Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DISPUTE WHETHER A WOMAN IS MARRIED

(a) Question: Why is the law different in the 2 cases?
(b) Answer #1 (Abaye): Really, there is only 1 witness saying she is engaged or divorced and 1 contradicting him.

1. In the first case, both testify that she was single; one says that she was engaged. 1 is not believed against 2.
2. In the 2nd case, both testify that she was married; one says that she was divorced. 1 is not believed against 2.

(c) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Really, there are 2 witnesses on each side, but we must switch the laws of the 2 cases.
(d) (Corrected version of Beraisa, first half): 2 witnesses say, we saw a woman became engaged, 2 say, we did not see it; she may not get married; if she got married, she may not remain married;

1. Objection: This is obvious - not seeing something is no proof that it didn't happen!
2. Answer: The case is, they live in the same courtyard.

i. One might have thought, engagement is publicized, they certainly would have known (and we consider the testimonies to be contradictory).
ii. Rather, we learn that some people have quiet engagements.

(e) (Corrected Beraisa, 2nd half): 2 say, we saw that she was divorced, 2 say, we did not see this; she may not get married; if she got married, she may remain married.

1. Question: What do we learn from this - even if they live in the same courtyard - we learned this from the first case!
2. Answer: One might have thought, engagement is done quietly, but divorce is publicized, they certainly would have known.

i. Rather, we learn that divorces are also done quietly.

(a) (Mishnah 22A): If witnesses come after she was married, she may remain married.
(b) Rav Oshiya learned that this applies to the first half of the Mishnah (a woman who said she was married and divorced); Rabah Bar Avin learned that it applies to the 2nd half (a woman who says she was captured but not defiled).

1. The one who says it applies to the first half, all the more so it applies to the 2nd half - we are lenient by a captured woman.
2. The one who says it applies to the 2nd half says it would not apply to the first half.

(c) Suggestion: They argue on Rav Hamnuna's law (22B, a woman who tells her husband, you divorced me, is believed).

1. The one who says she may remain married even when she says she was married and divorced, holds as Rav Hamnuna; the one who argues, argues on Rav Hamnuna's law.

(d) Rejection: All can hold of Rav Hamnuna's law; the first opinion says that the law applies even when she is not in front of her husband; the other holds, it only applies in front of her husband.
(e) (Mishnah 22A): If witnesses come after she was married ... .
(f) (Shmuel's father): The intention is not that she literally was married; rather, after Beis Din permitted her to get married, even if she didn't get married yet.
(g) Question: But the Mishnah says, she does not leave (her husband)!
(h) Answer: It means, she does not leave her permission to get married.
(i) (Beraisa): A woman says, I was captured but not defiled, and witnesses know this. We do not wait for them to come; we permit to marry immediately;
(j) If she was permitted to marry, and later the witnesses came, and they did not know if she was defiled, she does not leave;
(k) If they say that she was defiled, even if she has several children from her husband (who is a Kohen), she must leave him.
(l) Captive women arrived in Nehardai. Shmuel's father put guards by them so they should not be defiled.
(m) Shmuel: Who guarded them until now (guarding now will not permit them to a Kohen)!
(n) Shmuel's father: If they were your daughters, would you treat them so lightly?

1. This response inadvertently prompted such a case to happen.
2. Shmuel's daughters were captured and taken to Eretz Yisrael. They asked the captors to remain outside while they entered the Beis Medrash of R. Chanina. Each said, I was captured but I was not defiled.
3. R. Chanina ruled, they may marry a Kohen. The captors walked in.
4. R. Chanina: These must be the daughter of a brilliant scholar (to know how to permit themselves in this way)!

i. It became known that they were Shmuel's daughters.

5. R Chanina (to R. Shemen Bar Aba, a Kohen): Go marry one of your relatives (Shmuel's daughters).
6. R. Shemen: But there are witnesses overseas (that know they were captured)!
7. R. Chanina: They are not here now - will we prohibit a woman because we heard there are witnesses in the north?!

