Talmud zu Ketubot 2:19

HALAKHAH: “If two people hold on to one stole,” etc. ⁷A parallel but different text is in Ketubot 2:1, Notes 12–15. It was stated: One person said to another, give me the mina⁸The Greek mina of 100 drachmas (denars). Zuz, “half sheqel” is the talmudic name of the denar. which you owe me. He answered, it never happened. He went and brought witnesses that the other owed him 50 zuz. The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, the confession of the witnesses is the same as his own confession; he has to swear about the remainder⁹A similar text, formulated as R. Ḥiyya’s statement, is quoted in the Babli, 3a. The oath required here is the biblical “oath imposed by the judges”, Mishnah Ševu‘ot 6:1 based on Ex. 22:8. The rabbinic interpretation of the biblical expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה is “if he [the defendant] agrees that there be a case.” If the defendant in a civil suit, in which there are no witnesses or documents, denies the entire claim, he does not have to swear a biblical oath (he may have to swear a rabbinical oath). But if he agrees to part of the claim, he has to swear a biblical oath to free himself from the remainder. Only if the claim is advanced as tentative, then any admission by the defendant is a gift to the claimant and by rabbinic rule no oath of any kind is due. (Cf. Giṭṭin 5:3, Note 84).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the confession of the witnesses is not the same as his own confession that he should have to swear¹⁰Since Ex. 22:8 insists on the defendant’s agreeing to part of the claim, witnesses can never force a judicial oath. This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli. In Ketubot(loc. cit. Note 7), R. Joḥanan denies that the oath is biblical; its rules cannot be determined by biblical arguments.. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder’s statement is implied by “if two people hold on to one stole”. Since he holds on to half of it, is it not as if he brought witnesses that one half belongs to him? Could one not say that he swears and collects¹¹The argument is refuted. Since each party claims the entire stole, each one is disputing half of a claim. There is no claimant nor defendant; even R. Ḥiyya must agree that the oath imposed by the Mishnah is not biblical.? Is this a similar case¹²For R. Ḥiyya, the case of the baraita is biblical; R. La’s argument is impossible. (In Ketubot, R. La quotes R. Joḥanan’s statement in the next paragraph.)?

HALAKHAH: “One does not put up animals in hostelries of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jonah⁵Unfortunately G is very lacunary here; therefore its readings are not given after the Hebrew text. The Halakhah starts: “R. Ze‘urah, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, R. ..… R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, explain it …” There is no reason to mention the sixth generation R. Abba III and the fifth generation R. Jonah who later disagrees with the statement if already it was attributed to the second generation R. Yose ben Ḥanina.: explain it⁶The Mishnah which forbids to put up unsupervised animals in the stable of a Gentile hostelry makes travel outside Jewish settlements practically impossible. An attribution to R. Eliezer removes the first part of the Mishnah from practice. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.⁷Mishnah Parah2:1. This refers to the Red Cow (Num. 19) whose ashes are needed to cleanse people from the impurity of the dead. The Cow is not a Temple sacrifice; how far the restrictions imposed on sacrificial animals and the officiating priests apply to the Cow and its officiants are old matters of dispute between Sadducees and Pharisees (Mishnah Parah3:3,7) and among the rabbis themselves. One of the biblical requirements is that the Red Cow never carried a yoke (Num. 19:2). In Mishnah Parah2:1, a first statement of R. Eliezer validates a pregnant Red Cow for the ceremonies; the reason is explained in Mishnah 4 by his student’s R. Illai’s son R. Jehudah, that a bull mounting the Cow on his own cannot be considered making her carrying anything; only copulation by human intervention makes the ox the equivalent of a yoke. The majority rejects the ruling; it considers the Cow and its fetus as two separate beings but v. 19:3 requires the Cow alone to be taken. These restrictions do not apply to ordinary sacrifices. R. Eliezer then forbids buying a Red Cow from Gentiles since a sodomized animal is unfit for the altar; the Sages disagree since without reason one does not suspect that such a thing happened; this would make the Mishnah here unreasonable. (The last generation R. Yose bar Abun even introduces buying a Red Cow from a Gentile into a story about R. Eliezer; Peah1:1 Notes 99 ff., Qiddušin1:7 Notes 607 ff.) Babli 23a.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not explain it according to everybody, following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave alone⁸One may not leave the animal alone with a Gentile. Chapter 1:6, Note 165. There the first tradent is R. Jonah himself.. If he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion⁹It is not said what everybody’s opinion is; the corresponding passage in G is in the name of “the rabbis of Caesarea, Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav” but then is missing the conclusion. One has to assume that it was “if he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion the animal remains permitted.”. Rebbi Jeremiah said, let us hear from the following¹⁰Mishnah Ketubot2:9. If she is jailed because of money matters one must assume that she was not raped; if she was condemned to death one must assume that she was raped or consented to sex with her jailers. If a woman can be alone in the custody of Gentiles without being raped, may the same not be assumed of female animals?: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles.” Rebbi Yose said, it is different for a woman because she usually cries. Think of it if she was mute! She uses sign language. What about it¹¹The argument appears to be cogent.? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree? About the cow, because of “eminence was given to the cow, an adornment was made for the cow.¹²In the Mishnah, not only do the rabbis permit to buy a Red Cow from a Gentile owner, they also allow to buy sacrificial animals from him. The question arises whether R. Eliezer will agree with this or not. The assumption here is that R. Eliezer will agree that sacrifices can be bought from Gentiles but not the Red Cow, whose ceremonies in pharisaic theory were made with many non-scriptural restrictions because of an important difference with Sadducees in matters of ritual purity (Mishnah Parah3:7,8).” But since the rabbis answer to Rebbi Eliezer all sheep of Qedar will be assembled for you¹³Is.60:7. The verse ends: they will be brought on My altar for pleasure. This gives divine sanction for using animals raised by Gentiles for the altar. Since the verse speaks of sacrifices, not of the Red C ow, R. Eliezer must hold that sacrificial animals cannot be bought from Gentiles. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 24a., this says that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees about everything. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does one reply with an argument about the future against one about the past¹⁴The preceding argument does not prove anything in practice since in the next paragraph it will be shown that in messianic times the Gentiles will accept the Torah. Their animals may well be acceptable then but not now.? Rebbi Abin asked, does one reply with an argument when evil inclinations will have disappeared against one when evil inclinations exist¹⁵This is the same argument as before.?

