Torah Community Connections

Week 60 - Friday - 19 January 2001

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 5

If a woman said, "I was a married woman but I am divorced" -- she is believed, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted. But if there are witnesses that she was married, and she says, "I am divorced" -- she is not believed. If she said, "I was taken captive but I am undefiled" -- she is believed, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted. But if there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and she says, "I am undefiled" -- she is not believed. But if after she was wed witnesses came, then she does not leave.

Kehati

We learned two laws in this chapter regarding the rule of "the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted": (1) if one says to another, "This field was your father's, and I purchased it from him," he is believed (mishnah 2), and (2) If witnesses say, "These are our signatures, but we were coerced, we were minors, etc.," they are believed (mishnah 3). The two laws are different, however, for in the case of the field, he is believed because his words could cause him a monetary loss, and if they were not true, he would not have spoken them; whereas in the case of the witnesses, they have no personal benefit from their testimony. The common denominator in the two laws is that both deal with pecuniary litigation. Our mishnah continues by teaching that the rule of "the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted" applies to ritual law as well.

If a woman said, "I was married but I am divorced" -- without showing her get (divorce document), she is believed -- that she is a divorced woman, since it is only through her testimony that we know that she was married, and we say, the mouth that forbade -- by saying, "I was married," -- is the mouth that permitted -- by saying "I am divorced."

But if there are witnesses that she was married, and she says, "I am divorced -- and I lost my get," she is not believed -- to say that she is divorced, rather she is presumed to be a married woman. If she said, "I was taken captive -- among non-Jews, but I am undefiled" -- a non-Jew did not violate me, she is believed -- and she is permitted to marry a kohen, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted -- since it is only on the basis of her statement that we know that she was taken captive, she is believed to say that she is undefiled.

But if there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and she says, "I am undefiled" -- a non-Jew did not violate me, she is not believed -- and she is forbidden to marry a kohen, because we fear that she had relations with a non-Jew. But if after she was wed -- to a kohen, witnesses came -- and testified that she had been taken captive, then this one does not leave -- her husband is not obligated to divorce her. The Gemara explains that "after she was wed" does not mean that she was actually wed, but rather, that she was given permission to wed a kohen and in the meantime witnesses came and testified that she had been a captive -- she does not "forfeit her original prerogative" (Ket. 23a).

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 6

If two women were taken captive and one says, "I was taken captive but I am undefiled," and the other says, "I was taken captive but I am undefiled" -- they are not believed. But when they testify of each other, they are believed.

Kehati

Our mishnah continues to discuss the prohibition of a woman who was taken captive of marrying a kohen, and teaches that since this prohibition is based on relations that she might have had with a non-Jew, the Sages were lenient and accepted the testimony of a single witness, including that of a woman, a bondman, or a minor, that she was undefiled.

If two women were taken captive -- and they are unaware that witnesses testify that they were taken captive, and one says, "I was taken captive but I am undefiled," and the other says, "I was taken captive but I am undefiled" -- each of them testifies only about herself, that she was captive, but was not violated, they are not believed -- even though they did not know that there were witnesses that they were taken captive, they are not believed when they say that they are undefiled, since "the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted" does not apply here.

But when they testify this of each other -- they each testify that the other one, too, is undefiled, then they are believed -- and they are permitted to wed a kohen, because the Sages were lenient regarding women who were taken captive, and accept testimony from a single witness, including a woman; Although in this case a deal can be suspected between the women to testify on behalf of each other and agreeing beforehand "you testify on my behalf and I on your behalf," the Sages were lenient concerning a captive woman and allowed the women to testify for each other.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives