הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְאַרְמְלָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה, הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת בְּתוּלָה נְשָׂאתַנִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, לֹא כִי אֶלָּא אַלְמָנָה נְשָׂאתִיךְ, אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁיָּצָאת בְּהִנּוּמָא וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ מָאתָיִם. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר, אַף חִלּוּק קְלָיוֹת רְאָיָה: With regard to a woman who was widowed or divorced, and is now claiming payment of her marriage contract that is not before the court, and she says: You married me as a virgin, who is entitled to two hundred dinars, and he says: No; rather, I married you as a widow, who is entitled to one hundred dinars, then, if there are witnesses that she went out of her father’s house to her wedding with a hinnuma or with her hair uncovered, in a manner typical of virgins, payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even testimony that there was distribution of roasted grain, which was customary at weddings of virgins, constitutes proof that she is a virgin.
וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיךָ הָיְתָה וּלְקַחְתִּיהָ הֵימֶנּוּ, שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן, שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אָבִיו וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לְקַחְתִּיהָ הֵימֶנּוּ, אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן: Several disputes between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were cited previously with regard to the credibility accorded to the respective claims of parties to a dispute. Based on one of those disputes, the tanna adds: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field, which is currently in my possession, belonged to your father and I purchased it from him, that he is deemed credible, and his entire claim is accepted. The court accepts not only his admission that it once belonged to the other’s father, but also his statement that he purchased it. This is so, as the mouth that prohibited, i.e., claimed that the field had belonged to the other’s father, is the mouth that permitted, i.e., claimed that he purchased the field. Even if he had not admitted that it had belonged to the other’s father, the field would have remained in his possession. Therefore, his claim is accepted. However, if there are witnesses that the field belonged to his father, and the one who has the field in his possession says: I purchased it from him, he is not deemed credible and his claim is rejected.
הָעֵדִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ כְּתַב יָדֵינוּ הוּא זֶה, אֲבָל אֲנוּסִים הָיִינוּ, קְטַנִּים הָיִינוּ, פְּסוּלֵי עֵדוּת הָיִינוּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִים. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא כְתַב יָדָם אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה כְתַב יָדָם יוֹצֵא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין: With regard to the witnesses who said in their testimony to ratify their signatures in a document: We signed the document and this is our handwriting; however, we were compelled to sign, or we were minors when we signed, or we were disqualified witnesses, e.g., we are relatives of one of the parties, they are deemed credible. Since the document is ratified on the basis of their testimony, it is likewise invalidated on the basis of their testimony. However, if there are other witnesses who testify that it is their handwriting, or if their handwriting emerges on a document from another place, enabling confirmation of their signatures by comparing the two documents, then the witnesses who signed the document are not deemed credible. The document is not invalidated based on their testimony, because ratification of the document is not dependent on their testimony, as their signatures can be authenticated independently.
זֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתַב יָדִי וְזֶה כְתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרִי, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתַב יָדִי וְזֶה כְתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין. זֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתַב יָדִי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתַב יָדִי, צְרִיכִים לְצָרֵף עִמָּהֶם אַחֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְצָרֵף עִמָּהֶם אַחֵר, אֶלָּא נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר זֶה כְתַב יָדִי: If this witness whose name is signed on a document says: This is my handwriting and this is the handwriting of my fellow witness, and that witness says: This is my handwriting and that is the handwriting of my fellow witness, these witnesses are deemed credible and the document is ratified, as together they provide testimony authenticating both signatures. If this witness says: This is my handwriting, and that witness says: This is my handwriting, and neither testifies with regard to the signature of the other, they must add another witness with them who will authenticate the signatures of the two witnesses, as otherwise, each of the witnesses would be testifying with regard to half the sum in the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: They need not add another witness with them. Rather, a person is deemed credible to say: This is my handwriting. The testimony of the two signatories about their own signatures is sufficient.
הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי וּגְרוּשָׁה אָנִי, נֶאֱמֶנֶת, שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהָיְתָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת גְּרוּשָׁה אָנִי, אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. אָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אָנִי, נֶאֱמֶנֶת, שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת טְהוֹרָה אָנִי, אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת בָּאוּ עֵדִים, הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵצֵא: With regard to a woman who said: I was a married woman and now I am a divorcée, she is deemed credible and permitted to remarry, as the mouth that prohibited and established that she was married is the mouth that permitted, and established that she is divorced. However, if there are witnesses that she was a married woman, and she says: I am a divorcée, she is not deemed credible. Similarly, with regard to a woman who said: I was taken captive but I am pure, as I was not raped in captivity, she is deemed credible and permitted to marry a priest, as the mouth that prohibited and established that she was taken captive is the mouth that permitted and established that she was not defiled. But if there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and she says: I am pure, she is not deemed credible. And if witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband.
שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אָנִי, וְזֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אָנִי, אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנוֹת. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְעִידוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת: In a case where witnesses testify that there are two women who were taken captive, and this woman says: I was taken captive but I am pure, and that woman says: I was taken captive but I am pure, they are not deemed credible. And when this woman testifies about that woman that she is pure and vice versa, they are deemed credible.
