that she committed adultery

willingly, is she entitled to a ketuba at all?

She herself caused the prohibition!

And if

she says that she committed adultery

under duress, is she thereby forbidden to her husband!?

And if so, why must he divorce her?

Rather

we will have to establish the Mishna as referring to

the wife of a kohen,

and

if

we interpret the woman as saying that she committed adultery

willingly, is she entitled to a ketuba at all?

She herself caused the prohibition!

Is she inferior to the wife of an Israelite who acted willingly -

what difference is there between the wife of a kohen 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 woman who says that she committed adultery

under duress.

And it teaches: She is entitled to her ketuba, -

so our Mishna proves that the wife of a kohen who was raped does not forfeit her ketuba.

They raised a dilemma before them:

If she said to her husband, “You divorced me,”

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

what is the law?

Is she believed and permitted to marry another, or is she not believed?

And we resolve it:

Rav Hamnuna said: Come and hear: A woman who says, “I am impure to you,”

is believed, according to the first Mishna.

And if so, there is a proof for our dilemma, since

even according to the latter Mishna, which teaches

that

she is not believed,

that applies specifically to the case of the Mishna, in which she says, “I am impure to you,” for only

there is she lying, since she knows that her husband is unaware of it -

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 lie to him.

But in the case of “You divorced me,” since he knows about it, she is believed -

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

there is a presumption that a woman does not brazenly lie in her husband’s presence.

Rava said -

Rava rejects Rav Hamnuna’s reasoning.

On the contrary,

one can say the opposite reasoning:

Even according to the first Mishna, which teaches

that

she is believed,

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

there

is she believed

because she would not disgrace herself -

because this is a disgrace for her, and a woman would not disgrace herself if it were untrue.

But here,

when she says, “You divorced me,”

as sometimes, when her husband oppresses her, she becomes brazen and continues to be brazen -

since this does not disgrace her, and she may sometimes become angry with her husband, we must be concerned that she is lying and was, in truth, not divorced.

Rav Mesharsheya raised an objection -

Rav Mesharsheya raises an objection to Rava’s statement.

“The heavens are between me and you,” according to the first Mishna—this is a refutation of Rava,

meaning: From what we learned in the first Mishna, that when she says, “The heavens are between me and you,” she is believed, there is a difficulty for Rava. Rava says that when the woman suffers no disgrace from the claim, then even according to the first Mishna she is not believed. If so, the difficulty is that

here she has no embarrassment [

when she says, “The heavens are between me and you,” she suffers no disgrace from this],

and

nevertheless

it teaches

in the first Mishna

that she is believed.

And we answer:

Rava holds: There, [

when she says, “The heavens are between me and you,”]

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

since she is not believed with the vague claim that she has no children, but must claim that her husband is the one who does not emit his seed like an arrow and therefore cannot father children,

and if so,

if it were 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, as it is a great disgrace.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Hamnuna’s reasoning.

“The heavens are between me and you,” according to the latter Mishna—let it be a refutation of Rav Hamnuna.

That is, from what we learned in the latter Mishna, that when she says, “The heavens are between me and you,” she is not believed, there is a difficulty for Rav Hamnuna. Rav Hamnuna says that when the husband knows whether she is lying, she is believed, since she does not brazenly lie in her husband’s presence.

But here,

when she claims, “The heavens are between me and you,”

she knows, and her husband knows about it [

the woman knows that her husband knows whether she is lying], and so she should not brazenly lie in her husband’s presence,

and

nevertheless

it teaches

in the latter Mishna

that she is not believed.

And we answer:

Rav Hamnuna holds: Here too, she herself says: Although he knows about intercourse, who knows whether he shoots like an arrow? And that is why she lies,

meaning: Even when she says, “The heavens are between me and you,” she brazenly lies, because she says to herself: Although the husband knows that he ejaculates, he nevertheless does not know whether he shoots like an arrow. Therefore, he does not know whether I am lying, and so she brazenly lies and is not believed.

There was a certain woman [

there was an incident involving a woman]

who, every day after intercourse, would hasten to bring water to her husband -

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

One day she came to him with water for washing -

and on one of the days she brought him water as usual,

He said to her: “This act did not take place just now,” -

we did not engage in intercourse just now, so why are you bringing me water?