Talmud for Ketubot 2:1

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:

A woman who was widowed or divorced [and who claimed her kethubah] — if she said: He married me as a virgin, and he said: No, I married you as a widow [This refers to one who was divorced. In the instance of one who was widowed, the heirs say: Our father married you as a widow, and only a manah is owing you] — If there are witnesses that she went out with hinuma [Some say it is a canopy of myrtle that they make for virgins; and others, a veil placed over the eyes, in which one "slumbers" (mitnamnemeth)], and her hair were undone, [hanging loose on her shoulders, it being the practice to conduct virgins in this manner from their fathers' house to the wedding hall], her kethubah is two manah. R. Yochanan b. Beroka says: The distribution of parched grain is also evidence (of her being a virgin). [In the locality of R. Yochanan b. Beroka it was the practice to distribute parched grain at the weddings of virgins. And if there were no witnesses that such customs were followed at her marriage and her kethubah were lost, the husband is believed and she claims only a manah.]

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia

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.)?

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter Next Verse