## Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot Chapter 2

###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:1:1)

**משנה:** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְאַרְמְלָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאתִי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא אַלְמָנָה נְשָׂאתִיךְ אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁיָּצָאת בְּהִינוּמָא וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר אַף חִילּוּק קְּלָיוֹת רְאָיָיה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a woman became widowed or divorced and she claims¹ is lost or, if she married at a place of illiterates, it never was written. to have been married as a virgin, but he says not so, I married you as a widow, if there are witnesses that she went out in *hinuma*² or with uncovered hair³, her *ketubah* is 200 [*zuz*]. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels also is proof⁴.

footnotes:
¹ Either her ketubah
² Cf. Chapter 1, Note 65; Chapter 2, Note 22.
³ A virgin will start covering her hair only at the wedding.
⁴ At his place, this was a sign of the wedding of a virgin.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:1:2)

**הלכה:** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְאַלְמְנָה כול׳. נִיחָא שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה. נִתְאַלְמְנָה. מִי עוֹרֵר. הַיּוֹרְשִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a woman became widowed,” etc. We understand if she was divorced. If she became widowed, who opposes? The heirs⁵. 27:6–11. The widow can claim only her *ketubah* (in the absence of a will)..

footnotes:
⁵ Only the husband’s descendants, and in their absence the husband’s family, do inherit; Num


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:1:3)

וְהַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב וְרוֹב הַנִּישְּׂאוֹת בְּתוּלוֹת נִישְּׂאוֹת. אֱמוֹר מֵעַתָּה. בְּתוּלָה נִישֵּׂאת. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִילְּכוּ לְמִידַּת הַדִּין וּלְמָמוֹן אַחַר הָרוֹב. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הַפָּרָה וְנִמְצָא עוֹבְּרָהּ בְּצִידָּהּ. וְכִי רוֹב הַפָּרוֹת מַפִּילוֹת. אֱמוֹר. מַחְמַת נְגִיחָה הִפִּילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִילְּכוּ לְמִידַּת הַדִּין וּלְמָמוֹן אַחַר הָרוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. וּבְדָבָר אֶחָד הִלְּכוּ בְּמִידַּת הַדִּין וּלְמָמוֹן אַחַר הָרוֹב. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי אָחָא. גָּמָל שֶׁהָיָה אוֹחֵר בֵּין הַגְּמָלִים וְנִמְצָא שָׁם אֶחָד מֵהֶן מֵת. חַיָיב. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אוֹחֵר נְשָׁכוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Should one follow the majority, and most women are married as virgins. Say then that she was married as a virgin⁶! This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument⁷ 93a.. There⁸ 5:1, we have stated: “If an ox gored a cow and one finds her fetus beside her.⁹. 21:35) half of the damage done to the cow but only a quarter of the value of the fetus. It is clear that the proven fact of the goring creates a presumption that the miscarriage was induced by it. This presumption is not sufficient to force the owner of the ox to pay; the value of the fetus, had it grown to be a calf, is “money in dispute”. Money in dispute for which there are no proofs either way is split evenly between the parties (Babli *Baba Meṣi‘a* 2b). A similar text is in *Baba Qama* 5:1. The Babli, *Baba Qama* 46a, denies the designation as “money in dispute” and puts the burden of proof on the claimant, the injured party.” Do most cows have miscarriages? Say therefore that the goring induced the miscarriage. Rebbi Abbahu said, this implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Abun¹⁰, R. Yose. said, in one case they applied a majority argument, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that the one in heat bit it¹¹ 93a: It is known that the one in heat killed it. The Babli holds that this is not a case of majority but one of *prima facie* evidence: Proof that the camel was in heat implies proof that it did attack other males. Therefore, the owner of the camel in heat would have to prove that the attack by the male in heat on the male not in heat was not lethal..

footnotes:
⁶ Why does the Mishnah put the burden of proof on the woman when there should be a presumption in her favor to require the husband or the heirs to prove their case.
⁷ Since the woman claims money, the burden of proof is on her; cf. Chapter 1, Note 215. The Babli agrees, Baba Batra
⁸ Mishnah Baba Qama
⁹ If it cannot be ascertained whether the miscarriage was induced by the goring or preceded the goring, the ox’s owner pays (by biblical decree, Ex
¹⁰ In Baba Qama
¹¹ In the Babli, Baba Batra


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:1:4)

טְעָנוֹ מְנָה וְכָפַר בּוֹ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁחַיָיב לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים. רִבִּי חִיָיה רֹבָא אוֹמֵר. נִשְׁבַּע עַל הַשְּׁאָר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבַּע עַל הַשְּׁאָר. מִשְּׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית לָמַד רִבִּי חִיָיה רֹבָא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית. זֶה אוֹמֵר. אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ. זֶה שֶׁתּוֹפֵס בְּחֶצְיָיהּ כְּמֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁחֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וַהֲלָהּ אוֹמֵר. כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי. וְזֶה שֶׁהוּא תוֹפֵס בְּחֶצְיָיהּ כְּמֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁחֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וַהֲלָהּ אוֹמֵר. כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי. נִשְׁבַּע שֶׁאֵין כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְלֹא שְׁמִיעַ דָּמַר רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תְּקָנַת שְׁבוּעָה הִיא. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אָדָם רוֹאֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בַשּׁוּק וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ. טַלִּית שֶׁעָלֶיךָ שֶׁלִּי הוּא. בּוֹא וְחַלֵּק עִמִּי טַלִּיתָךְ. רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רַב. מוֹדֶה חֲבִיבִי בִשְׁטָר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. טְעָנוֹ מְנָה וְכָפַר בּוֹ וְהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁין. אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁין. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. כֶּסֶף סִילְעִין דִּי אִינּוּן וְנִמְחֲקוּ אֵין פּוֹחֵת מִשְּׁנַיִם. מִיכָּן וָאֵילָךְ הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר. חָמֵשׁ. וְהַלֹּוֶה אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדֶה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה יִשְׁבַּע. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵין הוֹדָאָה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין הוֹדָאָה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה. וְהָא אִם הוֹדָיָיה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה חַיָיב. וָכָא לֹא כְמִי שֶׁהוֹדָיָיה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה הִיא. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב לָהּ מְנָה. וְהִיא כְתוֹבַעַת בְּיָדוֹ מְנָה אֶחָד וְהוּא אֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה לָהּ. הַמּוֹצִיא מַחְבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָיה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If somebody claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced witnesses that the [defendant] owes him 50 [*zuz*]. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya said, [the defendant] has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he does not have to swear¹². 22:8, where the expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה “if he agrees that this is so.” In *Baba Meṣi‘a*(1:1, 7d 1. 24; Babli 3a) the reason of the older R. Ḥiyya is “that what he admits himself should not have greater force than the testimony of witnesses.”. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya learned it from two who are grabbing a toga, as we have stated there¹³ 1:1. If two people come to court, each grabs half of a toga and asserts ownership of the entire piece because he found it, each of them has to swear that he owns no less than half of it (so the court should not force obvious perjury) and takes half of the piece since “it is money in dispute”.: “Two are grabbing a toga, one says, I found it, and the other says, I found it.” The one who grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that that half belongs to him. The other says, “it belongs to me entirely”, and the fact that he grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The one who says, “it belongs to me entirely”, swears that not the entire [toga] is the other’s. But he did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴ that this oath is a rabbinic institution, that a man should not see another in the market and tell him, the toga which you are wearing is mine, come and split your toga with me!¹⁵ 1:1, 7d 1. 33; Babli 3a; both in the name of R. Joḥanan. Rabbinic institutions do not imply anything for biblical law. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rav: My uncle¹⁶ agrees in the case of a document. How is that? He claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced a document that the [defendant] owed him 50 [*zuz*]. He has only fifty. And Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we can understand it from the following¹⁷ 10:2. If the amount of indebtedness is illegible, the use of the plural proves that the amount was at least two.: “‘The amount of … tetradrachmas’ and it was illegible, he owes no less than two. “If it is more, if the lender says five but the borrower says three, Ben Azzay says since he partially agreed to the claim, he has to swear, but the Sages say, what he agreed to is not of the kind which was claimed¹⁸ 10:2 (by the editorial team of *Neziqin*, different from the editors of the rest of the Yerushalmi) and the Babli, *Baba Meṣi‘a*4b, the “Sages” are identified as R. Aqiba. In the Babli, Ben Azzai is replaced by R. Simeon ben Eleazar, 2 generations younger than Ben Azzai and R. Aqiba. In both sources, the reason of R. Aqiba is given that the borrower, in agreeing to pay more than he could be forced to by the existing document, is like a person returning what the other had lost, not directly answering the lender’s claim.. Because it was not of the kind which was claimed! Therefore, if it were of the kind which was claimed, he would be obligated. And is it not here that the agreed sum was part of the claim¹⁹ even if there are no witnesses, since he agrees that he owes 100? {The heirs, not being able to swear, would have to pay.}? Everybody agrees that he owes her a mina²⁰. But she claimsanother mina from him, to which he does not agree. The burden of proof is on the claimant²¹ 46b..

footnotes:
¹² Following the principle that the defendant in a suit for money can by biblical law only be forced to swear if he admits that part of the claim is justified; based on Ex
¹³ Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a
¹⁴ The student of the older R. Ḥiyya’s son Ḥizqiah.
¹⁵ Baba Meṣ‘ia
¹⁶ The older R. Ḥiyya, half-brother to both of Rav’s parents.
¹⁷ Mishnah Baba Batra
¹⁸ In Baba Batra
¹⁹ In our Mishnah, why should the divorcing husband not be forced to swear that he does not have to pay 200 zuz
²⁰ Since this amount is not in dispute, the husband cannot be considered as agreeing to part of the claim; no oath is due.
²¹ This is the standard formulation, Babli Baba Qama


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:1:5)

בְּהִינוּמָה. תַּמָּן. נַמְנוּמָה. רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא אָמְרִין. פֹּירֵיוֹמָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“In *hinuma*”. There, a veil. The rabbis here say, a *phorema*²² 9:13, Note 189), the word *hinuma* changed its meaning. In Babylonia it became “a veil” (Babli 17b), literally “a slumber cloth” from נום “to sleep”, in Galilee φόρημα “that which is carried”, i. e., “a litter”..

footnotes:
²² As explained in Chapter 1, Note 65, originally a virgin was led to her husband’s house with ὑμέναιοι “wedding songs”. After the war of Bar Kokhba, when these songs were forbidden (Soṭah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:1:6)

יוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּגִין אֵילּוּ שֶׁיָּצְאוּ בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָרוּעַ וְעֵידֶיהָ מֵעִידִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא בְּתוּלָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין הִיא. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת. בְּתוּלָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין אֵינָהּ יוֹצֵאת וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא מוּכַּת עֵץ הִיא. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. מוּכַּת עֵץ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא חָשׁוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“She went out with uncovered head.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, like those who went out on the Day of Atonement²³ 4:8).. If she went out with uncovered head, the witnesses testify²⁴ that she had not been cohabitated with. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, a virgin after final marriage does not go out with uncovered head²⁵. Should one not worry that she had been injured by wood? That must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says²⁶ the *ketubah* of one injured by wood is 200 [*zuz*]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not worry about infrequent occurrences²⁷.

footnotes:
²³ The virgins of Jerusalem who went out to dance in the vineyards on the 15th of Ab and the Day of Atonement to find husbands (Mishnah Ta‘anit
²⁴ To the fact that she had her head uncovered before the wedding.
²⁵ As in German one says “under die Haube kommen” (“to get under the bonnet”) for “to be married”, the widow who is a virgin is a lady, always wearing a hat, no longer a girl.
²⁶ Mishnah 1:3.
²⁷ Mishnah 2:1 does not contradict the position of the Sages in Mishnah 1:3. The Babli agrees in a different context, 16a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:1:7)

