## Kiddushin Daf 65b

###### Kiddushin 65b:1
[Kiddushin 65b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:1)

אָמְרִינַן הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי יִחוּד, הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי בִיאָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: אָמְרִינַן הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי יִחוּד, הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי בִיאָה. וּמוֹדִים וַדַּאי בְּנִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין, דְּלָא אָמְרִינַן הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי יִחוּד הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי בִיאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**say: These are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse.** According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in intercourse. **And Beit Hillel hold: We** do **say** that **these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse.** Since it is assumed that they engaged in intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him. **And** Beit Hillel **concede** to Beit Shammai that **certainly in** the case of a woman **divorced from betrothal, that we do not say** that **these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse, because he is not accustomed to her.**


###### Kiddushin 65b:2
[Kiddushin 65b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:2)

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְרַב: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּעֵד אֶחָד – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּעֵד אֶחָד, בֵּי דִינָא רַבָּה אָמְרִי: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו. מַאן בֵּי דִינָא רַבָּה? רַב. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב. הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּעֵד אֶחָד, בֵּי דִינָא רַבָּה אָמְרִי: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו. מַאן בֵּי דִינָא רַבָּה – רַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav:** With regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with one witness, one** need **not be concerned that his betrothal** has taken effect, **and** this is the *halakha* **even if** the man and woman **both concede** that there was a betrothal. **Rabba bar Rav Huna says:** With regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with one witness, the Great Court says** that **one** need **not be concerned that his betrothal** has taken effect. The Gemara asks: **Who** is **the Great Court? Rav. And there are** those **who say** a different version of this discussion. **Rabba bar Rav Huna said** that **Rav said:** With regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with one witness, the Great Court says** that **one** need **not be concerned that his betrothal** has taken effect. **Who** is **the Great Court? Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Kiddushin 65b:3
[Kiddushin 65b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:3)

מֵתִיב רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאוּ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאִשָּׁה עִמָּהֶם וַחֲבִילָה עִמָּהֶם, זֶה אוֹמֵר: זוֹ אִשְׁתִּי, וְזֶה עַבְדִּי, וְזוֹ חֲבִילָתִי, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: זוֹ אִשְׁתִּי, וְזֶה עַבְדִּי, וְזוֹ חֲבִילָתִי. וְאִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת: אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי עֲבָדַי, וַחֲבִילָה שֶׁלִּי – צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין, וְגוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִן הַחֲבִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raises an objection** from the following *baraita*: There were **two** men **who came from overseas and a woman** was **with them, and** they had **a bundle with them. This** man **says: This is my wife, and this** other man is **my slave, and this is my bundle. And this** second man **says: This is my wife, and this** other man is **my slave, and this is my bundle. And the woman says: These are my two slaves and this is my bundle.** In this case **she requires two bills of divorce,** as with each of them there is uncertainty concerning whether she is married to him, **and she collects** payment of **her marriage contract from the bundle.** Even according to their claims that she is married to one of them, now that they have each divorced her she is at least entitled to payment of her marriage contract from the bundle.


###### Kiddushin 65b:4
[Kiddushin 65b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:4)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִית לֵיהּ סָהֲדֵי לְהַאי וְאִית לֵיהּ סָהֲדֵי לְהַאי, מִי מָצְיָ[א] אַמְרַהּ: אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי עֲבָדַי וַחֲבִילָה שֶׁלִּי? אֶלָּא לָאו בְּעֵד אֶחָד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Aḥadvoi’s objection is as follows: **What are the circumstances** of this case? **If** the *baraita* is referring to a case **where this** man **has** two **witnesses** supporting his claim **and that** man **has** two **witnesses** supporting his claim, **can** the woman **say: These are my two slaves, and this is my bundle?** After all, there are two witnesses that one of the men is her husband. **Rather, is it not** referring **to** a case where each of the men has only **one witness?** This proves that a betrothal performed in the presence of a single witness is effective, as she requires a bill of divorce from each of them.


###### Kiddushin 65b:5
[Kiddushin 65b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:5)

וְתִסְבְּרַאּ? עֵד אֶחָד בְּהַכְחָשָׁה מִי מְהֵימַן? אֶלָּא: לְמִישְׁרֵי לְעָלְמָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this opinion: **And** how can **you understand** it that way? In a situation involving **one witness in** the face of **contradicting** testimony, as in the case here, where another witness claims she is betrothed to the second man, **is** a single witness **deemed credible** at all? **Rather,** one must understand this case as follows: **Everyone agrees that** with regard to **permitting** her **to** marry **all** other people, she is **permitted** even without a bill of divorce.


###### Kiddushin 65b:6
[Kiddushin 65b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:6)

וְהָכָא הָכִי קָאָמַר: צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין – כְּדֵי לִגְבּוֹת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִן הַחֲבִילָה. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר מִטַּלְטְלֵי מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדִי לִכְתוּבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And here, this is** what the *baraita* **is saying: She requires two bills of divorce in order to collect** payment of **her marriage contract from the bundle. And** this ruling **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says:** Even **movable property,** not only land, **is subject to a lien for** payment of **a marriage contract.** Consequently, to collect from this bundle, which has three claimants, the woman must receive a bill of divorce from both men, thereby obligating them to give her payment of a marriage contract.