HALAKHAH: “A woman went with her husband,” etc. Just as you say, ³Mishnah Ketubot 2:4. This belongs to a series of statements illustrating the principle that “the mouth that prohibits is the mouth that permits”. If nobody at that place knew that she had been married before, then if she asserts that she was married she forbids herself for every other male. If then she qualifies the statement that now she is no longer married because she is divorced, her testimony must be accepted since if one believes her that she was married one must believe her that she is divorced; if one does not believe her that she was married, one does not have to believe her that she is divorced but it makes no difference since as an unmarried woman she can contract marriage. But if there were witnesses who could testify that she was married, she has to prove her case by documents or witnesses if she wants to remarry as a divorcee.“if there are witnesses that she is a married woman and she says, I was divorced, she is not trustworthy;” would I say it is the same here? There is a difference for witnesses of death since if he comes he disproves [the testimony]⁴But if the husband comes and claims that he did not divorce her, it is his word against hers; she is not automatically proven to be a liar.. Then she should be trustworthy to say: “my levir died”! That is impossible since we have stated⁵Mishnah 15:10. There is no relaxation of standards of proof before a court except in the case of testimony about a husband’s death.: “A woman is not trustworthy if she says ‘my levir died’ to remarry, or ‘my sister died’ to enter her house⁶To marry her brother-in-law..” Rebbi Abba said, she is trustworthy for her husband whom she married out of her free will; she is not trustworthy about her levir on whom she was thrown against her will. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, think of it, then she should not be trustworthy if she was forced to marry him⁷If she was married off by her father while she was underage. There is no mention in the Mishnah of a restriction on women marrying on their own. No answer is given to the question.!

Witnesses of a declaration of jealousy who were found to be false⁴⁰The technical term “scheming witnesses” derives from Deut. 19:19 where it is stated that the penalty inflicted on a false witness shall be the punishment he schemed to inflict on the accused. Tractate Makkot mainly deals with the case of false witnesses on whom the punishment intended for their victim cannot be inflicted; in that case they are whipped for committing a sin. Since males cannot be subject to declarations of jealousy, the false witnesses must be whipped. are whipped. About witnesses concerning her being in a secluded place who were found to be false, you say that they are whipped; why should they not pay⁴¹On their testimony, the wife loses her ketubah-money? It is not through their action that she loses her ketubah⁴²Without testimony which confirms the declaration of jealousy, their testimony is worthless. Since the verse makes no provision for partial guilt, no monetary punishment can be imposed.. Or it might be, following what Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah⁴³Reading רַב יְהוּדָה of a parallel quote in Ketubot 2:10. He was Samuel’s most outstanding student., said in the name of Samuel: One does not infer one thing from another in the matter of false witnesses⁴⁴A possible explanation of this sentence, which appears here and in Ketubot 2:10 without discussion, seems to be that one refrains from imposing the punishment of whipping only in cases in which the imposition of another punishment is straightforward.. And here it is so.