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר אַף חִילּוּק קְּלָיוֹת רְאָיָיה. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא בְּתוּלָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין הִיא. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת. בְּתוּלָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין אֵין לָהּ חִילּוּק קְלָיוֹת. תַּנֵּי. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. אַף מִי שֶׁהוֹלִיכוּ לְפָנֶיהָ חָבִית שֶׁלַּבְּסוֹרוֹת. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין הִיא. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת. בְּתוּלָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין אֵין לָהּ חָבִית שֶׁלַּבְּשׂוֹרוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels also is proof.” Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, for a virgin after final marriage one does not distribute roasted kernels. It was stated²⁸ it is stated that it was a sign of a virgin’s wedding if one brought before her a cup of good news or danced at her wedding.: Abba Shaul says, also if one brought before her an amphora of good news²⁹. 18:12), the bride also represents a beginning. It probably is difficult to have a full amphora of heave wine; so one might think of the “good news amphora” as one of new wine which is opened for the first time at the wedding, just as the bride will be “opened” after the wedding.. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, in front of a virgin after final marriage one does not bring an amphora of good news.

footnotes:
²⁸ In the Babli, 16b, in an anonymous baraita
²⁹ In the Babli, the “cup of good news” is explained as a cup of heave wine, since heave is called “beginning” (Num


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:2:1)

**משנה:** מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁלְּאָבִיךָ הָיְיתָה וּלְקַחְתִּיהָ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלְּאָבִיו וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לְקַחְתִּיהָ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Rebbi Joshua agrees³⁰ that if somebody says to another: “This field did belong to your father but I bought it from him,” that he is trustworthy since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that it did belong to [the second man’s] father and [the first] said, I bought it, he is not trustworthy³¹.

footnotes:
³⁰ Even though he held in Chapter 1 that uncorroborated statements are not admissible in court, he agrees that if the question would not arise had a person not pointed it out, the same person is empowered to remove the difficulty he himself created. This is the principle behind the following Mishnaiot of this Chapter.
³¹ If there are witnesses, even if they come to court after the first person explained the problem, the first person has to establish his claim following all rules of testimony.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:2:2)

**הלכה:** וּמוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כול׳. מוֹדֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְאֵין פְּלִיג בְּקַדְמִיתָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Rebbi Joshua agrees,” etc. Rebbi Joshua agrees, but he does not disagree³²? In the former.

footnotes:
³² No disagreement is mentioned in Mishnah 1. Why should it be noted that R. Joshua agrees in another case? The reference is to all Mishnaiot of Chapter 1 where he disagrees. The same explanation is in the Babli, 16a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:2:3)

אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָכְלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אֲבָל אִם אָכְלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה נֶאֱמָן. בִּשֶׁלֹּא מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. אֲבָל אִם מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ אֲפִילוּ (לֹא) אָכְלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה [אֵינוֹ] נֶאֱמָן. כְּהָדָא. רְאוּבֵן אוֹכֵל שָׂדֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְהֵבִיא שִׁמְעוֹן עֵדִים שֶׁמֵּת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. מַפְקִין לָהּ מֵרְאוּבֵן וּמַחֲזִירִין לֵיהּ לְשִׁמְעוֹן. חָזַר רְאוּבֵן וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. אֲנָא אַפִּיקְתֵּיהּ מֵרְאוּבֵן אֲנָא מַחֲזִיר לֵיהּ לִרְאוּבֵן. רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא סָבְרִין כֵּן. רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן אָמְרִין. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁיָּצָאת עֵדוּת בְּרוּרָה יָצָאת. כֵּן רַבָּנִן דְּהָכָא אָמְרִין. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת בְּעֵדוּת בְּרוּרָה נִישֵּׂאת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מוֹדוּ רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן שֶׁאִילּוּ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא מֵת מִתּוֹכָהּ. שֶׁהַשָּׂדֶה בְחֶזְקַת רְאוּבָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“He is not trustworthy” if he did not eat the years of legal claim³⁵ from it. But if he ate the years of legal claim from it, he is trustworthy if [the second person’s] father did not die in possession. But if [the second person’s] father died in possession, he is [not] trustworthy³⁶. ³⁷ 3:4 in a different editing. As the following: Reuben ate from a field³⁸ claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands the title to Simeon. Reuben came back and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob³⁹ said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to Reuben⁴⁰ 31b.. That is what the rabbis here think. The rabbis there say, from the time it was removed, by clear testimony it was removed⁴¹. 19:15) “by the testimony of two or three witnesses the case shall be confirmed”, Reuben’s witnesses cannot be accepted unless they prove that Simeon’s witnesses were lying.
It is difficult to see who “the rabbis from there” are since Rab Naḥman was the authority in Babylonia and the Babli (*loc*. *cit*.) decides explicitly that later claims are admissible in money matters.. So the rabbis here say, from the time she married, by clear testimony she married⁴². Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis there agree that if during the first proceedings two [witnesses] say that his father died in possession and two say, he did not die in possession, Reuben’s claim is upheld⁴³.

footnotes:
³⁵ If a person can prove three years of undisturbed possession of real estate and claims legal acquisition (by sale, inheritance, or gift), the court has to confirm him in possession since documents have to be kept only for three years.
³⁶ The three years of undisturbed possession count only if the person from whom he acquired it was alive during these years since the heirs might not be knowledgeable enough of the details of the deceased’s property to exercise their duty to object to the squatter’s occupation.
³⁷ Except for the last sentence, the following is Halakhah Baba Batra
³⁸ Undisturbed for 3 years.
³⁹ He should be called Rav Naḥman ben Jacob, in the Babli simply called Rav Naḥman, chief judge and highest authority in money matters in Babylonia.
⁴⁰ If there are two against two witnesses and all four testimonies hold up under cross examination, there is no testimony and Simeon has no claim. The identical statement appears in the Babli, Baba Batra
⁴¹ Since (Deut
⁴² This really belongs to the next paragraph, about a woman whose husband has disappeared and she remarried on the testimony of two witnesses that her husband had died; when two witnesses come and say he is alive, they are not listened to.
⁴³ If during court proceedings there are contradictory statements, none of which can be shown to be false, there is no proof and the claim of legal possession cannot be denied.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:2:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים מֵת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא מֵת. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. לֹא שַׁנְיָיה. הִיא מִיתָה הִיא גֵירוּשִׁין לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. עַל דַעֲתֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן נִיחָא. הִיא מִיתָה הִיא גֵירוּשִׁין. עַל דַעֲתֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא מַה בֵין מִיתָה מַה בֵין גֵּירוּשִׁין. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַדַּעַת מַכְרָעַת בְּעֵידֵי מִיתָה. שֶׁאִילּוּ יָבוֹא הוּא מַכְחִשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן כְּדַעְתִּין. כְּמַה דְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן אָמְרִין. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁיָּצָאת בְּעֵדוּת בְּרוּרָה יָצָאת. כֵּן רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא אָמְרִין. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת בְּעֵדוּת בְּרוּרָה נִישֵּׂאת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלָא מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתִין דְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. לֹא מוֹדוּ רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן שֶׁאִילּוּ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. שֶׁהַשָּׂדֶה בְּחֶזְקַת רְאוּבֵן. אִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְנִישֵּׂאת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. לֹא תֵצֵא. יְאוּת. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. פָּתַר לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַים אוֹמְרִים. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. מַה בֵּינָהּ לְקַדְמִיתָא. תַּמָּן הוּחְזְקָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בִּפְנֵי הַכֹּל. בְּרַם הָכָא לֹא הוּחְזְקָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ. זֶה הוּא שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא טְמֵיאָה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. טְהוֹרָה. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִין. טְמֵיאָה. כְּמִי שֶׁאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִשְּׁבֵּית. וַאֲנָן חַיִים מִפִּיהָ. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה מְדַמֵּי לָהּ לַחֲלָבִים. אִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. פְּלוֹנִי אָכַל חֵלֶב. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא אָכַל חֵלֶב. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי מִסָּפֵק. וָכָא יִתֵּן גֵּט מִסָּפֵק. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא תְדַמִּינָהּ לַחֲלָבִים. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ אָמַר. לִיבִּי נוֹקְדֵּינִי. מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְסוֹפָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹנָה. אִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. תִּינָּשֵׂא. וְלֹא רִבִּי יוֹנָה אוֹמֵר. אִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. לֹא אָמַר לָהּ אֶלָּא. לֹא תְדַמִּינָהּ לַחֲלָבִים. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ אָמַר. לִיבִּי נוֹקְדֵינִי. מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁴⁶ 10:4, explained in Notes 99–114. The variant readings are noted by **י**. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: “Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses say, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses say, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave.⁴⁷ 14:1” There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he returns he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certified testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, [and two say his father died while not in possession,] that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was divorced and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave. A *baraita* disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was preliminarily married, and two are saying, she was not preliminarily married, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others came and identified the man who was betrothed to her. A *baraita* disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.⁴⁸ 2:2. The kidnap victim who was raped cannot marry a Cohen.” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says. If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rebbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two said, X ate fat, and two said, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rebbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice. A *baraita* disagrees with Rebbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not get married. The end disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rebbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice.

footnotes:
⁴⁶ From Yebamot
⁴⁷ Tosephta Yebamot
⁴⁸ A similar text in Tosephta Ketubot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:3:1)

**משנה:** הָעֵדִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ כְּתָב יָדֵינוּ הוּא זֶה אֲבָל אֲנוּסִים הָיִינוּ קְטַנִּים הָיִינוּ פְּסוּלֵי עֵדוּת הָיִינוּ הֲרֵי אֶילּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא כְּתָב יָדָן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה כְּתָב יָדָן יוֹצֵא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If witnesses said, this is our signature, but we were under duress, or underage, or disqualified⁴⁹, these are trustworthy⁵⁰. But if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or their signatures are confirmed from another document⁵¹, they are not trustworthy.

footnotes:
⁴⁹ If at the time they witnessed the document they lived off illegal or immoral earnings (e. g., as gamblers having no other employment, who cannot make money if the game is honest).
⁵⁰ They have witnessed a document of indebtedness or transfer of property which ended up in court. The court must first establish that the document is genuine by certifying the signatures of the witnesses. If the witnesses were unknown to the court, their testimony qualifies the document as genuine. But since theirs is the mouth which permits the introduction of the document, their mouth can prohibit its introduction by claiming that their signatures were obtained illegally.
⁵¹ If the witnesses were unknown to the court but another document was presented carrying their signatures and certified by another court as genuine, then the court judging the present document is empowered to certify their signatures by comparing them to the certified ones. Their mouth is not the one which permits; therefore, their mouth cannot prohibit.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:3:2)

**הלכה:** הָעֵדִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ. כְּתָב יָדֵינוּ הוּא זֶה כול׳. תַּנֵּי. וְכֵן הָעֵדִים שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בֵּין לְטַמֵּא בֵין לְטָהֵר. בֵּין לְרָחֵק בֵּין לְקָרֵב. בֵּין לֶאֱסוֹר בֵּין לְהַתִּיר. בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין אָמְרוּ. מְבַדִּין הָיִינוּ. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ נֵאֱמָנִין. מִשֶּׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין אָמְרוּ. מְבַדִּין הָיִינוּ. אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. עָשׂוּ הָעֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין. הֵן אוֹמְרִים. כְּתָב יָדֵינוּ הוּא. וַאֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים. כְּתָב יָדָן הוּא. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא כְּתָב יָדָן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה כְּתָב יָדָן יוֹצֵא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If witnesses said, this is our signature,” etc. It was stated⁵² 2:1, *Sanhedrin* 6:5.: And similarly, the witnesses who testified whether to declare impure or pure, or to remove or include, or to forbid or permit, or to obligate or absolve⁵³ must be interpreted to deal with money matters, to impose payment or to absolve from payment., if they say we did invent this⁵⁴ is also the text of the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta and most African, Spanish, and French authorities; cf. *Tosefta ki-Fshutah*, part 6, p. 199–200. before their testimony was investigated by the court⁵⁵, part 6, p. 200–202., they can be believed; after their testimony was investigated by the court, they are not trustworthy.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been investigated by the court⁵⁶ 3:4, Note 72). The Babli agrees, 18b. Cf. also *Ševi‘it* 10:5, Note 96.. If they say, these are our signatures, and others say, these are their signatures, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Their [testimony] does not add and does not detract⁵⁷. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or if their signatures are confirmed from another document⁵¹, they are not trustworthy.”

