Torah Community Connections

Week 61 - Sunday - 21 January 2001

KETUBOT : CHAPTER 2 : MISHNAH 9

A woman who was imprisoned by non-Jews: because of money- she is permitted to her husband; because of a capital offence-she is prohibited to her husband. A city which was conquered by besieging troops, all the kohanot therein are disqualified. But if they have witnesses, even a bondman, even a bondwoman- these are believed. But a person is not believed about himself. Rabbi Zekhariah ben HaKatzav said, "By this Temple! Her hand did not move from my hand from the time that non-Jews entered Jerusa-lem until they left." They said to him, A person may not testify concerning himself.

Kehati

Our mishnah is based on the following law: A married woman who was raped is permitted to her husband if he is an Israelite, but prohibited to him if he is a kohen. If, however, she willingly cohabits with someone else, she is prohibited to her husband, even if he is an Israelite.

A- married - woman who was imprisoned by non-Jews: if she was arrested because of money - which she owed them, she is permitted to her husband - even if he is a kohen, since the non-Jews are afraid to violate her, and thereby jeopardize their lawsuit against her. The Gemara states, "This applies (i.e., that she is permitted to her husband even if he is a kohen) only where the Jews predominate, but if the non-Jews predominate, she is prohibited to her husband even because of money" (i.e., if her husband is a kohen, but if her husband is an Israelite, she is permitted to him in all circumstances, for the wife of an Israelite who was raped is permitted to her husband - Bartenura); because of a capital offence - i.e., for which she was sentenced to death, she is prohibited to her husband - even if he is an Israelite, since we suspect that she willingly cohabited with a non-Jew who promised to save her. According to another interpretation, our mishnah only deals with the wife of a kohen; therefore, if she was imprisoned for a capital offence, she is prohibited to her husband, for we suspect that she was violated, and the wife of a kohen, even if she succumbed to force, is prohibited to her husband, but the wife of an Israelite who was imprisoned, even for a capital offence, is permitted to her husband, for we do not suspect that she willingly cohabited (Rabbeinu Nissim citing Rabbeinu Hananel and the Geonim; Rambam). A city which was conquered by besieging troops, all the kohanot - all the women who were eligible to marry a kohen which resided therein - in the city, are disqualified - now to marry a kohen, as is the law regarding captured women since we suspect that they were violated by the soldiers (as above).

But if they have witnesses, even one witness (mishnah 2:6) even a bondman, even a bondwoman - then these are believed - to testify, that they did not cohabit.

But a person is not believed - to testify about them, if he testifies concerning himself - i.e., for his own advantage. An actual court ruling involving this law took place as follows: Rabbi Zekhariah ben HaKatzav - who was a kohen, said, "By this Temple! - an expression denoting an oath, i.e., "I swear by the sanctity of the Temple!" Her - my wife's, hand did not move from my hand from the hour that non-Jews entered Jerusalem until they left" - "I testify that she is undefiled."

They said to him, A person may not testify concerning himself - and is not believed to testify about his wife when this is to his own advantage.

The Gemara explains concerning a city which was conquered by besieging troops: "If there is only one hiding place there, it protects them all,"-i.e., even if only one woman could have hidden in the hiding place, nevertheless, they are all believed when they say that they hid there and did not become defiled; and even a woman who says; "I did not hide; neither did I become defiled" is believed because of a migo (above 2:2) since she could have said, "I hid."

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 2 : MISHNAH 10

And these are trustworthy to testify when they are grown up, about what they saw when they were minors - a person is believed when he says, "This is my father's signature," and "This is my teacher's signature," and "This is my brother's signature"; "I remember so-and-so who went out in a hinuma, with her head uncovered"; and that "so-and-so would go out from the school to immerse to eat terumah"; and that "he would share with us on the threshing floor"; and "this place is a bet ha-peras"; and "until here we would come on Shabbat." But a person is not believed when he says, "So-and-so had a right-of-way in this place," "So-and-so had ma'amad and misped in this place."

Kehati

And these - things listed below, are those about which people are trustworthy to testify when they are grown up, about what they saw when they were minors - even though testimony must be given by an adult, and the witness must be acceptable both at the beginning and the end of his testimony, the Sages ruled leniently in these matters, for reasons which will be explained below (according to the Gemara).

A person is believed when he says, "This is my Father's signature," and "This is my teacher's signature," and "This is my brother's signature" - "this signature on the document is similar to the signature which I saw as a child," and the document is ratified on the basis of his statement. The Gemara explains: since the ratification of documents is only a Rabbinic requirement, the Sages believed him in matters connected with their enactments. The Gemara further states, "And this is so provided he has an adult with him," i.e., he is only believed to confirm the document when there is another witness with him, for a document cannot be ratified by less than two witnesses for each signature;

''I remember so-and-so who went out in a hinuma - with a veil on her head, which also covered her eyes, and her head uncovered" - with the hair flowing over her shoulders in the manner in which the weddings of virgins were conducted, and her ketubah is therefore two hundred dinars (see mishnah 2:1). Although money cannot be extracted from another's possession without full testimony (two legal witnesses), the Sages believed him as explained by the Gemara: "since a majority of women are married as virgins, this is only a divulgation of that fact"; and that "so-and-so would go out from the school - when we were young schoolchildren, - to immerse - himself in a mikve (a ritual bath) in order - to eat terumah" - and accordingly he is a kohen. The Gemara explains that we do not suspect that he was merely the bondman of a kohen, since it is forbidden to teach a bondman Torah, and he saw him leave school, this is proof that he is not a bondman; however, this testimony only allows him to eat that which is terumah by Rabbinic law; and that "he would share with us on the threshing-floor" - a kohen testifies that when he was a minor he saw a certain person participate in the sharing out of terumah which was distributed on the threshing-floor; accordingly he is considered a kohen; we do not suspect that he saw the bondman of a kohen because terumah is not distributed to a bondman unless his master is with him (Gemara); and "this place is a bet ha-peras" - when a field containing a grave is plowed over, the area of one hundred amot surround-ing the grave is called "bet ha-peras," which area is possibly unclean because of the dead body, and hence a kohen may not enter (see Oh., chap. 18); a person is believed on the basis of his recollection as a minor, that a certain place is a bet ha-peras, and hence the area beyond the bet ha-peras is ritually clean (Tosafot), and since the uncleanness of bet ha-peras is but a Rabbinic enactment, the Sages declared him to be trustworthy (Gemara); and "until here we would come on Shabbat" - this spot was the Shabbat boundary, (i.e., two thousand amot outside the city), he is believed because this Shabbat boundary is a Rabbinic ordinance (Gemara).

But a person is not believed when he says - that when a minor, he saw that "So-and-so had a right-of-way in this place" - through another's field, or that "So-and-so had ma'amad - a place where the funeral procession stopped for consolation, and misped - a place where the deceased is eulogized, in this place" - as already explained, (Meg. 4:3) it was the custom, when taking the corpse to the grave, for those in attendance to sit down seven times and bemoan him, and each time they called out, "Stand (imdu) precious ones, stand, sit down (shevu) precious ones, sit down." This is meant by "ma'amad u-moshav" (standing and sitting) (Rashi). According to Hameiri, this ceremony took place when they returned from the burial. An adult is not trusted to testify about what he saw as a minor in such cases, because they involve monetary matters which require the testimony of two adult witnesses, who are acceptable from the beginning to the end of the testimony.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives