## Ketubot Daf 23a

###### Ketubot 23a:1
[Ketubot 23a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:1)

מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?

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


###### Ketubot 23a:2
[Ketubot 23a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:2)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תַּרְגְּמַהּ בְּעֵד אֶחָד: עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״נִתְקַדְּשָׁה״, וְעֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה״ — תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בִּפְנוּיָה קָמַסְהֲדִי, וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר ״נִתְקַדְּשָׁה״ — הֲוָה לֵיהּ חַד, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:3
[Ketubot 23a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:3)

סֵיפָא, עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״נִתְגָּרְשָׁה״, וְעֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה״ — תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ קָמַסְהֲדִי, וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר ״נִתְגָּרְשָׁה״ — הָוֵה לֵיהּ חַד, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:4
[Ketubot 23a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:4)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם תְּרֵי וּתְרֵי, וְאֵיפוֹךְ: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״רְאִינוּהָ שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה״, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״לֹא רְאִינוּהָ שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא, וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת — תֵּצֵא.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:5
[Ketubot 23a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:5)

פְּשִׁיטָא: ״לֹא רְאִינוּהָ״ אֵינָהּ רְאָיָה! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּדָיְירִי בְּחָצֵר אֶחָד. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִם אִיתָא דְּנִתְקַדְּשָׁה — קָלָא אִית לַהּ לְמִילְּתָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּעָבְדִי אִינָשֵׁי דִּמְקַדְּשִׁי בְּצִנְעָא.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:6
[Ketubot 23a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:6)

סֵיפָא: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״רְאִינוּהָ שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה״, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״לֹא רְאִינוּהָ שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא, וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת — לֹא תֵּצֵא. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? אַף עַל גַּב דְּדָיְירִי בְּחָצֵר אֶחָד — הַיְינוּ הָךְ!

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


###### Ketubot 23a:7
[Ketubot 23a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:7)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: גַּבֵּי קִדּוּשִׁין הוּא דַּעֲבִידִי אִינָשֵׁי דִּמְקַדְּשִׁי בְּצִנְעָא, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי גֵירוּשִׁין, אִם אִיתָא דְּאִיגָּרְשָׁא — קָלָא אִית לַהּ לְמִילְּתָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּעֲבִידִי אִינָשֵׁי דִּמְקַדְּשִׁי וְדִמְגָרְשִׁי בְּצִנְעָא.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:8
[Ketubot 23a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:8)

וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת בָּאוּ עֵדִים לֹא תֵּצֵא כּוּ׳. רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא, רַבָּה בַּר אָבִין מַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:9
[Ketubot 23a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:9)

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַסֵּיפָא, דְּבִשְׁבוּיָה הֵקֵילּוּ. וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, אֲבָל אַרֵישָׁא — לָא.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:10
[Ketubot 23a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:10)

לֵימָא בִּדְרַב הַמְנוּנָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דְּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא, אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא. וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:11
[Ketubot 23a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:11)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא בְּפָנָיו, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו — מְעִיזָּה. וּמָר סָבַר: שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו נָמֵי אֵינָהּ מְעִיזָּה.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:12
[Ketubot 23a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:12)

וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת בָּאוּ עֵדִים וְכוּ׳. אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא ״נִשֵּׂאת״ נִשֵּׂאת מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִתִּירוּהָ לִינָּשֵׂא — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת. וְהָא ״לֹא תֵּצֵא״ קָתָנֵי! לֹא תֵּצֵא מֵהֶתֵּירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:13
[Ketubot 23a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, אָמְרָה: ״נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְיֵשׁ לִי עֵדִים שֶׁטְּהוֹרָה אֲנִי״, אֵין אוֹמְרִים: נַמְתִּין עַד שֶׁיָּבֹאוּ עֵדִים, אֶלָּא מַתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּד. הִתִּירוּהָ לִינָּשֵׂא וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים, וְאָמְרוּ: לֹא יָדַעְנוּ — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵּצֵא. וְאִם בָּאוּ עֵדֵי טוּמְאָה, אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ לָהּ כַּמָּה בָּנִים — תֵּצֵא.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:14
[Ketubot 23a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:14)

הָנֵי שְׁבוּיָיתָא דְּאָתְיָין לִנְהַרְדְּעָא. אוֹתֵיב אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל נָטוֹרֵי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: וְעַד הָאִידָּנָא מַאן נַטְרִינְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ בְּנָתָךְ הָוְויָן, מִי הֲוֵית מְזַלְזֵל בְּהוּ כּוּלֵּי הַאי?

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


###### Ketubot 23a:15
[Ketubot 23a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:15)

הֲוַאי ״כִּשְׁגָגָה שֶׁיּוֹצָא מִלִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁלִּיט״, וְאִישְׁתַּבְיָין בְּנָתֵיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְאַסְּקִינְהוּ לְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אוֹקְמָן לְשָׁבוֹיִינְהִי מֵאַבָּרַאי, וְעָיְילִי [אִינְהִי] לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא. הָא אֲמַרָה: ״נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״, וְהָא אֲמַרָה: ״נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ — שְׁרִינְהוּ.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:16
[Ketubot 23a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:16)

סוֹף עוּל אֲתוֹ שָׁבוֹיִינְהוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בְּנָן דְּמוֹרְיָין אִינּוּן. אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דִּבְנָתֵיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל הַוְויָן.

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


###### Ketubot 23a:17
[Ketubot 23a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא לְרַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא: פּוֹק אִיטַּפַּל בְּקָרִיבָתָיךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: וְהָאִיכָּא עֵדִים בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם! הַשְׁתָּא מִיהַת לֵיתַנְהוּ קַמַּן. עֵדִים בְּצַד אִסְתָּן, וְתֵאָסֵר? טַעְמָא דְּלָא אֲתוֹ עֵדִים, הָא אֲתוֹ עֵדִים, מִיתַּסְרָא?

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


###### Ketubot 23a:18
[Ketubot 23a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/23a:18)

וְהָאָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִתִּירוּהָ לִינָּשֵׂא, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: עֵדֵי טוּמְאָה אִיתְּמַר.

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