footnotes:
⁵² In slightly different wording in Tosephta Ketubot
⁵³ These testimonies are all about personal status. To declare impure or pure is the same as to exclude (bastards from marrying Jewish partners or desecrated females from marrying Cohanim) or to include them in the pool of eligible marriage partners. Similarly, to forbid marriages (because the woman is still married) or to permit, to impose a purification sacrifice for sinful marriage or to absolve. The parallel Tosephta in Sanhedrin
⁵⁴ The text here is in doubt. The Erfurt ms. of the Tosephta reads מְבוּדִּין אָנוּin both places, “we were made to lie”; this is the reading of many German and Italian medieval authorities in the Yerushalmi. The text of the ms. and editio princeps
⁵⁵ This does not necessarily mean investigation by cross-examination but indicates that identification of their signatures was accepted by the court; cf. Tosefta ki-Fshutah
⁵⁶ Once the signatures have been accepted, the witnesses cannot change their stories since “no witness can testify twice in the same matter” (Babli 18b; Bikkurim
⁵⁷ Since their testimony is not needed, they do not have the power to modify the terms of the contract which they signed as witnesses.
⁵¹ If the witnesses were unknown to the court but another document was presented carrying their signatures and certified by another court as genuine, then the court judging the present document is empowered to certify their signatures by comparing them to the certified ones. Their mouth is not the one which permits; therefore, their mouth cannot prohibit.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:3:3)

הֵן אוֹמְרִים. כְּתָב יָדֵינוּ הוּא. וַאֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵינוֹ כְּתָב יָדָם. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. נַעֲשֶׂה כִשְׁטָר שֶׁנִּקְרָא עָלָיו עִרְעֵר. אָמַר אִסִּי. וּבִלְבַד בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁנִּקְרָא עָלָיו עִרְעֵר וְנִתְקַיֵים בְּבֵית דִּין. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. לֹא נִתְקַיֵים בְּבֵית דִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ הָעֵדִים לִהְיוֹת חֲתוּמִין בִּשְׁטָר כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
They say, these are our signatures, but others⁵⁸ say, not their signatures. Rebbi Mana said, that becomes a document which has been put under acloud⁵⁹. Issi said, only if it had been put under a cloud but was confirmed by the court⁶⁰. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it was not confirmed by a court⁶¹. Rebbi Ila said, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar is, that after the witnesses were confirmed as the signatories of the document, it is as if their testimony had been investigated by the court.

footnotes:
⁵⁸ Witnesses before the court.
⁵⁹ A document signed by unidentified witnesses is worthless.
⁶⁰ This refers to the statement of the Mishnah, that witnesses are not needed if “their signatures are confirmed from another document.” He holds that signatures can be confirmed from other documents without asking the witnesses if there was a problem with the other document and it was confirmed by a court after due investigation. Since the signatures on a document whose validity is acknowledged by all parties do not have to be investigated, those signatures should not be used to validate documents in dispute. This opinion is quoted in the Babli, 19b, as tannaїtic. Later, 20a, in the name of R. Assi (Issi), it is interpreted to mean that one may use a document in dispute to validate other documents only if the first document was confirmed by a court, implying that an undisputed document can be used even if no court ever had given its opinion on it. This cannot be the meaning in the Yerushalmi.
⁶¹ Any document accepted by a court, after investigation or without, is valid to compare signatures.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:3:4)

רַב חָנָא אָמַר. לְמֵידִין מִסֵּפֶר מוּגָּה. כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין דְּאָמְרִין. סַפְרוֹי דְאִסִּי וּכְאִילֵּין אִיגְרָאתָא צְרִיכִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵירִבִּי בּוּן. וּבִלְבַד שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁלְּשְׁלֹשָׁה בְנֵי אָדָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav Ḥana said, one learns from a corrected scroll, like those who say, Issi’s scribe⁶². From letters it is problematic⁶³. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only from three documents in the hands of three people⁶⁴.

footnotes:
⁶² A document in the characteristic handwriting of a known scribe can be accepted, since that scribe would not be a party to a dishonest document.
⁶³ Letters cannot directly be used to identify handwriting since it is known, from Geniza documents and Sephardic documents through the 18th Century, that people develop very intricate signatures that cannot be compared directly to their fluent writing in letters.
⁶⁴ The Babli, 20a, accepts two documents in the hands of two people to verify signatures. It is explained that two documents in the hand of the same person are no help since just as he forged one document so he may have forged the other.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:3:5)

רַב חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב. נֶאֱמָנִין הָעֵדִים לוֹמַר. שְׁטָר אֲמָנָה וּשְׁטָר פִּוסְיטִיס הוּא. דְּרַב אָמַר. אָסוּר לַחֲתוֹם בִּשְׁטָר אֲמָנָה וּבִשְׁטָר פִּוסְיטִיס. מַה וּפְלִיג. אָמְרֵי בְשֵׁם רַב. נֶאֱמָנִין הָעֵדִים לוֹמַר. שְׁטָר אֲמָנָה וּשְׁטָר פִּוסְיטִיס הוּא. מִילְתָא דְרַב פְלִיגָא עַל מִילְתָא דְרַב. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּי. לֹא דְּרַב אָמַר. אָסוּר לַחֲתוֹם אֶלָּא אָסוּר לְקַיֵים. כְּהָדָא. אִם אָוֶן בְּיָ‍דְךָ הַרְחִיקֵהוּ. זֶה שְׁטָר אֲמָנָה וּשְׁטָר פִּוסְיטִיס. וְאַל תַּשְׁכֵּן בְּאוֹהָלֶיךָ עַוְולָה. זֶה שְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The witnesses can be trusted if they say, that is a document given in good faith⁶⁵, or a document in trust⁶⁶ the spelling is פיסיטיס; Musaphia reads פסטיס). A document which does not correspond to reality and is not intended ever to correspond to reality, but to make the holder appear richer than he really is.. But Rav said, it is forbidden to sign a document given in good faith, or a document in trust. Does this contradict what they say in the name of Rav, the witnesses can be trusted if they say, that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust? One word of Rav contradicts a word of Rav! Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rav did not say it is forbidden to sign but it is forbidden to keep⁶⁷. As the following⁶⁸ 11:14. In the Babli, 19b, this is attributed to R. Joshua ben Levi., “if evil is in your hand, remove it,” that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust, “do not let injustice dwell in your house,” that is a document of indebtedness which was paid⁶⁹.

footnotes:
⁶⁵ A document of indebtedness while no debt exists, to be activated later if the debtor needs money, given in good faith that the lender will not use it unless there really will be a loan (naturally interest-free).In a more general sense, a good faith document is a document covering eventualities which the parties expect never to happen. Such a document is not enforceable. Some rabbinic authorities hold that pre-nuptial agreements about eventual modalities of divorce are good faith documents since nobody marries with the idea of a divorce in mind.
⁶⁶ Greek πίστις “trust, credit, credence” (in the editio princeps
⁶⁷ The Babli, in the name of Amoraim of the last generation, disagrees and holds that it is forbidden to sign inactive documents and that witnesses who claim the documents were not meant to be used declare themselves to be sinners and, therefore, unacceptable as witnesses. But if they say that the debtor stated before them that he agreed to the document only under duress, they are to be believed.
⁶⁸ Job
⁶⁹ It should be torn up rather than invalidated by a separate receipt.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:4:1)

**משנה:** זֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי וְזֶה כְתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירִי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי וְזֶה כְתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירִי הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין. זֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶן אַחֵר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינָן צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶן אַחֵר אֶלָּא נֵאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If one says, this is my signature and that is my colleague’s signature, and the other says, this is my signature and that is my colleague’s signature, they are trustworthy⁷⁰. If each of them says, that ismy signature, each of them needs another with him, the words of Rebbi, but the Sages say, everybody is trustworthy to confirm his own signature⁷¹.

footnotes:
⁷⁰ There is a document before the court which should be certified and for that the court has to check whether the signatures of the two witnesses on the document are genuine. If each of the two witnesses testifies to the genuineness of both signatures, there are two witnesses for each signature and the document is validated. (While nobody can testify in his own behalf, here the witness testifies in behalf of the owner of the document.)
⁷¹ As the Halakhah explains, Rebbi requires that each signature on the document be certified by two witnesses but the Sages hold that only the contents of the document have to be certified by two witnesses.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:4:2)

**הלכה:** זֶה אוֹמֵר זֶה כְתָב יָדִי כול׳. לְמָה נִצְרְכָה. לְרִבִּי. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי אוֹמֵר. צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵף אַחֵר עִמָּהֶן. מוֹדֶה הוּא הָכָא שֶׁהֵן נֶאֱמָנִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If one says, this is my signature,” etc. Why was this necessary? For Rebbi. Even though Rebbi says, each of them needs another with him, here he agrees that they are trustworthy⁷².

footnotes:
⁷² He accepts cross validations since there are two witnesses for every signature.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:4:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. תַּנֵּי בִּכְתוֹבּוֹת דְּבֵית רַב. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי (לָעְזָר) עַל הַשְׁטָר וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים בְּמֵעִיד עַל הַמִּלְוֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ze‘ira said: It was stated in Rav’s *Ketubot*: The words of Rebbi (Eleazar)⁷³, but does not fit the context. The correct text is in *Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur*(vol. 1, 14b, Note 74): אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי **כְּמֵעִיד** עַל הַשְׁטָר וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים **כְּ**מֵעִיד עַל הַמִּלְוֶה. This is the basis of the translation. However, since it leaves out the irrelevant information about Rav’s *Ketubot*, it probably is not an exact copy of the Yerushalmi text. that he testifies about the document, the words of the Sages that he testifies about the loan⁷¹’⁷⁴.

footnotes:
⁷³ This is in the ms. and editio princeps
⁷¹ As the Halakhah explains, Rebbi requires that each signature on the document be certified by two witnesses but the Sages hold that only the contents of the document have to be certified by two witnesses.
⁷⁴ The Babli agrees (after some discussion), 20b/21a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:4:4)

תַּנֵּי. כּוֹתֵב אָדָם עֵדוּתוֹ וּמֵעִידָהּ אֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר כַּמָּה שָׁנִים. רַב חוּנָה אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר עֵדוּתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ זָכוּר עֵידוּתוֹ. וַתְיָיא דְּרַב חוּנָה כְרִבִּי וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבָּנִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: A person may write down his testimony and testify about it even some years later⁷⁵. 19:15) requires that “anything be confirmed *by the mouth* of two or three witnesses.” The disagreement of Rav Huna and R. Joḥanan is confirmed by the Babli, but not its explanation.. Rav Ḥuna said, only if he remembers his testimony. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he does not remember his testimony. It turns out that Rav Ḥuna follows Rebbi and Rebbi Joḥanan the Sages⁷⁶ of the witnesses and not by his writing. (The explanation of *Tosaphot*20a, *s*.*v*. ורבי יוחנן, is difficult to accept.).

footnotes:
⁷⁵ Babli 20a; Tosephta 2:1 (there, the wording is: even after 100 years.) The problem is that the verse (Deut
⁷⁶ It is obvious that nobody has to refresh his memory in order to identify his signature, so the difference must be about testifying to the substance of the document. R. Joḥanan follows the Sages since his testimony about his signature certifies the document and any additional information is ancillary but for Rav Huna the testimony about the signature says nothing about the contents of the document; any additional testimony must be by the mouth


