## Ketubot Daf 28a

###### Ketubot 28a:1
[Ketubot 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:1)

וְאִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן — לֹא תָּדוּר עִמּוֹ בְּמָבוֹי. אִם הָיָה כְּפָר קָטָן — זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְאָמְרוּ: כְּפָר קָטָן נִידּוֹן כִּשְׁכוּנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if he was a priest she may not live with him** even **in** one **alleyway** that opens into several courtyards, even if she did not remarry, as she is forbidden to him forever. What is the ruling **if it was a small village?** May she live with her ex-husband in the same village? The Gemara relates that **this** case of his divorcée and a small village **was an incident** that transpired **and** the Sages **said: A small village is judged as** his immediate **proximity.**


###### Ketubot 28a:2
[Ketubot 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:2)

מִי נִדְחֶה מִפְּנֵי מִי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: הִיא נִדְחֵית מִפָּנָיו, וְאֵין הוּא נִדְחֶה מִפָּנֶיהָ. וְאִם הָיְתָה חָצֵר שֶׁלָּהּ — הוּא נִדְחֶה מִפָּנֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In cases where they may not reside in the same courtyard or alleyway, **who is ousted in favor of whom?** Which of them must leave? The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **She is ousted in favor of him,** and leaves, **and he is not ousted in favor of her. But if it was her courtyard, he is ousted in favor of her.**


###### Ketubot 28a:3
[Ketubot 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:3)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָיְתָה חָצֵר שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: הִיא נִדְחֵית מִפָּנָיו. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּחָצֵר שֶׁלּוֹ, פְּשִׁיטָא! וְאֶלָּא בְּחָצֵר שֶׁלָּהּ, וְהָתַנְיָא: אִם הָיְתָה חָצֵר שֶׁלָּהּ — הוּא נִדְחֶה מִפָּנֶיהָ. אֶלָּא לָאו כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא, דִּלְמָא דַּאֲגִיר מֵיגָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised** before the Sages: If **it was a courtyard** belonging **to both of them, what is** the *halakha*; who is ousted in favor of whom? The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **She is ousted in favor of him.** The Gemara elaborates: **With what** circumstances **are we dealing? If we say** that the subject of the *baraita* is **with regard to his courtyard,** it is **obvious** that she is ousted. **But rather,** is it **with regard to her courtyard? Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **If it was her courtyard, he is ousted in favor of her? Rather, is it not** that the *baraita* is dealing with **a case like this,** where it was a courtyard belonging to both of them? The Gemara rejects this proof: **Perhaps** the *baraita* is teaching that even in a case **where he rented** the courtyard she is ousted in his favor. Therefore, the dilemma with regard to a courtyard belonging to both of them is unresolved.


###### Ketubot 28a:4
[Ketubot 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:4)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הִנֵּה ה׳ מְטַלְטֶלְךָ טַלְטֵלָה גָּבֶר״, וְאָמַר רַב: טִלְטוּלָא דְגַבְרָא קָשֵׁי מִדְּאִיתְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** halakhic conclusion **was** reached **about** this matter? The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof from the verse: **“The Lord will dislocate you the dislocation of a man”** (Isaiah 22:17), **and Rav said:** This indicates that **the dislocation of a man is more difficult** for him **than** the dislocation of **a woman** is for her. Therefore, the woman is ousted.


###### Ketubot 28a:5
[Ketubot 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לָוָה הֵימֶנָּה בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיהָ — אֵינָהּ נִפְרַעַת אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: וְאִי אָתוּ לְקַמַּן לְדִינָא, לָא מִזְדַּקְקִינַן לְהוּ. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: שַׁמּוֹתֵי מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לְהוּ. רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: נַגּוֹדֵי נָמֵי מְנַגְּדִינַן לְהוּ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: תָּנָא בְּאֵבֶל רַבָּתִי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין, אֲבָל כְּשֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין, נִפְרַעַת עַל יְדֵי עַצְמָהּ — שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** With regard to a priest who **borrowed from** his wife **from** usufruct **property** that she inherited from **her father** and then he divorced her, **she is repaid only by means of another** person and not directly from her husband, to prevent them from engaging in business dealings. **Rav Sheshet said: And if** after engaging in business dealings they **came before us for judgment, we do not attend to them** because by engaging in those dealings they were in violation of a transgression. **Rav Pappa said: We excommunicate them** for violating that transgression. **Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We also flog them** with lashes. **Rav Naḥman said:** The *tanna* **taught in *Evel Rabbati*,** one of the minor tractates that deals primarily with the *halakhot* of mourning: **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is in a case **where she was divorced from marriage. However, when she was divorced from betrothal, she is repaid** even directly **by means of** receiving the money **herself, because,** in that case, **he is not** yet **accustomed to her.** Since they never shared intimacy, there is no concern that it will lead to transgression.