(o) Question: If the witnesses were here, they would be prohibited - this argues on Shmuel's father, who said that if witnesses come after Beis Din permitted them to marry, the permission stands!
(p) Answer (Rav Ashi): R. Shemen heard that there were witnesses that they had been *defiled*.

3) CAPTIVE WOMEN THAT TESTIFY ON EACH OTHER

(a) (Mishnah): 2 women were captured. Each says, I was captured but I was not defiled; they are not believed;
(b) If each testifies that the other was not defiled, they are believed.
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa): I was defiled, my friend (who was also captured) was not defiled - she is believed;
(d) I was not defiled, my friend was defiled - she is not believed;
(e) Both of us were defiled - she is believed on herself, but not on her friend;
(f) Both of us were not defiled - she is believed on her friend, but not on herself.
(g) Start of question: The 2nd case - I was not defiled, my friend was - she is not believed - what is the case?

1. Suggestion: If there are no witnesses that they were captured - why is she not believed about herself?

i. The Mishnah (22A) says that a woman is believed to say she was captured but not defiled!

2. Conclusion: Clearly, we must say there are witnesses.
3. The middle (3rd) case - both of us were defiled - she is believed on herself, but not on her friend.

i. Question: If there are witnesses, why is she not believed about her friend?
ii. Answer: It must be, in this case, there are no witnesses.

4. The last case - both of us were not defiled - she is believed on her friend, but not on herself.

i. Question: If there are no witnesses, why is she not believed about herself?
ii. Answer: It must be, in this case, there are no witnesses.

(h) Culmination of question: Do the beginning and end of the Beraisa deal with a case in which there are no witnesses, and the middle case is a case where there are witnesses?!
(i) Answer #1 (Abaye): Yes!
(j) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): No. In the entire Beraisa there are witnesses that they are captured; there is also one witness who contradicts her claims of who was defiled.
(k) (first case of the Beraisa): I was defiled, my friend was not; 1 witness says, you were not defiled, your friend was. She is believed.

1. She declared herself to be prohibited (and is therefore believed about herself); her testimony causes her friend to be permitted.

(l) (2nd case): I was not defiled, my friend was defiled; 1 witness says, you were defiled, your friend was not. She is not believed.

1. Since witnesses know that she was captured, she cannot permit herself; her friend is permitted through the witness.

(m) (3rd case): Both of us were defiled - 1 witness says, both of you were not. She is believed on herself, but not on her friend.

1. She declared herself to be prohibited; the witness permits her friend.
2. Question: Why was this taught - the beginning of the Beraisa teaches this!
3. Answer: One might have thought, really both are pure; claiming that both are impure was her best attempt to prohibit her friend, even though she knew that it would harm her, too.

(n) Both of us were not defiled - 1 witness says, both of you were. She is believed on her friend, but not on herself.

1. Since witnesses know that she was captured, she cannot permit herself; she permits her friend.
2. Question: Why was this case taught? (The first reason is known, and the 2nd reason) we already know from the first case!
3. Answer: One might have thought, she is only believed to permit her friend when she admits that she was defiled; we learn, even when she also tries to permit herself, she is not believed.

(a) (Mishnah): Similarly, if each of 2 men says 'I am a Kohen', they are not believed; if they also testify on each other, they are believed;
(b) R. Yehudah: We do not raise one to the status of a Kohen based on 1 witness.
(c) R. Elazar: This applies when there are protests; when there are no protests, 1 witness suffices.
(d) R. Shimon Ben Gamliel: 1 witness suffices.
(e) (Gemara - Question): Why do we need to learn all the Mishnayos of our chapter?
(f) Answer: All are needed.

1. If we only learned the Mishnah (15B) where R. Yehoshua admits (that a man is believed to say, this field was your father's, I bought it from him - I would think, only there we say the mouth which prohibits, permits, because he stands to lose money.

i. This would not apply to the case of witnesses (18B, who say that these are their signatures, but they were invalid witnesses at the time) since *they* do not stand to lose money.

2. If we taught only the case of the witnesses, I would say that they are believed because *they* will not gain from lying, but one would not be believed when he helps himself.