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:4:5)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא רַב חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב. אֵין הוּא וְאַחֵר מִצְטָרְפִין עַל חֲתִימַת הָעֵד הַשֵּׁינִי. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיָה אֶחָד מַכִּיר כְּתָב יָדוֹ וּכְתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ וְאֶחָד אֵין אָדָם מַכִּירוֹ וַחֲבֵירוֹ מַכִּירוֹ. חֲבֵירוֹ מָה הוּא שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵף עִם אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק לְהָעִיד עָלָיו. הָדָא הוּא דָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. אֵין הוּא וְאַחֵר מִצְטָרְפִין עַל חֲתִימַת הָעֵד הַשֵּׁינִי. לֹא צוּרְכָה דְלֹא כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנַיִם. אֶחָד הַכֹּל מַכִּירִין כְּתָב יָדוֹ וְאֶחָד אֵין אָדָם מַכִּירוֹ וַחֲבֵירוֹ מַכִּירוֹ. חֲבֵירוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה כְּאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק לְהָעִיד עָלָיו. אִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן נִמְצֵאת כָּל הָעֵדוּת מִתְקַיֶימֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. וְיֵאוּת. אִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מֵעִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ גּוֹיִם כְּגוֹן הָדָא סוּסִיתָא. אֶחָד הַכֹּל מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד אֵין אָדָם מַכִּירוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ מַכִּירוֹ. מָהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה כְּאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק לְהָעִיד עָלָיו. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן לֹא נִמְצֵאת כָּל הָעֵדוּת מִתְקַיֶימֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד. וָכָא נִמְצֵאת כָּל הָעֵדוּת מִתְקַיֶימֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market place cannot together certify the signature of the second witness⁷⁷ 2:1, 57d.. How is that? If one identified his own signature⁷⁸ and that of his colleague, but that second witness’s signature was not known to anybody⁷⁹ except his colleague, may that colleague together with somebody from the market place⁸⁰ testify on that signature? That is what Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, said in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market cannot together certify the signature of the second witness. Another case where there are no two persons: The signature of one is known by everybody, but that second witness’s signature is not known to anybody except his colleague. Can that colleague testify on his signature as if he were someone from the market place? If you say so, the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Rebbi Yudan said, that is correct. If two people come from a town that is mostly Gentile, like Hippos⁸¹. One is known by everybody as a Jew, but the other is not known by anybody except his companion. Can the latter be considered one from the market place to testify about him⁸²? If you say so, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness⁸³! And in the prior case, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness.

footnotes:
⁷⁷ In the formulation of the Babli, 21a, one witness comes before the court but the other has died in the meantime. If the surviving witness were enabled to testify to his own signature and, with the help of an unrelated person, to that of the other witness, then 75% of the testimony would be from one witness (100% of his own half and 50% of the other half). But testimony of witnesses is acceptable only if both of them have equal validity.The paragraph appears also in Roš Haššanah
⁷⁸ Which he is enabled to do by the Mishnah following the Sages.
⁷⁹ In court.
⁸⁰ I. e., unconnected with the court and the parties before the court.
⁸¹ On the mountain ridge overlooking the Eastern Shore of Lake Genezareth.
⁸² To establish a Jewish identity, one witness is enough since it is a testimony about Torah prohibitions.
⁸³ If the two testify about a document executed in the city of Hippos, the second witness testifies only because he was enabled by the first. Therefore, the second witness cannot be considered to be independent of the first.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:4:6)

רִבִּי חַגַּיי אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְעָא. עֵד אֶחָד בְּפֶה וְעֵד אֶחָד בִּשְׁטָר מָהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ. עֵד אֶחָד בִּכְתָב כְּלוּם הוּא. לָכֵן צְרִיכָה. כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנַיִם. מָצְאוּ לְקַיֵים כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מָצְאוּ לְקַיֵים כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלַּשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי מָנָא בְעָא. עֵד אֶחָד בִּכְתָב מָהוּ לְזוֹקְקוֹ לִשְׁבוּעָה. עֵד אֶחָד בִּכְתָב כְּלוּם הוּא. לָכֵן צְרִיכָה. כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנַיִם מָצְאוּ לְקַיֵים כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מָצְאוּ לְקַיֵים כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלַּשֵּׁינִי. כְּהָדָא. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִן הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רָאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ רָאוּ זֶה אַחַר זֶה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בְּשֵׁם רַב. מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה בְעֵידֵי בְכוֹרָה וּבְעֵידֵי חֲזָקָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Can one witness testifying orally and one by a document be taken together? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything⁸⁴ 10:2: A document signed by a single witness is invalid.? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second⁸⁵ 165a, this is a question, if one signature was confirmed from another document and one by oral testimony. It is resolved that the document is valid.. Rebbi Mana asked, is one witness on a written document enough to force anybody to swear⁸⁶. 22:9 decrees that in all money matters in dispute, “if there is one who says, he is the one” who owes money, there should be an oath. This is interpreted to mean that the claimant can force the defendant to swear if he can support his claim by a single witness but does not have the two witnesses necessary to force the defendant to pay.? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second. ⁸⁷ Chapter 1, Notes 46–71. The text here is from the hand of the corrector; the scribe of the ms. only notes גרש בהילכתא קדמיתא דסוטה כולה עד וכה כל סימן וסימן צריך שני עדים “One reads all this in the first Halakhah of *Soṭah* up to ‘and here, every single hair needs two witnesses’.” There are several differences in the sequence of sentences in addition to systematic differences in spelling; it is clear that the corrector copied from a different ms. which now is lost. Parallel to it: One does not accept testimony from witnesses unless they had seen together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw one after the other⁸⁸ 30b.. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa for witnesses about primogeniture and rights of possession.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ Mishnah Baba batra
⁸⁵ In the Babli, Baba batra
⁸⁶ Ex
⁸⁷ From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Soṭah
⁸⁸ R. Joshua ben Qorḥa will accept the written testimony of one witness (of two on a document) combined with the oral one of another; the Sages will reject it except in the three cases stated here. The same disagreement in the Babli 26b, Sanhedrin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:4:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:4:7)

רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אַף בְּעֵדֵי סֵימָנִים כֵּן. מַה דָא פְּשִׁיטָא. בְּשֶׁזֶּה אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בְּגַבּוֹ. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בְגַבּוֹ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בְּגַבּוֹ. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בִּכְרֵיסוֹ. לֹא כְּלוּם. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן גַּבּוֹ וְגַבּוֹ. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. רָאִינוּ שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בְגַבּוֹ. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. רָאִינוּ שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בִּכְרֵיסוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שַׁמַּאי. חַד אָמַר. פָּסוּל. וְחוֹרָנָא אָמַר. כָּשֵׁר. מָן דָּמַר. פָּסוּל. בְּמֵעִיד עַל חֲצִי סֵימָנִין. וּמָן דָּמַר. כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁמָּא נִשְׁרוּ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בְּגַבּוֹ. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בִּכְרֵסוֹ. רִבִּי בָּא אוֹמֵר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי חַגַּי אוֹמֵר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרִבִּי חַגַּי. וְהָא רִבִּי יוּדָן סָבַר דִּכְוָותִי. אָמַר. עַל דְּרַבֵּיהּ אֲנָא פְלִיג לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן עִלָוֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּי. אִלּוּ שְׁטָר שֶׁהוּא מְחוּתָּם בְּאַרְבַּע חוֹתָמוֹת וְקָרָא עָלָיו עִרְעֵר זֶה מֵעִיד עַל שְׁנַיִם וְזֶה מֵעִיד עַל שְׁנַיִם. שֶׁמָּא כְּלוּם הוּא. וְאֵין כָּל חֲתִימָה וַחֲתִימָה צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וָכָה כָּל סֵימָן וְסֵימָן צָרִיך שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא יְלִיף לָהּ מִשְּׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אִלּוּ אֶחָד מֵעִידָהּ שֶׁאָכְלָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁנִיָה וּשְׁלִישִׁית וְאֶחָד מֵעִידָהּ שֶׁאָכְלָהּ שָׁנָה רְבִיעִית חֲמִשִית וְשִׁשִּׁית שֶׁמָּא כְּלוּם הוּא. וְאֵין כָּל חֲזָקָה וַחֲזָקָה צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וָכָה כָּל סֵימָן וְסֵימָן צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁸⁷ Chapter 1, Notes 46–71. The text here is from the hand of the corrector; the scribe of the ms. only notes גרש בהילכתא קדמיתא דסוטה כולה עד וכה כל סימן וסימן צריך שני עדים “One reads all this in the first Halakhah of *Soṭah* up to ‘and here, every single hair needs two witnesses’.” There are several differences in the sequence of sentences in addition to systematic differences in spelling; it is clear that the corrector copied from a different ms. which now is lost. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who saysid it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who said it is valid? Maybe they were rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw two hairs on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid [testimony]. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan⁸⁹, missing here. follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of possession. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything⁷¹? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

footnotes:
⁸⁷ From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Soṭah
⁸⁹ The statement of R. Yudan is in the text in Soṭah
⁷¹ As the Halakhah explains, Rebbi requires that each signature on the document be certified by two witnesses but the Sages hold that only the contents of the document have to be certified by two witnesses.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:5:1)

**משנה:** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי וּגְרוּשָׁה אֲנִי נֶאֱמֶנֶת שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת גְּרוּשָׁה אֲנִי אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a woman said, I was married but I am divorced⁹⁰, she is to be trusted, since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that she is married and she says, I am divorced, she is not trustworthy⁹¹.

footnotes:
⁹⁰ She is new in the community and produces no divorce document.
⁹¹ If the witnesses know of her marriage but do not know of her divorce, she has to prove her assertion; in the meantime she is treated as legally married and cannot remarry.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:5:2)

**הלכה:** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי כול׳. תַּנֵּי. אִם מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת בָּאוֹ עֵדִים הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵצֵא. רַב חוּנָא וְרִבִּי חֲנִינָה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ הִתִּירוּהָ בֵית דִּין לְהִינָּשֵׂא. כְּהָדָא. חָדָא אִיתְּתָא אֲתַת לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרָה לֵיהּ. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי וּגְרוּשָׁה אֲנִי. וְהִתִּירוּהָ. מִן דְּנַפְקָת אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. רִבִּי. הֲרֵי עֵידֶיהָ בְּלוֹד. אָמַר. כָּךְ אֶנִי אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ עֵדֶיהָ בִקסוסנון תַּמְתִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר בּוּן. תְּרֵין עוֹבְדִין הֲווֹן. אֶחָד אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי עֵדֶיהָ בְּלוֹד. וְאֶחָד אָמַר לוֹ. הֲרֵי עֵידֶיהָ בְּקַסָרִין. וְכֵן הֲוָה. אֲמַר לוֹן. כָּךְ אוֹמֵר אֲנִי. אֲפִילוּ עֵדֶיהָ בִקסוסנון תַּמְתִּין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a woman said, I was married,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses came after she remarried, she should not leave⁹². Rav Ḥuna and Rebbi Ḥanina both say, not only after she remarried but even after the court authorized her to remarry⁹³. As the following: A woman came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him, I was married but I am divorced, and he permitted her. After she left, they said to him, are not her witnesses at Lod⁹⁴? He said, so I am saying: Should she wait even if her witnesses are at קסוסנון⁹⁵, the spelling is קסוסנין. {Perhaps cf. Greek κασαυρεῖον, τό, also κασώριον, “brothel”, with assimilation of σ from Greek ρ. The implication is that witnesses in any case would not be considered [E. G.].}? Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said, there were two cases. In one case, they said to him, are not her witnesses at Lod? In the other case, they said to him, are not her witnesses at Caesarea⁹⁶? And so it was!He said to them, so I am saying: Should she wait even if her witnesses are at קסוסנון?

