## Ketubot Daf 23b

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

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת ״נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״, וְזֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת ״נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ — אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנוֹת. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְעִידוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case where witnesses testify that there are **two women who were taken captive,** and **this** woman **says: I was taken captive but I am pure, and that** woman **says: I was taken captive but I am pure, they are not deemed credible. And when this** woman **testifies about that** woman that she is pure and vice versa, **they are deemed credible.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲנִי טְמֵאָה וַחֲבֶרְתִּי טְהוֹרָה״ — נֶאֱמֶנֶת. ״אֲנִי טְהוֹרָה וַחֲבֶרְתִּי טְמֵאָה״ — אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. ״אֲנִי וַחֲבֶרְתִּי טְמֵאָה״ — נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַל עַצְמָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ. ״אֲנִי וַחֲבֶרְתִּי טְהוֹרָה״ — נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַל עַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in the *Tosefta* (2:2): If one of the women says: **I am tainted and my counterpart is pure, she is deemed credible** on both counts. If she says: **I am pure and my counterpart is tainted, she is not deemed credible** with regard to herself nor with regard to her counterpart. If she says: **I and my counterpart are** both **tainted, she is deemed credible with regard to herself but she is not deemed credible with regard to her counterpart.** If she says: **I and my counterpart are** both **pure, she is deemed credible with regard to her counterpart but she is not deemed credible with regard to herself.**


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

אָמַר מָר: ״אֲנִי טְהוֹרָה וַחֲבֶרְתִּי טְמֵאָה״ — אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים, עַל עַצְמָהּ אַמַּאי לָא מְהֵימְנָא? ״נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ קָאָמְרָה! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** in the *baraita* that if she says: **I am pure and my counterpart is tainted, she is not deemed credible.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If there are no witnesses** that she was taken captive, **why is she not deemed credible with regard to herself?** If she is saying: **I was taken captive and I am pure,** she is deemed credible based on the principle that the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted. Rather, it is **obvious that there are witnesses** that she was taken captive.


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

אֵימָא מְצִיעֲתָא: ״אֲנִי וַחֲבֶרְתִּי טְמֵאָה״ — נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַל עַצְמָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ. וְאִי דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים — אַמַּאי לָא מְהֵימְנָא? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **say the middle clause** of the *baraita*: If she says: **I and my counterpart are** both **tainted, she is deemed credible with regard to herself but she is not deemed credible with regard to her counterpart. And if there are witnesses, why is she not deemed credible** with regard to her counterpart? Once there is testimony that she was taken captive, she no longer has the presumptive status of purity. Rather, it is **obvious that there are no witnesses** that she was taken captive, and therefore her presumptive status of purity is intact.


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

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״אֲנִי וַחֲבֶרְתִּי טְהוֹרָה״ — נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַל עַצְמָהּ. וְאִי דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים — אַעַצְמָהּ אַמַּאי לָא מְהֵימְנָא? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **say the last clause** of the *baraita*: If she says: **I and my counterpart are** both **pure, she is deemed credible with regard to her counterpart but she is not deemed credible with regard to herself. And if there are no witnesses** that they were taken captive, **why is she not deemed credible with regard to herself?** Rather, it is **obvious that there are witnesses.**


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

רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים, מְצִיעֲתָא דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִין. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא — דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים, מְצִיעֲתָא — דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the *baraita* is formulated in an unusual fashion, with the **first clause and the last clause** pertaining to cases **where there are witnesses, and the middle clause** pertaining to a case **where there are no witnesses? Abaye said: Yes,** the **first clause and the last clause** pertain to cases **where there are witnesses, and the middle clause** pertains to a case **where there are no witnesses.**


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

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים, וְאִיכָּא עֵד אֶחָד דְּקָא אָפֵיךְ. אָמְרָה: ״אֲנִי טְמֵאָה וַחֲבֶרְתִּי טְהוֹרָה״, וְאָמַר לַהּ עֵד אֶחָד: ״אַתְּ טְהוֹרָה וַחֲבֶרְתֵּךְ טְמֵאָה״. אִיהִי שַׁוִּיתַהּ לְנַפְשַׁהּ חֲתִיכָה דְּאִיסּוּרָא, חֲבֶרְתָּהּ מִשְׁתַּרְיָא אַפּוּמָּא דִידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** The *baraita* in **its entirety** can be explained in a case **where there are witnesses, and there is one witness who is** testifying to the **reverse** of the woman’s claim. If the woman **said: I am tainted and my counterpart is pure, and one witness said to her: You are pure and your counterpart is tainted,** although the witness testified that she was pure, because she admitted that she was tainted **she rendered herself an entity of prohibition. Her counterpart is permitted on the basis of her** claim, which is accepted despite being contradicted by the witness.


