What is the difference between the first case and the second case? — Abaye said: Explain it1 [that it speaks] of one witness.2 When one witness says [that] she has been betrothed and one witness says [that] she has not been betrothed, they both testify to an unmarried woman, and he who says [that] she has been betrothed is one, and the words of one have no validity against two. In the second case [where] one witness says [that] she has been divorced and one witness says [that] she has not been divorced, they both testify to a married woman, and he who says that she has been divorced is one, and the words of one have no validity against two. R. Ashi said: Indeed, they are two and two, and reverse it.3 When two say, 'we have seen4 that she has been betrothed', and two Say, we have not seen that she has been betrothed, she shall not marry [another man], and if she has married she goes out.' [But] this is obvious! 'We have not seen' is no evidence! — It is not [so obvious], as it is needed for the case when they dwelt in one courtyard; one might say, 'if she had been betrothed it would have been known,'5 so he lets us hear that there are people who get betrothed quietly. In the second case, when two say, 'we have seen that she has been divorced,' and two say, 'we have not seen that she has been divorced, she shall not marry again, and if she has married she shall not go out,' what does he let us hear [by this case]?6 Although they live in the same courtyard! [But then] this is the same!7 — One might say that with regard to betrothal it happens that people get betrothed quietly. but with regard to divorce. if she had been divorced, it would have been known, so he lets us hear that there are people who get betrothed and get divorced quietly.
In the first case she has to go out, and in the second case she need not go out.
This, too, is a new element.
Lit., 'there is a voice in the matter'.
'We have not seen' is no evidence!
As in the first case.
Of our Mishnah, referring to the claim of the woman that she was divorced.
Referring to her claim that she remained chaste in captivity.
Since it is only presumed that she may have been cohabited with.
Lit., 'but to the first clause, no'.
I.e., with regard to what case did R. Hamnuna express that view.
In the presence of the husband.
And therefore she need not go out.
This would imply that she did get married.
I.e., from the permission given her by the Court to get married. That permission stands.
Whether she is pure or not.
I.e., witnesses who say that she was defiled while in captivity.
If the husband is a priest.
Abba the son of Abba.
To guard them until they had been redeemed.
V. Eccl. X, 5. The words that escaped the lips of Samuel had bad results.
Lit., and they (the captors) brought them'.
One of the daughters of Samuel.
To marry even a priest.
Since they left the captors outside they were their own witnesses, and the principle of 'the mouth that forbids is the mouth that permits' applied.
Lit., 'the matter was revealed'.
[H]. Assyrian, istan, 'north', v. Kid. 12b.
Why she is allowed to marry.
To testify. cf. n. 2.
I.e., each one of the daughters.
And if witnesses came afterwards, she may get married.
Only to witnesses who testify that the woman was actually defiled during her captivity, would annul the permission given for bet to get married but witnesses who testify only to bet having been in captivity would not affect that permission. There is then no conflict between R. Hanina and the father of Samuel.
MISHNAH. IF TWO WOMEN WERE TAKEN CAPTIVE, [AND NOW] ONE SAYS, 'I WAS TAKEN CAPTIVE AND I AM PURE, AND THE OTHER ONE SAYS. I WAS TAKEN CAPTIVE AND I AM PURE.' THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED. BUT WHEN THEY TESTIFY TO ONE ANOTHER, THEY ARE BELIEVED.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [If she says]. 'I am impure and my friend is pure,' she is believed; 'I am pure and my friend is impure', she is not believed; 'I and my friend are impure', she is believed as to herself and she is not believed as to her friend; 'I and my friend are pure'; she is believed as to her friend and she is not believed as to herself.