footnotes:
⁹² Her second marriage should not be dissolved.
⁹³ In the Babli, 23a, this is a statement of Samuel’s father, of the generation of transition between Tannaïm and Amoraïm.
⁹⁴ She said that she had been married at Lod. Therefore, it would be possible to check her out by sending for witnesses from Lod.
⁹⁵ In the editio princeps
⁹⁶ Caesarea Philippi, much closer to Tiberias than Lod in the South.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:5:3)

רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעָא. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי וְנִתְגָּרַשְׁתִּי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וּבָאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ. לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה אִשָּׁה בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. מַכְחִישִׁין הֵן אוֹתָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְעָא. אָמְרָה. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי וְנִתְגָּרַשְׁתִּי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה אִשָּׁה בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וּבָאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ. לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה אִשָּׁה בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. בְּהַכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת אָנוּ כְּחַיִין מִפִּיהָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yudan asked: “I had been married but I was divorced at place X”; if two [witnesses] come and say, no woman was divorced at place X, do they contradict her⁹⁷? Rebbi Yose asked, if she said, I had been married but I was divorced at place X at a certain date,” and two came and said, a woman was divorced at that place⁹⁸, but two [others] came and said, no woman was divorced at that place? That is a contradiction of the essence of the testimony; we live off her mouth.

footnotes:
⁹⁷ No answer is given. The Babli (23a) notes, “‘we did not see’ is no proof.” There are divorces done in privacy, and this kind of negative testimony is inadmissible. The reluctance of the Yerushalmi to decidehere is understandable; it may be that the correct spelling of the place in question had not been established and a divorce document is invalid if the names of the persons or of the place are incorrect. {For example, the Jewish community in Basel, Switzerland, was founded by Jews from Alsatia and until after 1918 all divorces were executed in old established Alsatian communities. When it was found necessary to perform divorces in Basel, the problem arose whether to write the name of the city as באזעל following the rules of Western Yiddish in which /a/ = א, /e/ = ע, or באזל since the /e/ is almost inaudible in local speech. The problem had to be settled by an outside expert in the writing of divorce documents.}
⁹⁸ But they have no direct knowledge of the specific case in question.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:5:4)

הַיּוֹם אָמְרָה. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי. וּלְמָחָר אָמְרָה. גְּרוּשָׁה אֲנִי. אָמְרִינָן לָהּ. אֶתְמוֹל אָמְרָת אָכֵין וְיוֹם דֵּין אָכֵין. אָמְרָה לוֹן. מִפְּנֵי כַּת שֶׁלְּפְרִיצִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָאִין לְהִזְדַּוֵוג לִי. רִבִּי אָבִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵבִיאָה מַתְלָא לִדְבָרֶיהָ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. כְּהָדָא. שְׁמוּאֵל בְּעָא אִיזְדְּקוּקֵי לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ. טְמֵיאָה אֲנִי. לְמָחָר אָמְרָה לֵיהּ. טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי. אֲמַר לָהּ. אֶתְמוֹל אָמְרָת טְמֵיאָה וְיוֹמָא דֵין טְהוֹרָה. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ. לָא הֲוָוה בְחֵיילִי הַיי שַׁעֲתָא. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרַב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵבִיאָה מַתְלָא לִדְבָרֶיהָ נֶאֱמֶנֶת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
One day, she said, I am married. The next day, she said, I am divorced. We asked her, yesterday you said this, today you say otherwise? She said to them, because of a group of amoral people who wanted to start up with me⁹⁹. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ila: Since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed¹⁰⁰. A similar case: Samuel wanted to sleep with his wife, but she said to him, I am impure¹⁰¹. The next day, she said, I am pure. He said to her, yesterday, you said impure, today pure? She said to him, I did not feel well enough at that moment. He came and asked Rav, who told him, since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed¹⁰².*v*. ואפילו..

footnotes:
⁹⁹ She needed the protection given in society to married women.
¹⁰⁰ In the Babli, 22a, the case and its resolution is tannaïtic, attributed to the Sages of the court at Usha (probably under Antoninus Pius).
¹⁰¹ And therefore forbidden for an additional 10 days.
¹⁰² In the Babli, 22a/b, Samuel accepted the ruling for everybody except himself; cf. Tosaphot 22b, s


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:6:1)

**משנה:** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי נֶאֱמֶנֶת שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאִם מִשֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת בָּאוּ עֵדִים לֹא תֵצֵא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** 6*:* If a woman said, I was kidnapped¹⁰³ but I am pure, she is to be trusted, since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that she was kidnapped and she says, I am pure, she is not trustworthy. If the witnesses came after she was married, she should not leave¹⁰⁴.

footnotes:
¹⁰³ Even if a woman is held for ransom, it is assumed that her Gentile kidnapper raped her and that, therefore, she is forbidden to marry a Cohen.
¹⁰⁴ If she is married to a Cohen, he does not have to divorce her.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:6:2)

**הלכה:** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי כול׳. רַב חוּנָא אָמַר. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ הִתִּירוּהָ בֵית דִּין לִינָּשֵׂא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a woman said, I was kidnapped,” etc. Rav Ḥuna said, not only after she remarried but even after the court authorized her to remarry⁹³.

footnotes:
⁹³ In the Babli, 23a, this is a statement of Samuel’s father, of the generation of transition between Tannaïm and Amoraïm.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:6:3)

נָשִׁים נִשְׁבּוּ לְשָׁם. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי אַבָּא בַר בָּא וְלֵוִי וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמְרוּ. וּמָסְרוּ לָהֶן עֵדִים נִיסְקוֹן לְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וּמַה נַעֲשֶׂה לַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁנִּתְיַיחֲדוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָא בַר בָּא. אִילּוּ הֲוִינָן בְּנָתָךְ כֵּן הָיִיתָה אוֹמֵר. וְאִישְׁתַּבְּיָין בְּנָתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל כִּשְׁגָגָה שֶׁיּוֹצָא מִלִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁלִּיט. כַּד סַלְקוֹן לְהָכָא סַלְקָן שַׁבְיָין עִמְּהוֹן. עֲלִין קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אוֹקִימָן שַׁבְיָין מִלְּבַר. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. נִשְׁבִּינוּ וּטְהוֹרוֹת אָנוּ. וְהִתִּירָן. מִן דְּנַפְקָן שְׁלָחוֹן שַׁבְיִין עָלִין אָמַר. נִיכָּרוֹת אֵילּוּ שֶבְּנוֹת חָכָם הֵן. מִן דְּאִיתוּ דְּעִין מָאן הַוְיָין אָמְרִין לְשִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא. אִיטְפַּל בִּקְרִיבָתָךְ. נְסַב לְקַדְמִיתָא וּמִיתַת. לְתִנְיָינא וּמִיתַת. לָמָּה. בְּגִין דְשָׁקְרוֹן. חַס וְשָׁלוֹם. לָא שָׁקְרוֹן. אָלָּא מִן חַטָּאת דַּחֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁעִיבֵּר אֶת הַשָּׁנָה בְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁰⁵ Women were kidnapped and brought there¹⁰⁶. The case came before Abba bar Abba¹⁰⁷, and Samuel. They ordered and gave them over to chaperones who were to return them to the Land of Israel. He¹⁰⁸ said to him¹⁰⁷: What did we do for the earlier times when they were alone with them? Abba bar Abba said to him, would you say so if they were your daughters? Samuel’s daughters were kidnapped, “like an error which comes from the ruler”¹⁰⁹. 10:5. From the story of another daughter of Samuel, Rachel, who was kidnapped and raped during the destruction of Nahardea by a soldier of Odenathus who later converted and married her, it seems that one has to date this at 259 C.E., after Samuel’s death.. When they were brought here, their kidnappers came with them. They came before Rebbi Ḥanina and left their kidnappers outside. They said to him, we were kidnapped but we are pure¹¹⁰. He permitted them. After they left, their kidnappers sent after them¹¹¹. He said, it is obvious that these are the daughters of a Sage. When they came to know who they were, they said to Simeon bar Abba¹¹², take care of your relatives. He married the first one, but she died. The second one and she died. Why? Because they lied? God forbid, they did not lie. But because of the sin of Ḥanania, Rebbi Joshua’s nephew, who intercalated the year outside the Land¹¹³ 6:13, Notes 118–129, Babli *Berakhot* 63a.
The last sentences of this paragraph have no parallel in the Babli..

footnotes:
¹⁰⁵ The entire Halakhah is reproduced in the Babli, 23a.
¹⁰⁶ To Nahardea in Babylonia.
¹⁰⁷ Samuel’s father.
¹⁰⁸ Samuel.
¹⁰⁷ Samuel’s father.
¹⁰⁹ Eccl
¹¹⁰ Speaking Hebrew, they made it clear that they were educated.
¹¹¹ To collect the redemption money from the Jewish community of Sepphoris.
¹¹² A relative of Samuel and a Cohen.
¹¹³ He was the founder of the Academy of Nahardea and the ancestor of its leaders, Abba bar Abba and Samuel. He validly intercalated years during the war of Bar Kokhba but tried to hold on to his prerogative after the patriarchate was re-established; cf. Nedarim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:7:1)

**משנה:** שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְזֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנוֹת. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מֵעִידוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ נֶאֱמָנוֹת. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים. זֶה אוֹמֵר כֹּהֵן אֲנִי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֹּהֵן אֲנִי אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מֵעִידִים זֶה אֶת זֶה נֶאֱמָנִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Two women who were kidnapped¹¹⁴ and each one of them says I am pure, are not trustworthy. But if they testify one for the other they can be trusted¹¹⁵.
Similarly, if of two men each one says that he is a Cohen, the cannot be trusted. But if they testify for one another, they can be trusted¹¹⁶.

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ This was known before the testimony.
¹¹⁵ In order to help kidnap victims, one admitted the testimony of a single witness. The Mishnah notes that this is true even if one would suspect that they do this in order to help one another.
¹¹⁶ This follows the opinion stated in the next Mishnah that the testimony of a single witness suffices to enable a person to receive heave and other gifts to the priesthood.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:7:2)

**הלכה:** וְכֵן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים כול׳. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַתְנִיתִין לְעִנְיָין קָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל. אֲבָל לְעִנְיָין מִשְׁפָּחָה וּלְקוֹדְשֵׁי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וְהָא תַנֵּי. מַעֲלִין לִכְהוּנָּה לִלְוִיָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל פִּי אֶחָד. נִיחָא לִכְהוּנָּה לִלְוִיָּה. לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא לְעִנְיָין מִשְׁפָּחָה. לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Similarly, if of two men,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah is valid for countryside sanctified food¹¹⁷. In the Babli, 24a, that is a tannaïtic statement.. But for family matters and the sanctified food of the altar¹¹⁸ 4:4 requires a check on the families of bride and groom for several generations to ascertain that no ancestor is a bastard or desecrated. one needs two witnesses. But was it not stated¹¹⁹: One raises to priesthood, levitic status, or Israel, by the testimony of one witness. One understands priesthood and levitic status. But the status of an Israel¹²⁰? Is that not regarding family status¹²¹? To give him the tithe of the poor¹²².

footnotes:
¹¹⁷ Heave and Ḥallah
¹¹⁸ In fact, Mishnah Qiddušin
¹¹⁹ Tosephta 2:3. The Tosephta continues: But one demotes only on the testimony of two witnesses.
¹²⁰ What privileges accrue only to an Israel?
¹²¹ This would imply that the family status of a Cohen as entitled to serve in the Temple also could be proven by a single witness.
¹²² But family status depends on two witnesses. This means that, even if the Temple is rebuilt, it cannot be staffed until either seamless documentary proof is found for some priestly families that their direct ancestors served in the Temple and none of them in the intervening time married an unsuitable woman, or that the immortal Prophet Elijah comes to indicate which Cohanim pass muster.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:7:3)

