Talmud su Ketubbot 11:8

³¹From here to the end of the Halakhah, this is Halakhah Ketubot 11:7.“No usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, that he has from her only the usufruct³²This is the only right he has as a husband; he has no right to what she finds or earns, nor may he dissolve any of her vows.. Rebbi Yose the Sidonian³³An Amora of the fourth generation; he appears in the Babli as Rav Yosef Ṣidonî. stated before Rebbi Jeremiah, in disgreement with Rebbi Jeremiah³⁴The Tosephta, 2:4, states the opposite: “He has no right to what she finds and earns, and no right to dissolve her vows.”: “He has the right to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows.” What means “no usufruct”? That she cannot reclaim from him the usufruct he had [from her property].

¹¹⁶Sanhedrin1:4, Note 258. The origin of these paragraphs is in Ketubot 11:6, explained there in Notes 116–128. The final paragraph, while also found in Sanhedrin, makes sense only in Ketubot. It was stated: One does not make public tender for slaves, and girl slaves¹¹⁷Copyist’s error from שְׁטָרוֹת “documents (of indebtedness)”., and movables. What is public tender? Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, announcement. Ulla bar Ismael said, slaves lest they flee, securities and movables lest they be stolen. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Does this not imply that a slave be redeemed in front of three people? He answered him, yes. But did we not state: “Real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans”? He answered him, but the human here is a free person. Ḥanania bar Šelemiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi who wanted to act following the rabbis. Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, the grandson of Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, said to him: Rebbi, did you not teach us in your grandfather’s name, “except if he offered public tender”? He answered, yes, changed his mind, and acted following Rabban Simeon ben¹¹⁸The last two words have to be deleted with the two other sources. Rebbi was the son of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Gamliel.

What is the difference between these and those⁴⁷Between the disqualified women married to priests who receive Ketubah at the time of divorce and the secondarily prohibited who do not.? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah do not need support, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have Ketubah. Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have Ketubah⁴⁸A more detailed discussion is in Tosephta 2:4/Babli 85b. Both these sources stress that a disqualified woman has no reason to seek out a Cohen since her child will be desecrated whereas a secondarily forbidden (who might be permitted to him by another sect) might want to be married by a relative. What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried⁴⁹This case is not discussed in the parallel sources.. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has Ketubah. For those who want to say since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no Ketubah.

MISHNAH: By the words of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a death sentence be imposed⁴¹Deut. 19:15. Criminal sentences can be imposed only on the basis of oral testimony, not of circumstantial evidence.. If testimony is confirmed by two, why did the verse mention three? Only to compare three to two. Since three may prove that two are plotters, two also may prove that three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”⁴²The repetition, two witnesses or three witnesses, when it could have been “two or three witnesses”, implies that any number of witnesses have the same status as do two..
Rebbi Simeon says, since two are executed only if both are plotters, so three are executed only if all three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”⁴²The repetition, two witnesses or three witnesses, when it could have been “two or three witnesses”, implies that any number of witnesses have the same status as do two..
Rebbi Aqiba says, the third is only mentioned to punish him harshly and to identify his judgment with that of the others. If the verse in this way punished the accessory of criminals like criminals⁴³Since the third witness is not essential for proof in court., so much more it will reward the accessory to one who keeps the commandments as one who keeps the commandments.
Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person⁵¹If one witness is disqualified by the rules of Mishnah Sanhedrin either 3:6 or 3:7, there is only one testimony, insufficient by biblical standards., the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says⁴²The repetition, two witnesses or three witnesses, when it could have been “two or three witnesses”, implies that any number of witnesses have the same status as do two., witnesses.
Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? In criminal trials, but in civil trials the testimony should be upheld by the remaining [witnesses]⁵²Since Deut. 19:19 is formulated for criminal trials, the argument that any number of witnesses have the same status as two witnesses is not necessarily true for civil trials. In money matters, any two qualified witnesses can testify. For example, it is admissible that marriage contracts be signed first by two qualified witnesses and after them by any number of family members of both sides (cf. Gittin 8:12, Note 105).. Rebbi says, both in criminal and in civil trials, if they warned them⁵³If in a criminal case a disqualified person or two related persons both warned the perpetrator not to engage in criminal behavior, their action makes them witnesses and all witnesses have to be disqualified under the argument of Mishnah 12. But if they were eye witnesses but not those who delivered the warning, they are not forced to testify; the trial may proceed without them.. But if they did not warn them, what should two brothers do who were eye-witnesses to a murder?

“ ‘Give this mina to X,’ then he died. If the heirs want to hinder [the delivery] they are powerless. It is unnecessary to say that it is so if he said, acquire for him, if he said, accept by my orders.²⁰⁰In a slightly different wording, this is Tosephta 1:9.” Rebbi Abba barMamal said, this baraita refers to a sick person. If he is sick, does he not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed this by what Rebbi Abba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They treated verbal instructions by a sick person as if they were written and delivered²⁰¹In the Babli (13a, 15a, Baba Batra 121a, 175a) this is a statement of Rav Naḥman, universally accepted. Cf. Ketubot 11:1, Note 22.. But only if he died from that sickness, not if he recovered, he did not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The following verse is said about two groups of witnesses. If an oppressive witness arises against a man, a plotting witness who answers to a man. Answering him, not his testimony⁶⁶While testimony may not stand up under cross-examination, the worst that can happen to a witness in that case is that the court does not believe him. A criminal conviction can only follow if the new group of witnesses answer him, the plotting witness, by showing that he could not have been present at the place of the alleged crime or transaction. This paragraph belongs to Mishnah 6.. Do plotting witnesses have to be warned? Rebbi Isaac bar Tevlai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Plotting witnesses do not have to accept warning⁶⁷In the Babli, Ketubot 32a, this is an anonymous statement accepted without discussion.. Rebbi Abbahu said, we do not take notice of this. Rebbi Jacob bar Dassai said, and there are very cunning people who even if they see their comrades being led out to be killed do not say anything⁶⁸It is not clear whether this statement supports R. Eleazar or R. Abbahu. In the first case, he argues that a special warning about penalties of plotting perjury is unnecessary since the bad guys automatically will stay away as far as possible from the court. In the second case he wants to point out that good people will not be kept away from being witnesses by being admonished by the court about penalties of plotting perjury, and it is a good thing that bad people will be frightened away..