If she was seen going to a secluded place by one witness in the morning⁵¹And the same witness saw the suspect man going to the same place. and by one witness in the evening, it is to be treated like the following: ⁵²Tosephta Giṭṭin 5:4; quoted also in Halakhah Giṭṭin 7:4.“If she was together alone with him by the testimony of two witnesses, she needs a second bill of divorce from him; if there was a single witness she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. With one witness in the morning and one witness in the evening, such a case happened and Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus⁵³A Tanna whose time cannot be determined with accuracy. He seems to belong to the later Tannaïm. asked the Sages, who told him that this is not being together alone.⁵⁴In the Tosephta: “That is only one witness per incident.” It implies that also in the case of the straying wife there are no two witnesses for any incident.” If he declared his jealousy before one witness in the morning and before one witness in the evening; since he is a man and she is a woman, his declaration is nothing⁵⁵In the interpretation of S. Eisenstein, the statement should be read as: “even though heis the same man and she is the same woman morning and evening, his declaration is worthless.” It seems that this author is correct in reading this interpretation into R. Josef Caro’s lengthy discussion of this paragraph in Bet Joseph, Ṭur Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 30(7). The upshoot of the latter’s discussion is that since the declaration of jealousy in every case was made in front of only one witness, nobody is expected to take it seriously.. Or is it to be treated like the following: ⁵⁶From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is found also in the parallels Ketubot 2:4, Sanhedrin 3:10.“One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah says, even if they saw it one after the other.⁵⁷Tosephta Sanhedrin 5:5, Babli Sanhedrin 30a; Baba Batra 32a, 165a; Ketubot 26b, Giṭṭin 33b; Yerushalmi Ketubot 2:4; Sanhedrin 3:10, 4:1. The Babli seems to imply that practice follows R. Joshua ben Qorḥa and the Yerushalmi text also has to be interpreted in the same way. For R. Joshua ben Qorḥa the two single witnesses together can testify not to a single misdeed but to a pattern of misbehavior.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar [Rav] Isaac in the name of Rav: ⁵⁸In the Babli, Sanhedrin 30b, essentially the same ruling. The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah with regard to witnesses of firstlings⁵⁹Accoding to Rashi, Sanhedrin 30b, this refers to a firstling born in the herd of a Jew. The firstling must be given to a Cohen who, in the absence of a Temple, may slaughter and eat the firstling only after it has developed a permanent defect which disables it from ever being a sacrifice (Deut. 15:21–23). Since the Cohen has a monetary interest in seeing the firstling declared defective, the rabbis decreed that (a) causing a defect in a firstling is sinful and (b) the Cohen is disqualified from testifying that the defect was not induced by humans. The Cohen must find two other witnesses but they do not have to testify on the same thing. and witnesses of squatters’ rights⁶⁰In a society in which title to real estate is not necessarily established by documents, title to a property can be proven in court by testimony of undisturbed possession during three years supported by a claim of lawful acquisition (as purchase, gift, or inheritance).. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs⁶¹To testify that the person in question is an adult qualified to transact business. A person is an adult who (a) has reached the age of consent, 12 and 1 day for a female and 13 and 1 day for a male, and (b) shows signs of puberty in the form of two pubic hairs. While the court may have ways of verifying age, it needs testimony about the pubic hair. Growth of hair on any other part of the body is irrelevant. Therefore, in the following, the expression “hair on the back” or “hair on the belly” cannot mean that but must be read as “hair on the extreme right or left of the pelvic area” and “hair at the upper border of the pelvic area [Maimonides, Hilkhot Edut 4:7, Meïri Sanhedrin (ed. A. Sofer, Jerusalem 1971) p. 131].. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back⁶²This is valid testimony even if it is not simultaneous.. If one says, I saw one hair on her back and the other says, I saw one hair on her back, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back⁶³Since one pubic hair does not make the person an adult, there is no witness who testifies to the person being an adult.. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly⁶⁴The first witness testifies that the person is an adult. The second witness cannot testify that the person is an adult. In a criminal case, his testimony would be inadmissible. In the case before us, he only testifies that the person has more pubic hair than indicated in the first testimony; the question is whether the second witness, following R. Joshua ben Qorḥa, may be admitted to confirm the first testimony. It is obvious that for the rabbis opposing R. Joshua ben Qorḥa there is no testimony at all.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia the son of Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign⁶⁵The argument is accepted in both Talmudim. It says (Deut. 19:15): “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses the matter should be established.” It follows that a witness for half the matter has no standing in court.. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off⁶⁶He testifies that all he saw was one hair, showing that the two hairs seen by the previous two witnesses were not permanent hair.. Two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid⁶⁷Since Rebbi Abba had said earlier that the Sages agree with R. Joshua ben Qorḥa that partial testimony is accepted for signs of puberty, he must hold here that everybody agrees that two partial testimonies can be combined if each part is confirmed by two witnesses.. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement; Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him⁶⁸He disagrees with R. Abba and holds that the Sages did not accept R. Joshua ben Qorḥa’s opinion in this case. In the Babli (Sanhedrin 30b), R. Abba holds that the Sages accepted R. Joshua ben Qorḥa’s opinion only for questions of real estate.. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed⁶⁹It is claimed that the document is a forgery. In that case, the signatures of the witnesses on the document must be verified by two witnesses (or by comparison with another document signed by the same witness and which had been certified as genuine by some court of law.), if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything⁷⁰That argument seems to be incongruous here. It refers to the reading of the parallels in Ketubot and Sanhedrin: “One [witness] said, I saw one hair on his back and another said, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony].” However, the problem with this reading is that this kind of testimony has already been rejected (Note 63). The argument of R. Mana II (a student of R. Yudan) must refer to the text given here.? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything⁷¹While every witness testifies that the person in possession today was undisturbed in his possession for three years, this is not the testimony required by the court. (This case cannot be compared with that of informal testimony referred to in Mishnah Yebamot 15:5, where concurrent inference from diverging statements is accepted.)? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

