## Ketubot Daf 22a

###### Ketubot 22a:1
[Ketubot 22a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/22a:1)

תְּרֵי וּתְרֵי נִינְהוּ. אִי עַרְעָר דִּפְגַם מִשְׁפָּחָה, גִּלּוּי מִלְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא. לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ עַרְעָר דְּגַזְלָנוּתָא, וְקָאָמְרִי הָנֵי: יָדְעִינַן בֵּיהּ דַּעֲבַד תְּשׁוּבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the witnesses who testified that he is unfit and the judges who testified that he is fit **are two** witnesses **and two** witnesses who contradict them, and in that case, the allegation of theft is not completely eliminated. **If** it was **a challenge** based on an allegation of **flawed lineage,** e.g., he is a Canaanite slave and therefore unfit to serve as a judge, that **is a mere revealing of a matter** that will ultimately be revealed in any case and does not require actual testimony. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest preventing the judges from asserting his fitness after they signed. The Gemara concludes: **Actually, I will say to you** that it was **a challenge** based on an allegation **of theft, and these** judges **say: We know about him that he repented** and is now fit to serve as a judge. In that case, their testimony does not contradict the original testimony that he was guilty of theft.


###### Ketubot 22a:2
[Ketubot 22a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/22a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא מִלְּתָא מֵרַבִּי אַבָּא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, וְאִי לָאו רַבִּי אַבָּא דְּמִן עַכּוֹ, שְׁכַחְתַּהּ: שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁיָּשְׁבוּ לְקַיֵּים אֶת הַשְּׁטָר וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶם — צְרִיכִין לְמִיכְתַּב: ״בְּמוֹתַב תְּלָתָא הֲוֵינָא, וְחַד לֵיתוֹהִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Zeira said: This matter, I heard from Rabbi Abba, and if it was not for Rabbi Abba of Akko, I would have forgotten it.** With regard to a case of **three** judges **who convened** as a tribunal **to ratify a document, and one of them died** before signing the ratification, the surviving judges **must** emend the standard formula of the ratification and **write: We were** convened **in a session of three** judges, **and one** of the judges **is no longer** alive. In that way it is clear that although only two judges signed, the document was ratified by three judges.


###### Ketubot 22a:3
[Ketubot 22a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/22a:3)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: וְאִי כְּתַב בֵּיהּ: שְׁטָרָא דְּנַן נְפַק לִקְדָמַנָא בֵּי דִינָא — תּוּ לָא צְרִיךְ. וְדִלְמָא בֵּית דִּין חָצוּף הוּא, וּכְדִשְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁדָּנוּ, דִּינֵיהֶם דִּין, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְרָא בֵּית דִּין חָצוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And if** the judges **wrote in** the ratification: **This document was produced before us, the court;** they **no longer need** to add that they were three judges, as, when unmodified, the term court connotes a tribunal of three judges. The Gemara asks: **And perhaps it was an impudent court, and** that is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Two** judges **who** convened a tribunal and **judged, their verdict is a** binding **verdict; however,** because they contravened the rabbinic ordinance mandating that a court be comprised of three judges, **they are called an impudent court.** Therefore, writing: Before us, the court, does not rule out the possibility that the document was ratified by fewer than three judges.


###### Ketubot 22a:4
[Ketubot 22a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/22a:4)

דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״בֵּי דִינָא דְּרַבַּנָא אָשֵׁי״. וְדִלְמָא רַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב אָשֵׁי כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל סְבִירָא לְהוּ! דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וְאָמַר לַנָא רַבַּנָא אָשֵׁי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is clear that the document was ratified by the requisite three judges, **as it is written in** the ratification: Before us, **the court of our** teacher **Rav Ashi,** which presumably conforms to rabbinic protocol. The Gemara asks: **And perhaps the Rabbis of the court of Rav Ashi hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel** and they convened an impudent court, whose ruling is binding. The Gemara answers: It is clear, **as it is written in** the ratification: Before us, the court of our teacher Rav Ashi, **and our** teacher **Rav Ashi said to us** how to ratify the document.


###### Ketubot 22a:5
[Ketubot 22a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/22a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי וּגְרוּשָׁה אֲנִי״ — נֶאֱמֶנֶת. שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר, הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהָיְתָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: ״גְּרוּשָׁה אֲנִי״, אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. אָמְרָה: ״נִשְׁבֵּיתִי, וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ — נֶאֱמֶנֶת. שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר, הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: ״טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ — אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת בָּאוּ עֵדִים — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵּצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a woman who said: I was a married woman and** now **I am a divorcée, she is deemed credible** and permitted to remarry, **as the mouth that prohibited** and established that she was married **is the mouth that permitted,** and established that she is divorced. **However, if there are witnesses that she was a married woman, and she says: I am a divorcée, she is not deemed credible.** Similarly, with regard to a woman who **said: I was taken captive but I am pure,** as I was not raped in captivity, **she is deemed credible** and permitted to marry a priest, **as the mouth that prohibited** and established that she was taken captive **is the mouth that permitted** and established that she was not defiled. **But if there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and she says: I am pure, she is not deemed credible. And if witnesses came after she married, this** woman need **not leave** her husband.