The Master said: '[If she says]. "I am pure and my friend is impure", she is not believed'. How shall we imagine this case? If there are no witnesses,1 why is she not believed as to herself? She says, 'I was taken captive and I am pure!'2 Hence it is plain that there are witnesses. [Now] read the middle clause: '"I and my friend are impure"; she is believed as to herself and she is not believed as to her friend'. But if there are witnesses, why is she not believed?3 Hence it is plain that there are no witnesses. [Now] read the last clause: '"l and my friend are pure"; she is believed as to her friend and she is not believed as to herself'. But if there are no witnesses, why is she not believed as to herself? Hence it is plain that there are witnesses. The first clause and the last clause when there are witnesses, [and] the middle clause when there are no witnesses? — Abaye said: Yes, the first clause and the last clause when there are witnesses, [and] the middle clause when there are no witnesses. R. Papa said: The whole of it [speaks] of where there are witnesses, but there is one witness who reverses.4 [If] she says, 'I am impure and my friend is pure', and the one witness says to her, 'thou art pure and thy friend is impure', she has declared herself forbidden,5 [and] her friend becomes permitted through her testimony.6 If [she says] 'I am pure and my friend is impure', and the one witness says to her, 'Thou art impure and thy friend is pure', since there are witnesses,7 she is not believed8 [as to herself], [and] her friend becomes permitted through the testimony9 of the [one] witness. [If she says], 'I and my friend are impure.' and the one witness says to her, 'thou and thy friend are pure,' she has declared herself forbidden, [and] her friend becomes permitted through the testimony of the [one] witness. What need is there again for this?10 It is [the same as in] the first part!11 — You might have said [that] they are both pure and the reason why she says so12 is that she acts [in accordance with the saying:] 'Let me die with the Philistines',13 so he lets us hear.14 [If she says] 'I and my friend are pure', and the one witness says to her, 'Thou and thy friend are impure', since there are witnesses,15 she is not believed,' [and] her friend becomes permitted through her testimony.16 What need is there again for this? It is [the same as in] the very first clause!17 — You might have said [that] she is believed18 only when she declares herself as unfit,19 but when she declares herself as fit20 I might say that she is not believed,21 so he lets us hear22 [that this is not so].
MISHNAH. AND LIKEWISE TWO MEN, [IF] ONE SAYS, 'I AM A PRIEST',23 AND THE OTHER SAYS. 'I AM A PRIEST', THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED.24 BUT WHEN THEY TESTIFY TO ONE ANOTHER, THEY ARE BELIEVED. R. JUDAH SAID: ONE DOES NOT RAISE [A PERSON] TO THE PRIESTHOOD THROUGH THE TESTIMONY25 OF ONE WITNESS. R. ELEAZAR SAID: ONLY THEN, WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO OBJECT;26 BUT WHEN THERE ARE NO PEOPLE WHO OBJECT. ONE RAISES [A PERSON] TO THE PRIESTHOOD THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS IN THE NAME OF R. SIMEON: THE SON OF THE CHIEF OF THE PRIESTS:27 ONE RAISES [A PERSON] TO THE PRIESTHOOD THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS.
That she and bet friend were taken captive.
And in accordance with the principle in the Mishnah, supra 22a, she should be believed.
V. supra p. 121. n. 9.
That she and her friend were taken captive.
Lit., 'all is not as if from her', i.e., as if dependent on her, (Jast.). The fact that she was taken captive is known from the evidence of the witnesses and not only from her testimony.
Lit., 'and this that she says so', — that they ate both impure.
Judg., XVI, 30. She applies to herself and to her friend the well-known Saying of Samson, that is, though she is pure she says that she is impure, so that she should be believed as to her friend, of whom she says that she is impure.
That she is believed as to herself but not as to her friend.
From here we learn that one witness is believed to attest the purity of the captive woman, even if there is another one contradicting him.
To be given terumah; (v. Glos.).
Lit., 'when? In the place in which there are objectors'. — The objectors say that he is not of priestly descent or legitimate origin.
Segan, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 97, n. 1.
In the preceding Mishnahs from the beginning of this chapter (supra 15b)to this last Mishnah. All these have been cases taught in illustration of the same principle of 'the mouth that forbids is the mouth that permits'.
Lit., 'I would say, no'. I.e., I would not apply here the principle of 'the mouth that forbids is the mouth that permits', and their second statement that they acted under constraint etc. is not accepted.
Lit., 'because for the world' — The statement of the witnesses does not concern themselves but others.
As in the case of 'R. Joshua admits'.