MISHNAH: He who stole according to the testimony of two people²¹To recover stolen property is a civil matter and is judged according to civil law. But for the owners to collect double, quadruple, or quintuple restitution requires a criminal conviction of the thief which can be based only on the testimony of at least two eye witnesses to the act. and slaughtered or sold according to their testimony or the testimony of two others, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and sold on the Sabbath²²This is forbidden but in itself is not a capital crime which would preempt the imposition of a fine. But if he slaughtered on the Sabbath he committed a capital crime and could not be sentenced to a fine; cf. Chapter 6, Note 102., stole and sold to pagan worship²³As long as he does not himself participate in pagan worship, no capital crime has been committed., stole and slaughtered on the Day of Atonement²⁴The punishment for this deadly sin is left to Heaven, not the human court., stole from his father, slaughtered, or sold, and then his father died,²⁵Even though he is an heir, he has to pay to his co-heirs their share in the fine payable to the estate. stole, slaughtered, and then dedicated it to the Temple²⁶Since he already was subject to the fine when he dedicated, the dedication cannot erase the liability., has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and slaughtered for medical purposes or for the dogs, he who slaughtered and it turned out torn²⁷On inspection the animal was found to be sick and the meat unfit for human consumption., he who slaughtered a profane animal in the Temple courtyard²⁸The slaughtered animal is forbidden for any use., has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Simeon frees from liability in these two cases²⁹He holds that slaughter which does not prepare meat for human consumption technically is called “killing” rather than “slaughter” and is not covered by the rule of Ex. 21:37..

³⁶Another formulation of the same topic is in Ketubot 2:11, Notes 203–209.“Similarly, a swarm of bees is his if the owners had given up hope of recovery.” Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah is about a swarm taken in flight and from a schoolboy³⁷But not a younger child (Rashba, Novellae ad 114b.), and only immediately³⁸“Immediately” refers to the testimony of women and children, who can determine ownership, even in their own behalf, on the pursuit ot the swarm.. But if one left and returned, I am saying that he³⁹The underage witness. said it because of fear, or being seduced. It was stated⁴⁰Babli 82b,114b.: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, it is a stipulation by the court that this one may cut a branch and pay for it since on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel⁴¹The last remark is not in the Babli. For the list of stipulations about land use ascribed to Joshua, cf. Nazir7:1, Note 40..

The Greek speakers did not use to do this, but a single person reads the entire portion⁷⁹If the congregation knows no Hebrew, a professional reader will read it for them. Tosephta 3:13.. If one knew the portion he reads it completely. If of seven persons each one knows three verses, they all read⁸⁰Even though the customary reading is longer, if the congregation manages to find among their members three who together can read 21 verses, they can conduct regular services.. If one knows three verses he reads them repeatedly⁸¹If no professional is available, one person may read 3 verses 7 times.. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah, a slave is counted for the count of seven⁸²Even though he is not counted in a quorum of ten adult males.; “and spoke” is counted as one of three verses⁸³The short verse, the Eternal spoke to Moses as follows, is counted as a full verse of the required three. Babli 21b.. But did not Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, it is forbidden to teach Torah to one’s slave⁸⁴Babli Ketubot28a.? Explain it if he learned it by himself or that his master taught him like Tabi⁸⁵The slave in Rabban Gamliel’s house for whom the master warranted that he was a moral person..