Ketubot 24aכתובות כ״ד א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Ketubot 24a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
24aכ״ד א

אימא לא

say no, his claim is not accepted.

ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי משום דממונא אבל אשת איש דאיסורא אימא לא

And if the tanna taught us these two cases, one might have thought that the claim is deemed credible due to the fact that the cases involve monetary matters; however, in the case of a married woman who claims that she was divorced, which is a ritual matter, say no, she is not deemed credible. Therefore, it was necessary for the tanna to teach us all three cases.

נשביתי וטהורה אני למה לי משום דקא בעי למיתני ואם משנשאת באו עדים הרי זו לא תצא

The Gemara asks: With regard to the case where one says: I was taken captive and I am pure, why do I need the tanna to teach that case? There is no novel element in that ruling, as it is merely another application of the same principle. The Gemara answers: The tanna taught that case due to the fact that the tanna sought to teach based on it: And if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband.

הניחא למאן דמתני לה אסיפא אלא למאן דמתני לה ארישא מאי איכא למימר משום דקא בעי למיתני שתי נשים שנשבו

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who teaches this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna with regard to a woman taken captive. However, according to the one who taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna, with regard to a woman who claimed that she was married and divorced, what is there to say? According to that opinion, the ruling with regard to a woman taken captive who claims that she remained pure is superfluous. If a woman is deemed credible in the case where the concern is that she is a married woman, she is all the more so deemed credible when the concern pertains to a less severe prohibition, that of a woman who was violated in captivity marrying a priest. The Gemara answers: The tanna taught the superfluous halakha that a woman claiming that she was taken captive and remained pure is deemed credible as an introduction, due to the fact that he sought to subsequently teach the case of two women who were taken captive.

ושתי נשים שנשבו למה לי מהו דתימא ניחוש לגומלין קמשמע לן

The Gemara asks: And why do I need the tanna to teach the case of two women who were taken captive? What novel element is introduced in that case that did not exist in the case of one woman? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Let us be concerned for collusion between the women, that each would testify for the benefit of the other, the tanna therefore teaches us that this is not a concern.

וכן שני אנשים למה לי משום דקא בעי למיתני פלוגתא דרבי יהודה ורבנן

The Gemara asks: And why do I need the tanna to teach the following case: And likewise two men, each testifying that the other is a priest? He already taught that if two women each testify that the other is pure, they are deemed credible. The Gemara answers: The tanna taught the superfluous halakha with regard to two men as an introduction, due to the fact that he sought to subsequently teach the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, concerning whether or not the testimony of a single witness is deemed credible to establish another’s presumptive status as a priest.

ת"ר אני כהן וחברי כהן נאמן להאכילו בתרומה ואינו נאמן להשיאו אשה עד שיהו ג' שנים מעידין על זה ושנים מעידין על זה רבי יהודה אומר אף אינו נאמן להאכילו בתרומה עד שיהו שלשה שנים מעידין על זה ושנים מעידין על זה

§ The Gemara elaborates: The Rabbis taught in a baraita: In the case of two men, each of whom says: I am a priest and my counterpart is a priest, each is deemed credible with regard to enabling his counterpart to partake of teruma. But he is not deemed credible with regard to establishing his presumptive status as a priest of unflawed lineage for the purpose of his marrying a woman until there are three people, the two claiming to be priests and an additional witness, so that there are two witnesses testifying with regard to the status of this person and two witnesses testifying with regard to the status of that person. Rabbi Yehuda says: Each is not deemed credible even with regard to enabling his counterpart to partake of teruma until there are three men, so that there are two witnesses testifying with regard to this person and two witnesses testifying with regard to that person.

למימרא דרבי יהודה חייש לגומלין ורבנן לא חיישי לגומלין והא איפכא שמעינן להו דתנן החמרין שנכנסו לעיר ואמר אחד מהן שלי חדש ושל חברי ישן שלי אינו מתוקן ושל חברי מתוקן אינו נאמן רבי יהודה אומר נאמן

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned for collusion between them, and the Rabbis are not concerned for collusion? But didn’t we learn that they said the opposite? As we learned in a mishna: In a case where there were donkey drivers who entered a city, and one of them said: My produce is new from this year’s crop, and it is not yet completely dry and therefore of lower quality, and the produce of my counterpart is old and dry and therefore more durable; or if he said: My produce is not tithed and the produce of my counterpart is tithed, he is not deemed credible. Presumably, there is collusion between the two merchants. In this city, one denigrates the quality of his own produce, enhancing his credibility, while praising the quality of the produce of his counterpart; and his counterpart says the same in the next city that they enter. And Rabbi Yehuda says: He is deemed credible, as apparently he is not concerned for collusion between the merchants.

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב מוחלפת השיטה אביי אמר לעולם לא תיפוך בדמאי הקילו רוב עמי הארץ מעשרין הן

Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed in one of the mishnayot, so that the opinions of the tanna’im are consistent in both the case of the priests and the case of the donkey drivers. Abaye said: Actually, do not reverse the attribution, and the fact that Rabbi Yehuda accepts the claim of the donkey driver is because with regard to doubtfully tithed produce [demai] the Sages were lenient, because most amei ha’aretz tithe their produce. The ordinance of the Sages classifying produce purchased from an am ha’aretz as doubtfully tithed produce and requiring its tithing is based on a far-fetched concern. Therefore, testimony of any sort is sufficient to permit its consumption. However, as a rule, Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about collusion.

אמר רבא דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא אלא דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה לא קשיא כדשנינן דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא כדאמר רבי חמא בר עוקבא בשכלי אומנותו בידו

Rava said: Is that to say that the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda is difficult, but the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? Clearly, the contradiction between the rulings of the Rabbis in the respective mishnayot is difficult. Rather, the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we explained above that Rabbi Yehuda was lenient with regard to doubtfully tithed produce. The contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis is also not difficult. Fundamentally, the Rabbis are not concerned for collusion between the two parties. However, in the case of donkey drivers they are concerned, as Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva said in another context that it is referring to a case where one has the tools of his trade in his hand.