וְכֵן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים, זֶה אוֹמֵר כֹּהֵן אָנִי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֹּהֵן אָנִי, אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְעִידִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין: And likewise, with regard to two men whose lineage is unknown, and this man says: I am a priest, and that man says: I am a priest, they are not deemed credible. And when this man testifies about that man that he is a priest and vice versa, they are deemed credible.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵין מַעֲלִין לַכְּהֻנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אֵימָתַי, בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עוֹרְרִין. אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹרְרִין, מַעֲלִין לַכְּהֻנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן הַסְּגָן, מַעֲלִין לַכְּהֻנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד: Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not elevate a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Two witnesses are required for that purpose. Rabbi Elazar says: When is that the ruling? In a case where there are challengers to his claim that he is a priest. However, in a case where there are no challengers, one elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest: One elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness.
הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּחְבְּשָׁה בִידֵי גוֹיִם עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן, מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ. עִיר שֶׁכְּבָשָׁהּ כַּרְכּוֹם, כָּל כֹּהֲנוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בְתוֹכָהּ, פְּסוּלוֹת. וְאִם יֵשׁ לָהֶן עֵדִים, אֲפִלּוּ עֶבֶד, אֲפִלּוּ שִׁפְחָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין. וְאֵין נֶאֱמָן אָדָם עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶן הַקַּצָּב, הַמָּעוֹן הַזֶּה, לֹא זָזָה יָדָהּ מִתּוֹךְ יָדִי מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ גוֹיִם לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד שֶׁיָּצָאוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין אָדָם מֵעִיד עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ: In the case of a woman who was imprisoned by gentiles due to a monetary offense committed by her husband, once she is released after he pays his debt, she is permitted to her husband, even if he is a priest. There is no concern that they violated her because their objective is to coerce the husband to pay his debt in exchange for her release. Were they to abuse her, it is possible that he would be unwilling to pay. However, if a woman was imprisoned due to a capital offense and sentenced to death, once she is released she is forbidden to her husband even if he is not a priest due to the concern that perhaps her captors violated her, and she acquiesced to one of them. With regard to a city that was conquered by an army laying siege, all the women married to priests located in the city are unfit and forbidden to their husbands, due to the concern that they were raped. And if they have witnesses, even if the witness is a slave, even if the witness is a maidservant, both of whom are generally disqualified as witnesses, they are deemed credible. And a person is not deemed credible to establish his status by his own testimony. Therefore, a woman is not deemed credible to claim that she was not violated. Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav said: I swear by this abode of the Divine Presence that my wife’s hand did not move from my hand from the time that the gentiles entered Jerusalem until they left, and I know for a fact that she was not defiled. The Sages said to him: A person cannot testify about himself. The legal status of one’s wife is like his own status in this regard. Therefore, your testimony is not accepted, and your wife is forbidden to you.
וְאֵלוּ נֶאֱמָנִין לְהָעִיד בְּגָדְלָן מָה שֶׁרָאוּ בְקָטְנָן. נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר, זֶה כְתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁל אַבָּא, וְזֶה כְתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי, וְזֶה כְתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁל אָחִי. זָכוּר הָיִיתִי בִפְלוֹנִית שֶׁיָּצְתָה בְהִנּוּמָא, וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ. וְשֶׁהָיָה אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר לִטְבֹּל לֶאֱכֹל בַּתְּרוּמָה. וְשֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֵק עִמָּנוּ עַל הַגֹּרֶן. וְהַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה בֵּית הַפְּרָס. וְעַד כָּאן הָיִינוּ בָאִין בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲבָל אֵין אָדָם נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר, דֶּרֶךְ הָיָה לִפְלוֹנִי בַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה, מַעֲמָד וּמִסְפֵּד הָיָה לִפְלוֹנִי בַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה: And these are deemed credible to testify in their majority with regard to what they saw in their minority. A person is deemed credible to say: This is my father’s handwriting, and to say: This is my teacher’s handwriting; and to say: This is my brother’s handwriting, even though he never saw their handwriting after reaching majority. § Similarly, one is deemed credible to say: I was reminded of the wedding of so-and-so, who went out with a hinnuma, or with her hair uncovered in a manner typical of virgins, and therefore, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars; and to say that so-and-so would leave school to immerse in order to partake of teruma, and that he would share teruma with us at the threshing floor and therefore he is a priest. Similarly, one is deemed credible to say: This place is a beit haperas, a field with a grave that was plowed, scattering the bones, and rendering the field a place of uncertain ritual impurity; and to say: Until here we would come on Shabbat and thereby determine the Shabbat boundary. However, a person is neither deemed credible to say: So-and-so had a path in this place; nor to say: So-and-so had a tract of land where they would perform the ritual of standing and sitting and deliver a eulogy in that place, thereby attesting that the land belongs to that person. The reason he is not deemed credible in those cases is that full-fledged testimony is required to remove property from the possession of its presumptive owner.