###### Ketubot 22a:6
[Ketubot 22a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/22a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מִנַּיִן לְהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לְאִשָּׁה״. ״לָאִישׁ״ — אָסְרָה, ״הַזֶּה״ — הִתִּירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Asi said: From where in the Torah** is the principle: **The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted,** derived? It is derived **as it is stated: “I gave my daughter to this man [*la’ish hazeh*] as a wife”** (Deuteronomy 22:16). When the father said that he married her off **“to the man [*la’ish*]”** without revealing his identity, **he rendered her forbidden** to all men. When he then says **“this [*hazeh*],”** thereby identifying the man to whom he married her off, **he renders her permitted** to her husband.


###### Ketubot 22a:7
[Ketubot 22a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/22a:7)

לְמָה לִי קְרָא? סְבָרָא הִיא: הוּא אַסְרַהּ, וְהוּא שָׁרֵי לַהּ! אֶלָּא כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, לְכִדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן לָאָב שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן לֶאֱסוֹר אֶת בִּתּוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ״. ״הַזֶּה״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need to derive this from **the verse? It is** based on **logic: He rendered her forbidden and he rendered her permitted. Rather, where this verse is necessary, is** in order **to** derive the *halakha* **that Rav Huna said** that **Rav said, as Rav Huna said** that **Rav said: From where in the Torah** is it derived that **a father is deemed credible to render his daughter forbidden?** It is derived **as it is stated: “I gave my daughter to the man [*la’ish*]”** (Deuteronomy 22:16). The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the subsequent term **“this [*hazeh*]”?**


###### Ketubot 22a:8
[Ketubot 22a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/22a:8)

מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנֵי רַבִּי יוֹנָה. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי יוֹנָה: ״אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה״. ״הַזֶּה״ — וְלֹא לַיָּבָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The verse **is necessary to** derive the *halakha* that **Rabbi Yona taught; as Rabbi Yona taught** in a *baraita* that in the verse: **“I gave my daughter to this man,”** written in the context of a husband slandering his wife, **“this”** is written to infer: The *halakhot* in this passage apply to a man who slanders his wife and **not to the *yavam*,** in the case of levirate marriage.


###### Ketubot 22a:9
[Ketubot 22a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/22a:9)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה ״אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אֲנִי״, וְחָזְרָה וְאָמְרָה ״פְּנוּיָה אֲנִי״ — נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְהָא שַׁוְּויַהּ לְנַפְשַׁהּ חֲתִיכָה דְּאִיסּוּרָא? אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּתְנָה אַמַּתְלָא לִדְבָרֶיהָ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אָמְרָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אֲנִי, וְחָזְרָה וְאָמְרָה: פְּנוּיָה אֲנִי — אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאִם נָתְנָה אַמַּתְלָא לִדְבָרֶיהָ — נֶאֱמֶנֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** with regard to **the woman who said: I am a married woman, and then said: I am unmarried,** that **she is deemed credible.** The Gemara asks: **But didn’t she render herself an entity of prohibition?** When she said that she was married she rendered herself forbidden to all men. How then can she abrogate the prohibition? The Gemara answers that **Rava bar Rav Huna said:** It is referring to a case **where she provided a rationale [*amatla*] for her** initial **statement** and explained why she said that she was a married woman. **That was also taught** in a *baraita* with regard to **the woman who said: I am a married woman, and then said: I am unmarried,** that **she is not deemed credible. And if she provided a rationale for her** initial **statement, she is deemed credible.**


###### Ketubot 22a:10
[Ketubot 22a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/22a:10)

וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁהָיְתָה גְּדוֹלָה בְּנוֹי, וְקָפְצוּ עָלֶיהָ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְקַדְּשָׁהּ. וְאָמְרָה לָהֶם: ״מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת אֲנִי״. לְיָמִים עָמְדָה וְקִידְּשָׁה אֶת עַצְמָהּ. אָמְרוּ לָהּ חֲכָמִים: מָה רָאִית לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן? אָמְרָה לָהֶם: בַּתְּחִלָּה שֶׁבָּאוּ עָלַי אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָם מְהוּגָּנִים, אָמַרְתִּי: ״מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת אֲנִי״, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁבָּאוּ עָלַי אֲנָשִׁים מְהוּגָּנִים, עָמַדְתִּי וְקִדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת עַצְמִי. וְזוֹ הֲלָכָה הֶעֱלָה רַב אַחָא שַׂר הַבִּירָה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בְּאוּשָׁא, וְאָמְרוּ: אִם נָתְנָה אַמַּתְלָא לִדְבָרֶיהָ — נֶאֱמֶנֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there was also an incident involving an important woman who was outstanding in beauty, and** many **men were clamoring to betroth her. And she said to them: I am** already **betrothed. Sometime later she arose and betrothed herself** to a man. **The Sages said to her: What did you see** that led you **to do so? She said to them: Initially, when unscrupulous people approached me** seeking to marry me, **I said: I am betrothed. Now that scrupulous people approached me, I arose and betrothed myself** to one of them. **And** the Gemara notes: **This *halakha* was raised by Rav Aḥa Sar HaBira before the Sages in Usha,** the seat of the Sanhedrin, **and** the Sages **said: If she provided a rationale for her statement, she is deemed credible.**


###### Ketubot 22a:11
[Ketubot 22a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/22a:11)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל מֵרַב: אָמְרָה ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״, וְחָזְרָה וְאָמְרָה ״טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף בְּזוֹ, אִם נָתְנָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel raised a dilemma before Rav:** If a woman **said** to her husband: **I am ritually impure** as I am menstruating, **and then said: I am pure, what is** the *halakha*? Is she permitted based on her latter statement, or did she render herself an entity of prohibition with her first statement and therefore remains forbidden? Rav **said to him: Even in that** case, **if she provided a**