שְׁתֵּי חֲזָקוֹת לִכְהוּנָּה בְארֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם וְחִילּוּק גְּרָנוֹת וּבְסוּרִיָּא נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם אֲבָל לֹא חִילּוּק גְּרָנוֹת. עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁלוּחֵי הַחוֹדֶשׁ מַגִּיעִין עַד נִמְרִין וּבָבֵל כְּסוּרִיָּא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. אַף בְּאַלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיאָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּתֵּי דִינִין יוֹשְׁבִין שָׁם. תַּנֵּי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַתְּרוּמָה חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה כָּךְ מַעֲשֶׂר רִאשׁוֹן חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה. וְהַחוֹלֵק עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה לוֹ מֵאֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹהֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹²³ 4:6; Babli *Ketubot* 25a, 26a.“In the Land of Israel there are two legal claims to priestly status, the priestly blessings¹²⁴ and the distribution from the threshing floor¹²⁵ in the Land of Israel are biblical obligations, the rabbinic authorities would not empower a man to receive heave unless they checked his credentials.. In Syria¹²⁶ 7:6, Note 119., priestly blessings but not distribution from the threshing floor¹²⁷. Up to the place where the messengers for the New Moon arrive, up to Nimerin¹²⁸ 1:3–4. {The place of Nimerin has not been determined, cf. *Ševi‘it* 6:1, Note 50; it could be biblical *Bet Nimra*(*Jos*. 13:27) in the territory of the tribe of Gad in Gilead.). Babylonia is like Syria. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, also in Alexandria in the time when regular courts are sitting there¹²⁹. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Just as heave establishes a legal claim to priesthood, so First Tithe establishes a legal claim to priesthood¹³⁰ 5:5, Notes 88–89.) One has to assume a copyist’s error; in the absence of parallel sources this cannot be confirmed.. If somebody gives his heave to the court to distribute he has no legal claim to priesthood;” I am saying that the heave came to him from his mother’s father, a Cohen.

footnotes:
¹²³ Tosephta 3:1; most of it also in Peah
¹²⁴ If somebody is admitted to recite the priestly blessings in the synagogue, it must be that the rabbinic authority at that place found him qualified.
¹²⁵ Since a point can be made that heave and ḥallah
¹²⁶ The land ruled over by David outside the biblical borders of the Land; cf. Peah
¹²⁷ Since heave cannot be a biblical obligation in Syria, nobody checks eligibility there.
¹²⁸ A distance of 14 days’ walk from Jerusalem, cf. Mishnah Roš Haššanah
¹²⁹ As long as the Jews of Alexandria enjoyed a certain autonomy, before the revolt against Trajan.
¹³⁰ In the Tosephta: “for Levitic status.” The text of the Yerushalmi is also that of the Babli, 26a. It is appropriate for the Babli, which reserves the First Tithe to priests, against the biblical rules. It is not appropriate for the Yerushalmi which assigns tithes to the Levites, but to priests only in their quality of Levites (cf. Ma‘aśer Šeni


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:7:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִיָּמַיי לֹא הֵעַדְתִּי עֵדוּת. וּפַעַם אַחַת הֵיעַדְתִּי וְהַעֲלֵיתִי עֶבֶד לִכְהוּנָּה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק חֲקוּלָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּרִבִּי. חַד הֶעֱלָה אָח מִפִּי אָחִיו וְחָרָנָה הֶעֱלָה בֶן מִפִּי אָבִיו. חַד לִכְהוּנָּה וְחַד לִלְוִיָּה. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אָתָא לְגַבֵּי דְרִבִּי אִילָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּנִי הוּא זֶה וְכֹהֵן הוּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בִּנְךָ הוּא וְאֵינוֹ כֹהֵן. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה. אִם מַאֲמִינוֹ אַתְּ שֶׁהוּא בְנוֹ הֶאֱמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא כֹהֵן. וְאִם אֵין אַתְּ מַאֲמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא בְנוֹ אַל תַּאֲמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא כֹהֵן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּנוֹ הוּא אֶלָּא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. בֵּן גְּרוּשָׁה הוּא אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אָכֵין אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִם מַאֲמִינוֹ אַתְּ שֶׁהוּא בְנוֹ הֵאֱמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא כֹהֵן. וְאִם אֵין אַתְּ מַאֲמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא כֹהֵן אַל תַּאֲמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא בְנוֹ. וְיֵיעָשֶׂה כְהַרְחֵק עֵדוּת וִיהֵא נֶאֱמָן עָלָיו. אָמַר לוֹ. בְּנוֹ הוּא אֶלָּא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. בֵּן גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה הוּא. לֹא כֵן אָמְרוּ. רִבִּי יִצְחָק חֲקוּלָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּרִבִּי. חַד הֶעֱלָה אָח עַל פִּי אָחִיו וְחָרָנָה הֶעֱלָה בֶן מִפִּי אָבִיו. נֵימָא. מִשֶּׁהֶעֱלָה רִבִּי אָח מִפִּי אָחִיו. אֲפִילוּ תֵימָא בֶּן מִפִּי אָבִיו. לַלְּוִיָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, I never testified except once, when I raised a slave to priestly status¹³¹. Rebbi Isaac Ḥaqula and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one raised a brother on the testimony of his brother, the other a son on the testimony of his father; one to the priesthood, the other to levitic status¹³². A person came before Rebbi Hila¹³³; he said to him, this is my son¹³⁴ and he is a Cohen. He answered him, he is your son but he is no Cohen¹³⁵. Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder said to him, if you believe him that he is his son, believe him that he is a Cohen. If you do not believe him that he is his son, do not believe him that he is a Cohen. He answered, he is his son but I say that he is the son of a divorcee or one who had performed *ḥalîṣah*¹³⁶. Rebbi Abin said, so he said to him: If you believe him that he is his son, believe him that he is a Cohen. If you do not believe him that he is a Cohen, do not believe him that he is his son. In that case, he would be unrelated and trustworthy in his testimony!¹³⁷ He answered, he is his son but I say that he is the son of a divorcee or one who had performed *ḥalîṣah*. Did they not say, Rebbi Isaac Ḥaqula and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one raised a brother on the testimony of his brother, the other a son on the testimony of his father¹³⁸? Let us say that Rebbi¹³⁹ elevated a brother on the testimony of his brother. You may even say, a son on the testimony of his father, to levitic status¹⁴⁰.

footnotes:
¹³¹ This disproves the Tosephta, that receiving heave is a sign of priestly status since all members of a Cohen’s household, including his slaves, are entitled to eat heave. In the Babli, 28b, the problem is connected with a dispute between R. Jehudah and R. Yose on whether a slave is entitled to receive heave from any person other than his master.In the Babli, 28b, the story is transferred to his brother, R. Eleazar ben R. Yose, and is explained away.
¹³² The problems raised here are explained at the end of the paragraph. In the Babli, 25b, the actors are Rebbi and the elder R. Ḥiyya.
¹³³ In the Babli, 25b, the discussion is theoretical and put into the mouths of Rebbi and the elder R. Ḥiyya. Here, it is reported as an actual case. There is something wrong with the tradition of names here. If the case was before R. Hila, the opponent must be R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, his fellow-student before R. Joḥanan. If the opponent is the elder R. Ḥiyya, the case must be before Rebbi.
¹³⁴ From an extramarital relationship, otherwise he would not need confirmation as an heir by the court.
¹³⁵ He is accorded all rights of inheritance (and cannot marry his close relatives from his father’s side) but he cannot act as a priest.
¹³⁶ Following R. Joshua in Chapter 1, the court is obligated to think the worst of an extramarital relationship unless proven wrong.
¹³⁷ Since we said that one witness is enough to establish a title to priesthood, if the man is not his father, he could testify that the child is a Cohen (which by R. Ḥiyya’s argument would make the man his father and disqualified from testifying.)
¹³⁸ If the brother was a full brother, there is no problem. In the Babli, it was R. Ḥiyya who elevated a man to levitic status by the testimony of a (paternal half-)brother, since for Levites the status of the mother is irrelevant (as long as she is Jewish and not a bastard.)
¹³⁹ It seems that a name is missing here under the influence of the Babli.
¹⁴⁰ Cf. Note 128. In the Babli, the cases are switched.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:8:1)

**משנה:** רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין מַעֲלִין לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֵימָתַי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עוֹרְרִין אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹרְרִין מַעֲלִין לִכְהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן הַסְּגָן מַעֲלִין לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not elevate to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness. Rebbi Eleazar said, when is this? If there are protesters¹⁴¹; but if there are no protesters, one elevates to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the son of the second in command¹⁴², that one elevates to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness.

footnotes:
¹⁴¹ They claim that the person’s mother was disqualified to marry into the priesthood.
¹⁴² The executive officer of the Temple, who must have known the practice of the Temple Court which had to certify priests to be admitted to the service.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:8:2)

**הלכה:** רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין מַעֲלִין כול׳. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין עִרְעֵר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְעָא. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁהֶעֱלוּ אוֹתוֹ בְאֶחָד יוֹרִידוּ אוֹתוֹ בְאֶחָד. וְאִם בְּשֶׁהֶעֱלוּ אוֹתוֹ בִשְׁנַיִם אֲפִילוּ כַמָּה לֹא יוֹרִידוּ אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא. אַתְיָיא כְרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. בְּרַם רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא וּכְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ בִשְׁנַיִם כָּךְ מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ בִשְׁנַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not elevate,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A complaint needs at least two [plaintiffs]¹⁴³. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, how do we hold? If they elevated him on the testimony of one person, they should demote him on the testimony of one person. If they elevated him on the testimony of two persons, even if there are many [opposed] they should not demote him¹⁴⁴! Rebbi Ḥuna said, it follows the rabbis there¹⁴⁵. But following the rabbis here and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob¹⁴⁶, just as one elevates him on the testimony of two persons, one demotes him on the testimony of two persons.

footnotes:
¹⁴³ Babli, 26a. The court will not listen to a claim that the person is the son of a disqualified mother unless confirmed by at least two independent witnesses.
¹⁴⁴ Since two witnesses confirm a fact by biblical standards, they are as weighty as any number of witnesses.
¹⁴⁵ Cf. Note 41; to cancel an action of the court, they require full testimony.
¹⁴⁶ Note 39.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:9:1)

**משנה:** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּחְבְּשָׁה בִּידֵי גוֹיִם עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן מוּתֶּרֶת לְבַעֲלָהּ עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֲסוּרָה לְבַעֲלָהּ. עִיר שֶׁכְּבָשָׁהּ כַּרָקוֹם כָּל הַכֹּהֲנוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בְתוֹכָהּ פְּסוּלוֹת וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים אֲפִילוּ עֶבֶד אֲפִילוּ שִׁפְחָה הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין שֶׁאֵין אָדָם נֶאֱמָן עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב הַמָּעוֹן הַזֶּה לֹא זָזָה יָדָהּ מִיָּדִי מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ הַגּוֹיִם לִירוּשָׁלֵם וְעַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אֵין אָדָם מֵעִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A woman who was jailed by Gentiles, if because of money matters, she is permitted to her husband¹⁴⁷; if because of criminal matters, she is prohibited to her husband¹⁴⁸. If a city was conquered after a siege¹⁴⁹, all wives of priests in it are disqualified¹⁵⁰; but if they have witnesses, even a slave, even a slave girl, those are trustworthy¹⁵¹; but¹⁵² 1:2). nobody is trustworthy about himself. Rebbi Zachariah, the son of the butcher¹⁵³, said, by the Temple! Her hand did not leave my hand from the moment the Gentiles entered Jerusalem until they left! They said to him, nobody testifies on his own behalf.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁷ She is permitted to her Cohen husband since certainly she was not raped; the Gentiles who hold her for the payment of a debt would be afraid to have to pay the diminution of her value following a rape.
¹⁴⁸ It is not clear whether this means that she is forbidden to her Cohen husband since she certainly would be raped, or even to her Israel husband since she would agree to sleep with one of her jailers who promised to save her.
¹⁴⁹ Greek χαράκωμα “palisade”.
¹⁵⁰ Disqualified from eating heave and from living with their husbands.
¹⁵¹ The singular shows that a single witness is acceptable, even though first “witnesses” are mentioned.
¹⁵² This is one of the examples that שֶׁ may mean וְ (cf. Mishnah Beṣah
¹⁵³ He was a Cohen.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:9:2)