###### Kiddushin 65b:7
[Kiddushin 65b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:7)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִדּוּשָׁיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ – דְּיָלְפַתְּ ״דָּבָר״ ״דָּבָר״ מִמָּמוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** conclusion **was** reached **about** the case of one who betroths another in the presence of one witness? **Rav Kahana said: One** need **not** be **concerned that his betrothal** has taken effect. **Rav Pappa said: One** need **be concerned that his betrothal** has taken effect. **Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: What is your opinion** that leads you to claim that there is no concern that his betrothal has taken effect? It must be **that you derive** it by means of a verbal analogy **from** the word **“matter”** written with regard to forbidden sexual intercourse and the word **matter** written with regard to **monetary matters.** The Torah states concerning one who desires to divorce his wife: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), a reference to adulterous intercourse, and with regard to monetary matters it states: “At the mouths of two witnesses, or at the mouths of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15).


###### Kiddushin 65b:8
[Kiddushin 65b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:8)

אִי מָה לְהַלָּן הוֹדָאַת בַּעַל דִּין כְּמֵאָה עֵדִים דָּמֵי, אַף כָּאן הוֹדָאַת בַּעַל דִּין כְּמֵאָה עֵדִים דָּמֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא קָא חָיֵיב לְאַחֲרִינֵי, הָכָא קָא חָיֵיב לְאַחֲרִינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi asks: But **if** so, **just as there,** with regard to monetary matters, the legal status of **the admission of a litigant is similar to** that of **one hundred witnesses** and it renders him liable, **so too here, the admission of a litigant** should be **similar to** that of **one hundred witnesses.** This would mean that if the man and woman both admit to the betrothal, they should be liable to bear the consequences of this claim. Rav Kahana **said to him:** There is a difference between the two cases. **There,** with regard to one who admits that he owes money, he **does not** act **to the detriment of another,** whereas **here, he** acts **to the detriment of another,** as their confessions render them forbidden to each other’s relatives, which means that their claims affect others as well.


###### Kiddushin 65b:9
[Kiddushin 65b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:9)

מָר זוּטְרָא וְרַב אַדָּא סָבָא בְּנֵי דְּרַב מָרִי בַּר אִיסּוּר פְּלוּג נִיכְסַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: ״עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, דְּאִי בָּעֵי לְמִיהְדַּר לָא מָצוּ הָדְרִי בְּהוּ, וַאֲנַן לָא הָדְרִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Mar Zutra and Rav Adda the Elder, the sons of Rav Mari bar Issur, divided their** shared **property between them. They came before Rav Ashi** and **said to him** that they had the following dilemma. **The Merciful One states: “At the mouths of two witnesses,** or at the mouths of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). Why do we say that two witnesses are required? So **that if** the parties involved **wish to retract** from their agreement and say that it never happened, **they cannot retract** from their agreement. **And** as **we will not retract** from our agreement, we do not require witnesses to establish our division of the property.


###### Kiddushin 65b:10
[Kiddushin 65b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:10)

אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא מִקַּיְימָא מִלְּתָא אֶלָּא בְּסָהֲדֵי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא אִיבְּרוֹ סָהֲדֵי אֶלָּא לְשַׁקָּרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps the matter is established only through witnesses.** In other words, perhaps the witnesses do not merely provide proof that the division occurred, but they are a constitutive factor in its establishment from a legal perspective. Rav Ashi **said to them: Witnesses were created only for liars,** and they are not needed to establish the matter. If no one denies the transaction, it remains in effect.


###### Kiddushin 65b:11
[Kiddushin 65b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:11)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָמַר לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד ״אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב״, וְהַלָּה שׁוֹתֵק – נֶאֱמָן. וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא: אָמַר לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד ״אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב״ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ – פָּטוּר. טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״לֹא״, הָא אִישְׁתִּיק – מְהֵימַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to a related issue, **Abaye says:** If **one witness says to** someone: **You ate** forbidden **fat, and that one,** the subject of the testimony, remains **silent** and does not deny it, the witness is **deemed credible** and the person in question must bring a sin-offering for his sin. **And the *tanna*** of the mishna also **taught** (*Karetot* 11b): If **one witness said to** someone: **You ate** forbidden **fat, and that** person **says: I did not eat** it, he is **exempt** from bringing an offering. One can infer from this that **the reason** he is exempt is only **because he said** definitively: I did **not** eat, which indicates that **if he was silent,** the witness is **deemed credible.**


###### Kiddushin 65b:12
[Kiddushin 65b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:12)

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָמַר לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד ״נִטְמְאוּ טׇהֳרוֹתֶיךָ״, וְהַלָּה שׁוֹתֵק – נֶאֱמָן. וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא: עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״נִטְמְאוּ״ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר ״לֹא נִטְמְאוּ״ – פָּטוּר. טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר לֹא, הָא אִישְׁתִּיק – מְהֵימַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye says** that **if one witness says to** someone: **Your ritually pure** food **was rendered impure, and that** person remained **silent,** the witness is **deemed credible. And the *tanna*** of the mishna also **taught** (*Karetot* 12a): If **one witness said** to someone: Your ritually pure food **was rendered impure, and that** person **says: It was not rendered impure, he is exempt. The reason** he is exempt is only **because he said** definitively that his food was **not** rendered ritually impure, which indicates that **if he was silent,** the witness is **deemed credible.**


###### Kiddushin 65b:13
[Kiddushin 65b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/65b:13)

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָמַר לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye** further **says** that **if one witness says to** someone: