## Ketubot Daf 24a

###### Ketubot 24a:1
[Ketubot 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/24a:1)

אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**say no,** his claim is not accepted.


###### Ketubot 24a:2
[Ketubot 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/24a:2)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, מִשּׁוּם דְּמָמוֹנָא, אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, דְּאִיסּוּרָא — אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the *tanna* **taught us these two** cases, one might have thought that the claim is deemed credible **due to** the fact **that** the cases involve **monetary** matters; **however,** in the case of **a married woman** who claims that she was divorced, **which is a ritual** matter, **say no,** she is **not** deemed credible. Therefore, it was necessary for the *tanna* to teach us all three cases.


###### Ketubot 24a:3
[Ketubot 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/24a:3)

״נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ לְמָה לִי? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי: ״וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת בָּאוּ עֵדִים — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵּצֵא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to the case where one says: **I was taken captive and I am pure, why do I need** the *tanna* to teach that case? There is no novel element in that ruling, as it is merely another application of the same principle. The Gemara answers: The *tanna* taught that case **due to** the fact **that** the *tanna* **sought to teach** based on it: **And if the witnesses came after she married, this** woman need **not leave** her husband.


###### Ketubot 24a:4
[Ketubot 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/24a:4)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי: ״שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This** works out **well according to the one who teaches** this *halakha* in reference **to the latter clause** of the mishna with regard to a woman taken captive. **However, according to the one who taught** this *halakha* in reference **to the first clause** of the mishna, with regard to a woman who claimed that she was married and divorced, **what is there to say?** According to that opinion, the ruling with regard to a woman taken captive who claims that she remained pure is superfluous. If a woman is deemed credible in the case where the concern is that she is a married woman, she is all the more so deemed credible when the concern pertains to a less severe prohibition, that of a woman who was violated in captivity marrying a priest. The Gemara answers: The *tanna* taught the superfluous *halakha* that a woman claiming that she was taken captive and remained pure is deemed credible as an introduction, **due to** the fact **that he sought to** subsequently **teach** the case of **two women who were taken captive.**


###### Ketubot 24a:5
[Ketubot 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/24a:5)

וּ״שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ״ לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא נֵיחוּשׁ לְגוֹמְלִין, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And why do I** need the *tanna* to teach the case of **two women who were taken captive?** What novel element is introduced in that case that did not exist in the case of one woman? The Gemara answers: **Lest you say: Let us be concerned for collusion** between the women, that each would testify for the benefit of the other, the *tanna* therefore **teaches us** that this is not a concern.


###### Ketubot 24a:6
[Ketubot 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/24a:6)

״וְכֵן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים״ לְמָה לִי? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And why do I** need the *tanna* to teach the following case: **And likewise two men,** each testifying that the other is a priest? He already taught that if two women each testify that the other is pure, they are deemed credible. The Gemara answers: The *tanna* taught the superfluous *halakha* with regard to two men as an introduction, **due to** the fact **that he sought to** subsequently **teach the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis,** concerning whether or not the testimony of a single witness is deemed credible to establish another’s presumptive status as a priest.


###### Ketubot 24a:7
[Ketubot 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/24a:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲנִי כֹּהֵן וַחֲבֵרִי כֹּהֵן״ — נֶאֱמָן לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה: שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין עַל זֶה, וּשְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין עַל זֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה, שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין עַל זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין עַל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara elaborates: **The Rabbis taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of two men, each of whom says: **I am a priest and my counterpart is a priest,** each **is deemed credible** with regard **to enabling his** counterpart **to partake of *teruma*. But he is not deemed credible** with regard to establishing his presumptive status as a priest of unflawed lineage **for** the purpose of **his marrying a woman until there are three** people, the two claiming to be priests and an additional witness, so **that** there are **two** witnesses **testifying** with regard **to** the status of **this** person **and two** witnesses **testifying** with regard **to** the status of **that** person. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** Each **is not deemed credible even** with regard **to enabling his** counterpart **to partake of *teruma* until there are three** men, so **that** there are **two** witnesses **testifying** with regard **to this** person **and two** witnesses **testifying** with regard **to that** person.


###### Ketubot 24a:8
[Ketubot 24a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/24a:8)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה חָיֵישׁ לְגוֹמְלִין, וְרַבָּנַן לָא חָיְישִׁי לְגוֹמְלִין? וְהָא אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ, דִּתְנַן: הַחַמָּרִין שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָעִיר, וְאָמַר אֶחָד מֵהֶן: שֶׁלִּי חָדָשׁ, וְשֶׁל חֲבֵרִי יָשָׁן: שֶׁלִּי אֵינוֹ מְתוּקָּן, וְשֶׁל חֲבֵרִי מְתוּקָּן — אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned for collusion** between them, **and the Rabbis are not concerned for collusion? But didn’t we learn** that **they** said the **opposite? As we learned** in a mishna: In a case where there were **donkey drivers who entered a city, and one of them said: My** produce **is new** from this year’s crop, and it is not yet completely dry and therefore of lower quality, **and the** produce **of my counterpart is old** and dry and therefore more durable; or if he said: **My** produce **is not tithed and the** produce **of my counterpart is tithed, he is not deemed credible.** Presumably, there is collusion between the two merchants. In this city, one denigrates the quality of his own produce, enhancing his credibility, while praising the quality of the produce of his counterpart; and his counterpart says the same in the next city that they enter. **And Rabbi Yehuda says: He is deemed credible,** as apparently he is not concerned for collusion between the merchants.


###### Ketubot 24a:9
[Ketubot 24a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/24a:9)

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ. בִּדְמַאי הֵקֵילּוּ, רוֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מְעַשְּׂרִין הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava said** that **Rav said:** The attribution of **the opinions is reversed** in one of the *mishnayot*, so that the opinions of the *tanna’im* are consistent in both the case of the priests and the case of the donkey drivers. **Abaye said: Actually, do not reverse** the attribution, and the fact that Rabbi Yehuda accepts the claim of the donkey driver is because **with regard to doubtfully tithed produce [*demai*]** the Sages **were lenient,** because **most *amei ha’aretz* tithe** their produce. The ordinance of the Sages classifying produce purchased from an *am ha’aretz* as doubtfully tithed produce and requiring its tithing is based on a far-fetched concern. Therefore, testimony of any sort is sufficient to permit its consumption. However, as a rule, Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about collusion.


###### Ketubot 24a:10
[Ketubot 24a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/24a:10)

אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קַשְׁיָא, דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא? אֶלָּא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְשַׁנֵּינַן. דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא, בְּשֶׁכְּלֵי אוּמָּנוּתוֹ בְּיָדוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Is that to say that the contradiction between one statement **of Rabbi Yehuda** and another statement **of Rabbi Yehuda is difficult,** but the contradiction between one statement **of the Rabbis and** another statement **of the Rabbis is not difficult?** Clearly, the contradiction between the rulings of the Rabbis in the respective *mishnayot* is difficult. **Rather,** the contradiction between one statement **of Rabbi Yehuda** and another statement **of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we explained** above that Rabbi Yehuda was lenient with regard to doubtfully tithed produce. The contradiction between one statement **of the Rabbis and** another statement **of the Rabbis is** also **not difficult.** Fundamentally, the Rabbis are not concerned for collusion between the two parties. However, in the case of donkey drivers they are concerned, **as Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva said** in another context that it is referring to a case **where one has the tools of his trade in his hand.**