**הלכה:** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּחְבְּשָׁה בִּידֵי גוֹיִם כול׳. תַּ[מָּ]ן תַּנִּינָן. הֵעִיד רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן וְרִבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב עַל תִּינּוֹקֶת שֶׁהוּרְהֲנָה בְאַשְׁקְלוֹן וְרִיחֲקוּהָ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה. וְעֵידֶיהָ מֵעִידִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְלֹא נִטְמְאָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָעֵדִים מֵעִידִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמְאָה. הָא אִם אֵין עֵידֶיהָ מֵעִידִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמְאָה לֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא בְהִירְהוֹן שֶׁהָרַבִּים נוֹהֲגִין לוֹ בְהֵתֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles,” etc. There, we have stated¹⁵⁴ 8:2; quoted *in extenso* in the Babli, 26b/27a. The argument is about the part of the Mishnah not quoted here, that the Sages forced the family to accept her as marriageable by a Cohen.: “Rebbi Yose the Cohen and Rebbi Zachariah the son of the butcher testified about a girl who was given as a pledge in Ascalon¹⁵⁵ and her family excluded her¹⁵⁶, but her witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure.” Because the witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure; therefore, not if no witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure¹⁵⁷! Rebbi Eleazar said, there is a difference about a pledge, because many treat her as permitted¹⁵⁸.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁴ Mishnah Idiut
¹⁵⁵ That she could be sold as a slave if her parents did not pay their debt.
¹⁵⁶ Declared her unfit to be married by a Cohen.
¹⁵⁷ She was held for money, and according to the Mishnah should need no witnesses.
¹⁵⁸ People assumed that ultimately she would be sold as a slave and, therefore, could be treated as such even beforehand. In the Babli, 27a, this explanation is offered by Rava (cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot, p. 6), but is rejected in that Talmud.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:9:3)

עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֲסוּרָה. רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָמָא דִּכְפַר תְּחֻמִין בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה. וְהוּא שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינָהּ לַהֲרִיגָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לֹא נִגְמַר דִּינָ[הּ] לַהֲרִיגָה. אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵשֶׁת לֵיסְטֵיס כְּלֵיסְטֵיס.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If because of criminal matters she is prohibited.” Rebbi Yudan the son of Rav Ḥama¹⁵⁹ from Kefar Teḥumim in the name of Ḥizqiah: Only if she was sentenced to death. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if she was not sentenced to death¹⁶⁰. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A robber’s wife is like a robber¹⁶¹’¹⁶².

footnotes:
¹⁵⁹ The title “Rav” is certainly suspect. He might be identical with Rebbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumim.
¹⁶⁰ Their disagreement is confirmed in the Babli, 27a.
¹⁶¹ Greek λῃστής.
¹⁶² In the Babli, this is Rav’s opinion.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:9:4)

אֵי זֵהוּ כַרָקוֹם. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב חִיָיה בַּר אַשִּׁי. כְּגוֹן זוֹגִין וְשַׁלְשֶׁלָיוֹת וּכְבָלִים וַאֲוָוזִים וְתַרְנְגֹלִין וְאַפָּרָטוֹטוֹת מַקִּיפִין אֶת הָעִיר. וָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב חָמָא בַּר אַשִּׁי. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וּבָרְחָה מִשָּׁם סוּמָה אַחַת. הָיָה שָׁם פִּירְצָה אַחַת מַצֶּלֶת אֶת הַכֹּל. הָיוּ שָׁם מַחְבּוּיִים צְרִיכָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָה רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר חֲקוּלָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָן נְשִׂיאָה. וּבִלְבַד כַּרָקוֹם שֶׁלְּאוֹתָהּ מַלְכוּת אֲבָל כַּרָקוֹם שֶׁלְּמַלְכוּת אֲחֶרֶת כְּלֵיסְטֵיס הֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What are palisades? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: For examples if bells, chains, and ropes¹⁶⁴ reads וְאִיסְטְרָטִיּוֹת *soldiery*., and geese, and chickens and machinery¹⁶⁵ כְּלָבִים “dogs”. The same in the Babli, 27a. surround the town¹⁶⁶. And Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥama¹⁶⁷ bar Ashi said, it happened that a blind woman was able to flee from there¹⁶⁸. If there was one breach¹⁶⁹, it saves all. If there were hiding places, it is questionable¹⁷⁰. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula, in the name of Rebbi Yudan the prince: Only if there were palisades of that government¹⁷¹. כאן), the same statement appears in the Babli, 27a, in the name of Ḥizqiah.. But palisades from another government are like robbers.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁴ Interpretation of Musaphia. The parallel text in Giṭṭin
¹⁶⁵ In Giṭṭin
¹⁶⁶ The bells, geese, etc. shall make sure that nobody escapes.
¹⁶⁷ Here certainlyחמא  is a mistake for חייה, cf. Note 159.
¹⁶⁸ He questions the Mishnah. If a blind woman can escape a siege conducted so that nobody should escape, then everybody could escape and the fact that at the beginning of the siege the wife of a Cohen was in the town does not mean anything.
¹⁶⁹ In the palisades surrounding the town.
¹⁷⁰ It is undecided whether a woman can claim that she was in hiding and not a victim of the entering army.
¹⁷¹ The Mishnah speaks only of a revolt or a civil war, when the army is ordered to attack (and enslave) the civilian population. A conquering foreign army might plunder, but its soldiers are not under orders to rape all women. In the interpretation of Tosaphot (s. v


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:9:5)

וַאֲפִילוּ קָטָן. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֲפִילוּ קָטָן אֲפִילוּ קָרוֹב. אֲפִילוּ קָטָן וְקָרוֹב. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. חֲנַנְיָה קַרְתִּיסָיָה אִישְׁתַּבַּאי הוּא וּבְנֵיהּ וְאִיתְּתֵיהּ. אֲתוֹן לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְלָא קִבְּלוֹן. אֲתוֹן לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי וְקִבְּלוֹן. הָדָא אָמְרָה אֲפִילוּ קָטָן וְקָרוֹב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
And even a minor. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even a minor, even a relative. Even an underage relative? Let us hear from the following: Ḥananiah from Cartes¹⁷² was kidnapped, he, his son, and his wife. They came before Rebbi Ḥanina who did not receive them. They came before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who received them¹⁷³. This implies, even an underage relative.

footnotes:
¹⁷² In the parallel in the Babli, 27b, the story is told by a R. Ḥanina from Carthage (or Carthagena).
¹⁷³ He let the husband, a Cohen, stay married to his wife on the testimony of his own underage son. The Babli disagrees, 27b, and admits the testimony of children and family slaves only if given spontaneously, without being asked; certainly not in the court of a rabbi.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:9:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:9:6)

רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר יוֹסֵף שָׁלַח בָּתָר אִיתְּתֵיהּ. אָמַר. יִסְקוּן עִימָּהּ תְּלָתָא תַּלְמִידִין. שֶׁאִם יַפְנֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְצוֹרְכוֹ תִּתְיָיחֵד עִם שְׁנַיִם. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. מוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ בַדֶּרֶךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. וּבַעֲלָהּ. הֲרֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. אַף הוּא שָׂכַר לָהּ אֶת הַבַּיִת וְהוּא מַעֲלֶה לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא הָיָה מִתְיָיחֵד עִמָּהּ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי בָנֶיהָ. וְקָרָא עַל עַצְמוֹ הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה יָגַעְתִּי בְאַנְחָתִי וּמְנוּחָה לֹא מָצָאתִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁷³ Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef sent after his wife. He said, three students should accompany her, so that if one has to absent himself for his needs, she should still be with two of them. But did we not state: “And they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip”? Rebbi Abin said, with her husband that makes three. ¹⁷⁴ Also he rented a house for her and looked after her upkeep but was never alone with her except in the presence of her children. He applied to himself the verse¹⁷⁵. 45:3.: “I exercised myself in my worry but found no rest”.

footnotes:
¹⁷³ He let the husband, a Cohen, stay married to his wife on the testimony of his own underage son. The Babli disagrees, 27b, and admits the testimony of children and family slaves only if given spontaneously, without being asked; certainly not in the court of a rabbi.
¹⁷⁴ “He” is R. Zachariah, the son of the butcher, and “she” is his wife whom he refused to divorce but with whom he could not live.
¹⁷⁵ Jer


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:10:1)

**משנה:** וְאֵילּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין לְהָעִיד בְּגוֹדְלָן מַה שֶׁרָאוּ בְקוֹטְנָן. נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר זֶה כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלְּאַבָּא וְזֶה כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי וְזֶה כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁלְּאָחִי. זָכוּר הָיִיתִי בִּפְלוֹנִית שֶׁיָּצְתָה בְּהִינוּמָא וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ וְשֶׁהָיָה אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר לִטְבּוֹל לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה וְשֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֵק עִמָּנוּ עַל הַגּוֹרֶן וְהַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה בֵּית הַפְּרַס וְעַד כָּאן הָיִינוּ בָאִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר דֶּרֶךְ הָיָה לִפְלוֹנִי בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה מַעֲמָד וּמִסְפֵּד הָיָה לִפְלוֹנִי בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what one saw in one’s minority. A man is trustworthy to say, this is my father’s handwriting, my teacher’s handwriting, my brother’s handwriting¹⁷⁶; I remember that this person went out in *hinuma*²² 9:13, Note 189), the word *hinuma* changed its meaning. In Babylonia it became “a veil” (Babli 17b), literally “a slumber cloth” from נום “to sleep”, in Galilee φόρημα “that which is carried”, i. e., “a litter”. and uncovered hair¹⁷⁷; but this is not the direct text of the testimony., or that this man left school to immerse himself to eat heave¹⁷⁸, or that he took his part with us on the threshing floor¹⁷⁹, or that this place is *bet happeras*¹⁸⁰, or this far we went on the Sabbath¹⁸¹. But a person is not trustworthy to say that X had a right of way at this place¹⁸², or that X had a space for eulogies at this place.¹⁸³. 17:5) “he who mocks the poor insults his Maker”. There were public places on the road from the town to the graveyard where eulogies were held; some families had their own spots for eulogies of their deceased. The right to hold these eulogies has monetary value.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁶ Even though a minor is not admitted as a witness in money matters, since he testifies only to the genuineness of the document, not about its monetary implications, he can be admitted. A similar text is in Tosephta 3:3.
²² As explained in Chapter 1, Note 65, originally a virgin was led to her husband’s house with ὑμέναιοι “wedding songs”. After the war of Bar Kokhba, when these songs were forbidden (Soṭah
¹⁷⁷ The implication of the testimony is that the woman can collect a virgin’s ketubah
¹⁷⁸ He is a Cohen and was taken by his father to learn how to eat heave in purity.
¹⁷⁹ One Cohen testifies for another that he is a Cohen.
¹⁸⁰ A “field of pieces” is a lot of which it is known that there had been a grave but which was ploughed over and, therefore, there might be pieces of human bones anywhere and the passage through this lot is forbidden to Cohanim.
¹⁸¹ To indicate the Sabbath boundary, 2000 cubits from the town. There may be implications for money matters, as noted in the Halakhah, if the town expanded or shrank in the meantime.
¹⁸² In that case, his testimony would directly transfer money’s worth from one person to another.
¹⁸³ Eulogies cannot be delivered in the graveyard; since the dead cannot deliver sermons, sermonizing there would be blasphemy since (Pr


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:10:2)

