Talmud - Ketubot 23a כתובות כ״ג א׳

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the baraita with regard to betrothal, where, if she married another, she need not leave her husband; and what is different in the second clause with regard to divorce, where, if she remarried, she must leave her husband?

Abaye said: Interpret the baraita in a case in which each testimony was given by one witness. If one witness says: She was betrothed, and one witness says: She was not betrothed, they are both testifying that she was unmarried. And that witness who says that she was betrothed is one witness, and the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses.

In the latter clause, if one witness says: She was divorced, and one witness says: She was not divorced, they are both testifying that she was a married woman. And that witness who says that she was divorced is one witness, and the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses. Therefore, even if she remarried she must leave her husband.

Rav Ashi said: Actually it is a case where there are two witnesses testifying that she is betrothed and divorced, and two testifying that she is not betrothed and divorced. And in order to explain the difference between the first and latter clauses, reverse the two rulings. In the first clause, if two witnesses say: We saw her that she was betrothed, and two witnesses say: We did not see her that she was betrothed, this woman may not marry, and if she marries she must leave her husband.

The Gemara asks: In that case, it is obvious that she must leave her husband, as testimony that we did not see her is not effective proof. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the woman and the witnesses reside in one courtyard. Lest you say: If it is so that she was betrothed, the matter generates publicity, and the fact that the neighbors did not see that she was betrothed indicates that she was not, therefore the baraita teaches us that people are prone to betroth a woman in private, with even their neighbors unaware of the betrothal.

In the latter clause of the baraita, if two witnesses say: We saw her that she was divorced, and two witnesses say: We did not see her that she was divorced, this woman may not remarry, and if she remarries, she need not leave her husband. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita teaching us? In this case, too, the fact that the witnesses did not see the divorce proves nothing. The Gemara answers: It teaches that although the witnesses and the woman live in one courtyard and presumably the witnesses would know if she was divorced, their testimony proves nothing. The Gemara asks: This is identical to that novel element taught in the first clause, that neighbors are not necessarily aware of what transpires elsewhere in the courtyard.

The Gemara explains that there is a novel element in this halakha. Lest you say that it is with regard to betrothal that people are prone to betroth a woman in private; however, with regard to divorce, if it is so that she was divorced, it would generate publicity, as divorce is typically the culmination of a period of incompatibility that is often public. Therefore, the latter clause teaches us that people are prone to both betroth and divorce in private. Consequently, the fact that the witnesses did not see that she was betrothed and divorced proves nothing.

§ We learned in the mishna: And if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband. Two cases were cited in the mishna, one with regard to a divorcée and one with regard to a woman taken captive, and to which of these cases this halakha is referring is a matter of dispute. Rabbi Oshaya taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna, where the woman claims that she was divorced. Rabba bar Avin taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, where the woman claims that she was taken captive and remained pure.

The Gemara notes: The one who taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna, all the more so would he teach it in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, as, in general, with regard to the status of a captive woman, the Sages were lenient, because the prohibition is the result of suspicion and uncertainty as far as what transpired during her period of captivity. And with regard to the one who taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, however, in reference to the first clause of the mishna, no, he would not necessarily teach this halakha.

The Gemara explains: Let us say it is with regard to the presumption of Rav Hamnuna that these amora’im disagree. The one who taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna and maintains that if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband, he holds in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna, who said that a woman is not insolent in the presence of her husband, and therefore her claim that she was divorced is accepted. And the one who taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna and rules that the woman taken captive need not leave her husband the priest, while the woman who claims that she was divorced must leave her husband, he does not hold in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna.

The Gemara rejects that explanation: No, actually everyone holds in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna, and here it is with regard to this that they disagree, as one Sage, who holds that the woman who claims that she was divorced must leave her husband, maintains that when the presumption of Rav Hamnuna was stated, it was stated specifically in a case where she was in his presence; however, when she is not in his presence, she is insolent. And one Sage, who holds that the woman who claims that she was divorced need not leave her husband, maintains that when not in his presence she is also not insolent. Therefore, her claim that she was divorced is accepted.

§ We learned in the mishna: And if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband. The father of Shmuel said: Married does not mean actually married; rather, once the court permitted her to marry, although she has not yet married, she need not leave her husband. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the tanna teach: She need not leave, meaning that she need not leave her husband? The Gemara explains: That phrase in this context means that even if witnesses come, she does not emerge from her initial permitted status.

The Sages taught that if she said: I was taken captive but I am pure, and I have witnesses who were with me throughout captivity who can testify that I am pure, the court does not say: We will wait until those witnesses come. Rather, the court permits her to marry a priest immediately. If the court permitted her to marry a priest, and witnesses came thereafter and said: We do not know whether or not she remained pure, this woman need not leave her husband, as she was already permitted to marry a priest on the basis of her original statement. And if witnesses that she was violated came and testified, even if she has several children, she must leave the priest to whom she is married.

The Gemara relates: There were these captive women who came to Neharde’a with their captors so that the local residents would redeem them. Shmuel’s father posted guards with them to ensure that they would not enter into seclusion with gentiles. Shmuel said to him: Until now who guarded them? If there is concern about their status, it should be with regard to the possibility that they engaged in intercourse while in captivity before they were brought to Neharde’a. He said to Shmuel: If they were your daughters, would you treat them with contempt to that extent? They are no longer captives and deserve to be treated like any Jewish woman of unflawed lineage.

The statement by the father of Shmuel was “Like an error that emerges from before the ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and it was realized. The daughters of Master Shmuel were taken captive, and their captors took them up to Eretz Yisrael and sought to sell them or ransom them. Shmuel’s daughters left their captors standing outside, so that they would not come before the court, and the women entered the study hall of Rabbi Ḥanina. This daughter said: I was taken captive, and I am pure, and that daughter said: I was taken captive, and I am pure, and the court permitted them to marry into the priesthood.

Ultimately, their captors came and entered, and it was clear that they were the captors of Shmuel’s daughters. However, since the daughters made their claim first and the court permitted them to marry into the priesthood, this remained permitted to them. This is based on the halakha that if witnesses subsequently arrive, her initial permitted status need not be revoked. Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is clear from their actions that they are the daughters of great halakhic authorities, as they knew how to conduct themselves in order to retain their presumptive status of purity. The Gemara relates: Ultimately, the matter became clear, that they were the daughters of Master Shmuel.

Rabbi Ḥanina said to Rav Shemen bar Abba, who was a priest: Go out and tend to your relatives, the daughters of Shmuel who were taken captive, and marry one of them. Rav Shemen said to Rabbi Ḥanina: But aren’t there witnesses in a country overseas who knew before the daughters appeared in court that they were taken captive? Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Now, in any event, those witnesses are not before us. He then cited an adage: There are witnesses in the north [astan] side, i.e., in a distant place, and will the woman be forbidden? The Gemara infers from Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement: The reason that their testimony may be ignored is because the witnesses did not come to court. However, were the witnesses to come to court, Shmuel’s daughters would be forbidden to priests.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Shmuel’s father say: Once the court permitted a woman to marry, even if she has not yet married, she remains permitted? Rav Ashi said: The discussion between Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav Shemen was stated with regard to witnesses who witnessed their violation. In that case, were the witnesses to come to court and testify, even if she has several children, she must leave the priest to whom she is married.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Ketuvot 23a examines conflicting witness testimony over betrothal and divorce, weighing single versus double witnesses in establishing marital status.