###### Ketubot 28a:6
[Ketubot 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:6)

הָהוּא אָרוּס וַאֲרוּסָתוֹ דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. יְתֵיב רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָא קַמֵּיהּ. אוֹקִי רָבָא שְׁלוּחָא בֵּינְתַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָא, וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: תָּנָא בְּאֵבֶל רַבָּתִי כּוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָא חָזֵינָא דְּ(קָא) גָּיְיסִי בַּהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was an incident concerning **this** divorced, **betrothed man and his betrothed who came before Rava** for judgment, and **Rav Adda bar Mattana was sitting before him** at the time. **Rava placed an intermediary** to separate **between them. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to** Rava: **But didn’t Rav Naḥman say:** The *tanna* **taught in *Evel Rabbati*** that if she was divorced from betrothal she is paid directly? Rava **said to him:** This applies only in a case where they are not accustomed to each other. However, with regard to these people, **we see that they are accustomed to each other,** and therefore they must be separated.


###### Ketubot 28a:7
[Ketubot 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:7)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: לָא אוֹקִי רָבָא שָׁלִיחַ בֵּינְתַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָא: נֹיקֵום מָר שְׁלוּחָא בֵּינְתַיְיהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא [אָמַר] רַב נַחְמָן תָּנָא בְּאֵבֶל רַבָּתִי כּוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי, הֵיכָא דְּלָא גָּיְיסִי בַּהֲדָדֵי, אֲבָל הָנֵי — קָא חָזֵינָא לְהוּ דְּגָיְיסִי בַּהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** that **Rava did not place an intermediary** to separate **between them. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to** Rava: **Let the Master place an intermediary** to separate **between them.** Rava **said to** Rav Adda bar Mattana: **But didn’t Rav Naḥman say:** The *tanna* **taught in *Evel Rabbati*** that if she was divorced from betrothal she is paid directly? Rav Adda bar Mattana **said to** Rava: **This applies only** in a case **where they are not accustomed to each other. However,** with regard to **these** people, **we see that they are accustomed to each other,** and therefore they must be separated.


###### Ketubot 28a:8
[Ketubot 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְאֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין לְהָעִיד בְּגוֹדְלָן מַה שֶּׁרָאוּ בְּקוֹטְנָן. נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר: ״זֶה כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁל אַבָּא״, וְ״זֶה כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי״, וְ״זֶה כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁל אָחִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And these are deemed credible to testify in their majority** with regard to **what they saw in their minority. A person is deemed credible to say: This is my father’s handwriting, and** to say: **This is my teacher’s handwriting; and** to say: **This is my brother’s handwriting,** even though he never saw their handwriting after reaching majority.


###### Ketubot 28a:9
[Ketubot 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:9)

״זָכוּר הָיִיתִי בִּפְלוֹנִית שֶׁיָּצְאָה בְּהִינוּמָא וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ״, וְ״שֶׁהָיָה אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר לִטְבּוֹל, לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה״. וְ״שֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֵק עִמָּנוּ עַל הַגּוֹרֶן״. וְ״הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה בֵּית הַפְּרָס״. וְ״עַד כָּאן הָיִינוּ בָּאִין בַּשַּׁבָּת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Similarly, one is deemed credible to say: **I was reminded of** the wedding of **so-and-so, who went out with a *hinnuma*, or** with **her hair uncovered** in a manner typical of virgins, and therefore, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars; **and** to say **that so-and-so would leave school to immerse** in order **to partake of *teruma*, and that he would share** *teruma* **with us at the threshing floor** and therefore he is a priest. Similarly, one is deemed credible to say: **This place is a *beit haperas*,** a field with a grave that was plowed, scattering the bones, and rendering the field a place of uncertain ritual impurity; **and** to say: **Until here we would come on Shabbat** and thereby determine the Shabbat boundary.