**הלכה:** תַּנֵּי. וּבִלְבַד דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן רְגִילִין בָּהֶן. תַּנֵּי. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵף עִם אֲחֵרִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated: Only these which they are used to¹⁸⁵. It was stated: Only if they are supported by others¹⁸⁶.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁵ The adult is restricted to testifying about the handwriting of his father, teacher, and brother which he saw in his youth. He is not able to testify about other people’s handwriting even if he saw it frequently.
¹⁸⁶ The need for two witnesses is not waved.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:10:3)

וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא עֶבֶד הוּא. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְהַהִיא דָמַר רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּרִבִּי חֲנִינָה. אָסוּר לָאָדָם לְלַמֵּד אֶת עַבְדּוֹ תוֹרָה. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה. הָעֶבֶד עוֹלֶה מִשִּׁבְעָה קִרְייוֹת. וַיְדַבֵּר עוֹלֶה מִ[גֹ] פְסוּקִים. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁלָּמַד מֵאֵילָיו אוֹ שֶׁלִּמְּדוֹ רַבּוֹ כְטֶבִי. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא עֶבֶד הוּא. מְסַיְיעָא לְהַהִיא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין עַל הַגּוֹרֶן אֲבָל נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָיה מִתּוֹךְ הַבַּיִת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Should one not worry that he might be a slave¹⁸⁷. 22:11)?? This supports what Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁸⁸: It is forbidden for a man to teach Torah to his slave¹⁸⁹. But did not Rebbi Ze‘ira say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A slave is counted as one of the seven readers¹⁹⁰; *wayedabber* is counted as one of three verses¹⁹¹ 21b.
This was the version written by the scribe. The corrector crossed out “3” and replaced it by “7”; followed in the *editio princeps*.! Explain it, if he learned it by himself or his master taught him like Tebi¹⁹² 2:8.. Should one not worry that he might be a slave¹⁹³? This supports what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Women¹⁹⁴ 10a). and slaves cannot share in the distribution on the threshing floor, but one gives them the gifts of priesthood and levitic status from the house¹⁹⁵.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁷ May the child taken after school to be immersed to be purified for heave not be the slave of a Cohen who is entitled to eat it (Lev
¹⁸⁸ In the Babli, 28a, in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi.
¹⁸⁹ In contrast to the Greek and Roman world, the literate person was supposed to be free, not a slave.
¹⁹⁰ On the Sabbath, he can be one of the seven people called to read in the Torah. If he is illiterate, how could he possibly read? The same argument in the Babli, 28b.
¹⁹¹ In any public Torah reading, three verses are the minimum. The short verse: “The Eternal spoke to Moses, saying” is a full verse and counted as one of the three; the rule also is stated in Megillah
¹⁹² Rabban Gamliel’s slave; cf. Mishnah Berakhot
¹⁹³ This refers to the testimony that the person was receiving heave on the threshing floor.
¹⁹⁴ Since a Cohen’s daughter loses her claim to heave upon marriage to a non-Cohen and the wife of a Cohen might lose it by divorce, they should not establish customary rights to receive heave directly from the farmer (Babli Yoma
¹⁹⁵ Since they are entitled to eat. In all these cases, the Babli restricts the testimony to cases of rabbinic heave (other than heave of grain, wine, and olive oil in the Holy Land).


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:10:4)

מָהוּ לְהוֹצִיא מָמוֹן מִתּוֹךְ עֵדוּתָן. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיוּ הַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין עַד שְׂדֵה רְאוּבֵן תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת. וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ. עַד כָּאן הָיִינוּ בָאִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. וְנִמְצֵאת הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלְּשִׁמְעוֹן. מָהוּ מֵפִיקְתָהּ מִן שִׁמְעוֹן וּמַחֲזִרָתָהּ לִרְאוּבֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
May one act in money matters on their testimony¹⁹⁶? How is that? If everybody knew that the Sabbath boundary was at Reuben’s field; they came and said, this far we came on the Sabbath, and it turns out that this field is in Simeon’s hand. May one take it from Simeon and return it to Reuben¹⁹⁷?

footnotes:
¹⁹⁶ For example, on the testimony about the Sabbath boundary in earlier times.
¹⁹⁷ If Reuben claims ownership of the field but has no documents; Simeon also has no documents and does not claim to have bought it from Reuben. Neither this nor the following questions are answered.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:10:5)

מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר. יוֹצְאִין הָיוּ לְלַקֵּט בְּפָגֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְשָׁמַעְנוּ פְלוֹנִי מְמַלֵּל עַל פְּלוֹנִית אִשְׁתּוֹ. אִשָּׁה פְלֹנִית מְמַלֶּלֶת עַל בְּנֶיהָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Would they be trustworthy to say, we went out to collect unripe figs in the sabbatical year and heard X talking about his wife Y, or woman Z talking about her children¹⁹⁸?

footnotes:
¹⁹⁸ The Mishnah gives the adult permission to tell from his youth to confirm another man in the priesthood. Is he also permitted to tell things that would bar a man from the priesthood or even from marrying in the congregation, such as Mr. X telling about the unfaithfulness of his wife, or a woman about the fact that some or all of her children are not her husband’s?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:10:6)

רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בָּעֵי. הוּזְּמוּ מָהוּ שֶׁיְּשַׁלְּימוּ. אוֹ יָיבֹא כַיי דְאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. אֵין לוֹמְדִין דָּבָר מִדָּבָר בְּעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין. וָכָא כֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel asked: If they were proven to be false witnesses¹⁹⁹. 19:16–21), the punishment of a false witness is that he suffers the punishment that would have been imposed on the defendant had the testimony stood up in court. Since the entire Mishnah is interpreted to speak about money matters, the punishment in this case would be monetary. (In rabbinic theory, a witness can be proven false only if it is shown that his testimony is impossible, i. e., that he was not at the place he testifies about at the time in question.), do they have to pay? ²⁰⁰ 1:1, Note 44. Or it might be, following what Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah⁴³, said in the name of Samuel: One does not infer one thing from another in the matter of false witnesses. And here it is so.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁹ By biblical decree (Deut
²⁰⁰ Soṭah
⁴³ If during court proceedings there are contradictory statements, none of which can be shown to be false, there is no proof and the claim of legal possession cannot be denied.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:10:7)

תַּנֵּי. שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ בִקְצִיצַת פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. מָהוּ בִקְצִיצַת. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה אָדָם מוֹכֵר אֶת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ הָיוּ קְרוֹבִין מְמַלִּין חָבִיּוֹת קְלָיוֹת וְאֶגּוֹזִים וְשׁוֹבְרִין לִפְנֵי הַתִּינּוֹקוֹת. וְהַתִּינּוֹקוֹת מְלַקְּטִין וְאוֹמְרִים. נִקְצַץ פְּלוֹנִי מֵאֲחוּזָּתוֹ. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיְתָה חוֹזֶרֶת לוֹ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין לוֹ כֵן וְאוֹמְרִים. חָזַר פְּלוֹנִי לַאֲחוּזָּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַף מִי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֶׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ קְרוֹבָיו מְמַלִּין חָבִיּוֹת קְלָיוֹת וְאֶגּוֹזִים וְשׁוֹבְרִין לִפְנֵי הַתִּינּוֹקוֹת. וְהַתִּינּוֹקוֹת מְלַקְּטִין וְאוֹמְרִים. נִקְצַץ פְּלוֹנִי מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה מְגָרְשָׁהּ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין לוֹ כֵן וְאוֹמְרִים. חָזַר פְּלוֹנִי לְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated²⁰¹: “That we ate in X or Y’s clipping.” What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he bought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, ²⁰² also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his realtives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. Whe he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family.

footnotes:
²⁰¹ Tosephta 3:3.
²⁰² Babli 38b. If a Cohen married a woman forbidden to him, his children would not be Cohanim and forbidden as marriage partners to the rest of the family. (Rabbinically, he himself would be barred from all priestly functions until he divorced the unsuitable wife.)


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:10:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/2:10:8)

אֵילּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין לְהָעִיד בְּגוֹדְלָן מַה שֶׁרָאוּ בְקוֹטְנָן כול׳. אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין אֶלָּא בְגוֹדְלָן מַה שֶׁרָאוּ בְקוֹטְנָן. הָא בְקוֹטְנָן לֹא. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. נֶאֱמֶנֶת אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן לוֹמַר. מִיכָּן יָצָא נְחִל. מְהַלֵּךְ לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְנוֹטֵל אֶת נְחִילוֹ. וָכָה הוּא אוֹמֵר כֵּן. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אֶלָּא עַל נְחִיל שֶׁלַּדְּבוֹרִים שֶׁאֵין גְּזֵילוּ דְבַר תּוֹרָה. תַּנֵּי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָה. וּבִלְבַד בְּמַפְרִיחַ. אֲבָל בְּשׂוֹכוֹ לֹא. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא עַל אָתָרּ. הָא לְאַחַר זְמַן לֹא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַף אֲנָא סָבוּר כֵּן. וְתַנִּינָן. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בְּמַאֲמָרָן. אֲבָל יָצְאוּ וְחָזְרוּ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מִפְּנֵי יִרְאָה וּפִיתּוּי אָמְרוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what he saw in his minority,” etc. They are only trustworthy as adults²⁰³ about what they saw as minors; therefore, not as minors! There²⁰⁴ 10:2, a statement of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa., we have stated: “A woman or a minor are trustworthy when they said, from there a swarm of bees left. He then can enter another’s field and take his swarm.²⁰⁵” And here, you say so? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said this only about a swarm of bees because taking it is not robbery by biblical standards²⁰⁶ 10:2: “Because taking it is not robbery by stipulation.” There, the stipulation is attributed to Joshua at the time of the distribution of the Land. The moment the bees swarm, they really become ownerless. If the right of the beekeeper to the swarm which leaves his hive is by stipulation, then the testimony of a minor also can be accepted by stipulation; cf. 13:7, Note 110. The Babli (*Baba Qama*114b) agrees.. Rav Oshaiah stated, only if it is swarming²⁰⁷ 47b), one for whom it is not clear whether he is a minor or an adult. That does not make sense, in particular because in the Yerushalmi (*Berakhot* 7:2, Note 66) he is simply called “doubtful”.. But not if it clings to a branch²⁰⁸ (part 2, p. 115a, Note 135) reads אֲבָל בְּשָׁכֵן לֹא “but not when it is resting.” The text of the ms. is preferable since (a) it is confirmed by the different editorship of *Baba Qama* and (b) the Mishnah continues with a dispute whether the beekeeper is entitled to cut off the tree branch on which the bees have settled (and then pay the tree’s owner.). Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Is that not reasonable only when it happens, but not after some time? He said to him, I agree. And we have stated: When is this said? When they testified to what they said²⁰⁹(*loc. cit*.) reads: בִּוְמַן שֶׁהָעֵדִים בְּמַעֲמָדָן “as long as the witnesses stand (before the court).” The text of the ms. is preferable since (a) by the general rules of procedure no witnesses can testify twice in the same matter (Note 56) and (b) the reference is to the Mishnah here which is interpreted to mean that they are only trustworthy in matters that have pecuniary implications if their testimony is taken as soon as they indicate that they have knowledge of the matter, but not if in the meantime they were subject to outside influences. The Babli (*Baba Qama* 114b) admits the testimony of the minor about the swarm of bees “if he speaks without being prompted.”. But if they left and came back, I am saying that they speak out of fear or were seduced.

footnotes:
²⁰³ Otherwise, the Mishnah simply could have stated: “In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify about what he saw in his minority.”
²⁰⁴ Mishnah Baba Qama
²⁰⁵ The beekeeper has permission to enter to retrieve his swarm but he has to pay for any damage he may cause.
²⁰⁶ In Baba Qama
²⁰⁷ Some commentators want to refer “swarming” to the minor; that he can testify only as a “swarming minor” (Babli Berakhot
²⁰⁸ Sefer Ha‘ittur
²⁰⁹ Sefer Ha‘ittur