פירוש על כתובות 2:2

ומודה רבי יהושע – even though that above in the first chapter (Mishnah 6), regarding what she says: “after you betrothed me, I was raped,” Rabbi Yehoshua disputes Rabban Gamaliel and states, “we do not believe the woman.” In what she said: “after you betrothed me, I was raped,” and she disqualifies herself from [being able to marry into] the priesthood through “Miggo”-the legal rule according to which the deponent’s statement is accepted as true on the ground that, if he (or she) had intended to tell a lie, he/she might have invented one more advantageous to his/her case (see Talmud Ketubot 16a), for if she had wanted, she could have stated, “I was one who lost my hymen through an accidental lesion and was fit [to being able to marry into] the priesthood. These words [apply] where there is [a case] of prohibition or permission to prohibit [her to marry into] the priesthood or to validate it – in this Rabbi Yehoshua disputes Rabban Gamaliel and states that we don’t believe her through “Miggo,” but where there isn’t a case of prohibition and permission other than money at stake/eventual loss (see Talmud Ketubot 23b) such as, for example, where a person says to his fellow: “this field was your father’s, and I purchased it from him,” Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabban Gamaliel that in a case like this, we believe him through “Miggo,” for if he had wanted, he could have said, “it is mine,” and when he said, “this field was your father’s, and I purchased it from him,” he Is believed.

Introduction At the end of the last chapter there was a series of debates in which Rabbi Joshua consistently did not believe the woman and Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer did. Our mishnah contains a case where Rabbi Joshua does believe the claim made (this time by a man). The reason why he believes the man in this case is that he invokes a principle called, “the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted”. This halakhic principle means that if a person says something which makes something forbidden to him he is also believed when he says something to make that very same thing permitted to him. The next few mishnayoth will illustrate this principle and limit its applicability.

ואם יש עדים שהיא של אביו אינו נאמן – In the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 17b) it explains that this Mishnah comes to inform us as for example, that he did not consume other than two years in the presence of the father and one year in the presence of the son, since he did not pay him three years of legal claim of undisturbed possession during a legally fixed period in the lifetime of the father, the year that he ate in the presence of the son does not count for him for the count of the years of presumptive ownership.

In this case Reuven approaches Shimon and tells him that the field that is currently in Reuven’s possession was purchased from Shimon’s father. Shimon did not approach Reuven first claiming the field, nor is there any other evidence that the field once belonged to Shimon’s father. Indeed, without Reuven having told Shimon that the field once belonged to Shimon’s father, we would have thought that the field was always Reuven’s. In this case Reuven is the “mouth that forbade” when he said that the field once belonged to Shimon’s father. He made a statement that was detrimental to himself. Since he is the “mouth that forbade”, he is believed to be the “mouth that permits” and state that he purchased the field from Shimon’s father. Reuven is believed even if he produces no evidence that he bought the field. Had Reuven kept his mouth shut, Shimon would never have known that the field once belonged to his father. Therefore, Reuven is believed when he says that it used to belong to Shimon’s father but he bought it from him.

But if there are witnesses that it belonged to his father and he says, “I bought it from him”, he is not believed. In contrast, if witnesses come and state that the field was once Shimon’s father’s field, then Reuven is not “the mouth that forbade”. He is only the “mouth that permits”, and he is therefore not believed. After all, had he kept his mouth shut, the field would have been taken over by Shimon. In order to retain possession of the field he will need to bring proof that he bought it.