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

״אֲנִי טְהוֹרָה וַחֲבֶרְתִּי טְמֵאָה״, וְאָמַר לָהּ עֵד אֶחָד: ״אַתְּ טְמֵאָה וַחֲבֶרְתְּךָ טְהוֹרָה״. אִיהִי, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים — לָאו כָּל כְּמִינַהּ, חֲבֶרְתַּהּ — מִשְׁתַּרְיָא אַפּוּמָּא דְעֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the woman said: **I am pure and my counterpart is tainted, and one witness said to her: You are tainted and your counterpart is pure,** then with regard to **her, since there are witnesses** testifying that she was taken captive, **it is not in her power** to permit herself on the basis of her claim. However, **her counterpart is permitted on the basis of the** testimony of the **witness.**


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

״אֲנִי וַחֲבֶרְתִּי טְמֵאָה״, וְאָמַר לַהּ עֵד אֶחָד: ״אַתְּ וַחֲבֶרְתֵּךְ טְהוֹרָה״ — אִיהִי שַׁוִּיתַהּ לְנַפְשַׁהּ חֲתִיכָה דְּאִיסּוּרָא, חֲבֶרְתַּהּ מִשְׁתַּרְיָא אַפּוּמָּא דְעֵד. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the woman said: **I and my counterpart are** both **tainted, and one witness said to her: You and your friend are** both **pure, she rendered herself an entity of prohibition.** However, **her counterpart is permitted on the basis of the** testimony of the **witness.** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **this additional** case? **This is** identical **to** that which was taught in the in the **first clause.** The principles governing the first two cases, i.e., she claims that she is tainted and thereby renders herself as an entity of prohibition, and her counterpart is permitted by the testimony of one witness even if that testimony is contradicted, also apply in this case.


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ טְהוֹרוֹת נִינְהוּ, וְהַאי דְּקָאָמְרָה הָכִי, ״תָּמוֹת נַפְשִׁי עִם פְּלִשְׁתִּים״ הִיא דְּקָא עָבְדָה — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that in this case, **both of them are** deemed **untainted** in accordance with the testimony of the witness, **and** the fact **that she said that** they are both tainted **was** because **she was acting** with the intention termed: **“Let me die with the Philistines”** (Judges 16:30), i.e., she was willing to implicate herself in order to bolster her credibility so that her testimony against her counterpart would be accepted, the *tanna* therefore **teaches us** that this is not a consideration.


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

״אֲנִי וַחֲבֶרְתִּי טְהוֹרָה״, וְאָמַר לָהּ עֵד אֶחָד: ״אַתְּ וַחֲבֶרְתֵּךְ טְמֵאָה״, אִיהִי כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים — לָאו כָּל כְּמִינַּהּ. חֲבֶרְתַּהּ מִשְׁתַּרְיָא אַפּוּמָּא דִידַהּ. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא דְרֵישָׁא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the woman said: **I and my counterpart are** both **pure, and one witness said to her: You and your counterpart are** both **tainted,** with regard to **her, since there are witnesses** testifying that she was taken captive, **it is not in her power** to permit herself on the basis of her claim. However, **her counterpart is permitted on the basis of her** claim. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **this additional** case? **This is** identical **to** that which was taught in the **first part of the first clause.** The principles governing the first two cases, i.e., her claim that she is pure is not accepted when the fact that she was taken captive was established by witnesses, and her counterpart is permitted on the basis of her claim even if that claim is contradicted, also apply in this case.


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כִּי מְהֵימְנָא — בְּמָקוֹם דְּפָסְלָה נַפְשַׁהּ, אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם דְּמַכְשְׁרָא נַפְשַׁהּ — אֵימָא לָא מְהֵימְנָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that **when is she deemed credible** to permit her counterpart, it is only in a case **where she rendered herself unfit** to marry a priest, **but** in a case **where she rendered herself fit, say that she is not deemed credible** with regard to her counterpart; the *tanna* therefore **teaches us** that each segment of the testimony is assessed independently, based on the criteria taught in the first clause.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** וְכֵן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים, זֶה אוֹמֵר ״כֹּהֵן אֲנִי״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״כֹּהֵן אֲנִי״ — אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְעִידִין זֶה אֶת זֶה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַעֲלִין לִכְהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵימָתַי — בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עוֹרְרִין. אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹרְרִין — מַעֲלִין לִכְהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן הַסְּגָן: מַעֲלִין לִכְהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And likewise,** with regard to **two men** whose lineage is unknown, and **this** man **says: I am a priest, and that** man **says: I am a priest, they are not deemed credible. And when this** man **testifies about that** man that he is a priest and vice versa, **they are deemed credible. Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not elevate** a man **to priesthood on the basis of one witness.** Two witnesses are required for that purpose. **Rabbi Elazar says: When** is that the ruling? In a case **where there are challengers** to his claim that he is a priest. **However,** in a case **where there are no challengers, one elevates** a man **to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy** High Priest: **One elevates** a man **to priesthood on the basis of one witness.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** כֹּל הָנֵי לְמָה לִי! צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי תְּנָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא. אֲבָל עֵדִים, דְּלֵיכָּא דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא — אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **all these** different cases cited in the *mishnayot* in this chapter? Aren’t they all based on the principle: The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted? The Gemara answers: These cases are all **necessary, as, if** the *tanna* had **taught** only the case where **Rabbi Yehoshua concedes, in** a case where one says to another: This field, which is currently in my possession, belonged to your father, and I purchased it from him, then one might have thought that his claim is deemed credible **due to** the fact **that there is financial significance [*derara*]** in his contention that it belonged to the other’s father, and he would not have made that claim if it were not true. However, in the case of witnesses authenticating their signatures, **where there is no financial significance** for them in their testimony, **say no,** their claim is not accepted.


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

וְאִי תְּנָא עֵדִים, מִשּׁוּם דִּלְעָלְמָא, אֲבָל אִיהוּ, דִּלְנַפְשֵׁיהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the *tanna* **taugh**t only the case of **witnesses,** one might have thought that their claim is deemed credible **due to** the fact **that** their testimony is relevant **to others. However,** with regard to **him, whose** testimony is relevant **to himself,** as he claims that he purchased the field from the other’s father,