###### Ketubot 28a:10
[Ketubot 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:10)

אֲבָל אֵין אָדָם נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר ״דֶּרֶךְ הָיָה לִפְלוֹנִי בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה״, ״מַעֲמָד וּמִסְפֵּד הָיָה לִפְלוֹנִי בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, a person is neither deemed credible to say: So-and-so had a path in this place;** nor to say: **So-and-so had** a tract of land where they would perform the ritual of **standing** and sitting **and** deliver **a eulogy in that place,** thereby attesting that the land belongs to that person. The reason he is not deemed credible in those cases is that full-fledged testimony is required to remove property from the possession of its presumptive owner.


###### Ketubot 28a:11
[Ketubot 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ גָּדוֹל עִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: And** the mishna said that one is deemed credible to testify about handwriting he saw as a minor only **when there is** a witness who saw the handwriting as an **adult** testifying **with him.**


###### Ketubot 28a:12
[Ketubot 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:12)

וּצְרִיכָא. דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אָבִיו — מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁכִיחַ גַּבֵּיהּ, אֲבָל רַבּוֹ — לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן רַבּוֹ, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית לֵיהּ אֵימְתֵיהּ דְּרַבֵּיהּ, אֲבָל אָבִיו — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** all of these cases are **necessary,** as one could not have been derived from the other. **As, if** the *tanna* had **taught us** the case of **his father’s** handwriting, one might have thought that he is deemed credible **due to** the fact **that he is** often **found with his** father and is familiar with his handwriting; **but** with regard to **his teacher’s** handwriting, **no,** he is not deemed credible. **And if** the *tanna* had **taught us** the case of **his teacher’s** handwriting, one might have thought that he is deemed credible **due to** the fact **that he has** a sense of **awe of his teacher** and therefore pays attention to his handwriting; **but** with regard to **his father’s** handwriting, **no,** he is not deemed credible.


###### Ketubot 28a:13
[Ketubot 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:13)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי: אָבִיו — דִּשְׁכִיחַ גַּבֵּיהּ, וְרַבּוֹ — דְּאִית לֵיהּ אֵימְתֵיהּ, אֲבָל אָחִיו דְּלֵית לֵיהּ לָא הָא וְלָא הָא — אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כֵּיוָן דְּקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת מִדְּרַבָּנַן, הֵימְנוּהוּ רַבָּנַן בִּדְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the *tanna* had **taught us these two** cases, one might have thought that he is deemed credible with regard to **his father’s** handwriting due to the fact **that he is** often **found with him, and his teacher’s** handwriting due to the fact **that he has** a sense of **awe of him. But** with regard to **his brother’s** handwriting, **which has neither this** factor **nor that** factor, **say no,** he is not deemed credible. Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us: Since ratification of documents is** required **by rabbinic** law, as by Torah law, the signatories are sufficient proof of a document’s validity; **the Sages deemed him credible** to testify in cases that he witnessed as a minor in matters that are **by rabbinic** law, including the case of his brother.


###### Ketubot 28a:14
[Ketubot 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:14)

״זָכוּר הָיִיתִי בִּפְלוֹנִית שֶׁיָּצְאָה בְּהִינוּמָא וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ״. מַאי טַעְמָא — כֵּיוָן דְּרוֹב נָשִׁים בְּתוּלוֹת נִישָּׂאוֹת, גִּלּוּי מִלְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the mishna states that one is deemed credible to say: **I was reminded of** the wedding of **so-and-so, who went out with a *hinnuma*, or** with **her hair uncovered. What is the reason** that he is deemed credible? **Since most women are married as virgins,** her presumptive status is that of a virgin even without his testimony. His testimony with regard to what he saw as a minor **is merely revealing of a matter** already presumed true, not actual testimony.


###### Ketubot 28a:15
[Ketubot 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:15)

וְ״שֶׁהָיָה אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר לִטְבּוֹל, לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה״. וְדִלְמָא עֶבֶד כֹּהֵן הוּא? מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיְּלַמֵּד אֶת עַבְדּוֹ תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the mishna states that one is deemed credible to say **that so-and-so would leave school to immerse** in order **to partake of *teruma*,** and therefore he is a priest. The Gemara asks: **And perhaps he is the slave of a priest,** who is also eligible to partake of *teruma*. The Gemara notes: This mishna provides **support for** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited for a person to teach his slave Torah.** Since the testimony is that he was in school, apparently he is not a slave. Therefore, the fact that he partook of *teruma* indicates that he is a priest.


###### Ketubot 28a:16
[Ketubot 28a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/28a:16)

וְלָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: לָוָה הֵימֶנּוּ רַבּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ רַבּוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** may one **not** teach his slave Torah? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: A slave **whose master borrowed from him, or whose master made him**