תלמוד על כתובות 2:1

MISHNAH: If a woman became widowed or divorced and she claims¹Either her ketubah is lost or, if she married at a place of illiterates, it never was written. to have been married as a virgin, but he says not so, I married you as a widow, if there are witnesses that she went out in hinuma²Cf. Chapter 1, Note 65; Chapter 2, Note 22. or with uncovered hair³A virgin will start covering her hair only at the wedding., her ketubah is 200 [zuz]. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels also is proof⁴At his place, this was a sign of the wedding of a virgin..

HALAKHAH: “A woman went with her husband,” etc. Just as you say, ³Mishnah Ketubot 2:4. This belongs to a series of statements illustrating the principle that “the mouth that prohibits is the mouth that permits”. If nobody at that place knew that she had been married before, then if she asserts that she was married she forbids herself for every other male. If then she qualifies the statement that now she is no longer married because she is divorced, her testimony must be accepted since if one believes her that she was married one must believe her that she is divorced; if one does not believe her that she was married, one does not have to believe her that she is divorced but it makes no difference since as an unmarried woman she can contract marriage. But if there were witnesses who could testify that she was married, she has to prove her case by documents or witnesses if she wants to remarry as a divorcee.“if there are witnesses that she is a married woman and she says, I was divorced, she is not trustworthy;” would I say it is the same here? There is a difference for witnesses of death since if he comes he disproves [the testimony]⁴But if the husband comes and claims that he did not divorce her, it is his word against hers; she is not automatically proven to be a liar.. Then she should be trustworthy to say: “my levir died”! That is impossible since we have stated⁵Mishnah 15:10. There is no relaxation of standards of proof before a court except in the case of testimony about a husband’s death.: “A woman is not trustworthy if she says ‘my levir died’ to remarry, or ‘my sister died’ to enter her house⁶To marry her brother-in-law..” Rebbi Abba said, she is trustworthy for her husband whom she married out of her free will; she is not trustworthy about her levir on whom she was thrown against her will. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, think of it, then she should not be trustworthy if she was forced to marry him⁷If she was married off by her father while she was underage. There is no mention in the Mishnah of a restriction on women marrying on their own. No answer is given to the question.!

HALAKHAH: “One does not put up animals in hostelries of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jonah⁵Unfortunately G is very lacunary here; therefore its readings are not given after the Hebrew text. The Halakhah starts: “R. Ze‘urah, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, R. ..… R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, explain it …” There is no reason to mention the sixth generation R. Abba III and the fifth generation R. Jonah who later disagrees with the statement if already it was attributed to the second generation R. Yose ben Ḥanina.: explain it⁶The Mishnah which forbids to put up unsupervised animals in the stable of a Gentile hostelry makes travel outside Jewish settlements practically impossible. An attribution to R. Eliezer removes the first part of the Mishnah from practice. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.⁷Mishnah Parah2:1. This refers to the Red Cow (Num. 19) whose ashes are needed to cleanse people from the impurity of the dead. The Cow is not a Temple sacrifice; how far the restrictions imposed on sacrificial animals and the officiating priests apply to the Cow and its officiants are old matters of dispute between Sadducees and Pharisees (Mishnah Parah3:3,7) and among the rabbis themselves. One of the biblical requirements is that the Red Cow never carried a yoke (Num. 19:2). In Mishnah Parah2:1, a first statement of R. Eliezer validates a pregnant Red Cow for the ceremonies; the reason is explained in Mishnah 4 by his student’s R. Illai’s son R. Jehudah, that a bull mounting the Cow on his own cannot be considered making her carrying anything; only copulation by human intervention makes the ox the equivalent of a yoke. The majority rejects the ruling; it considers the Cow and its fetus as two separate beings but v. 19:3 requires the Cow alone to be taken. These restrictions do not apply to ordinary sacrifices. R. Eliezer then forbids buying a Red Cow from Gentiles since a sodomized animal is unfit for the altar; the Sages disagree since without reason one does not suspect that such a thing happened; this would make the Mishnah here unreasonable. (The last generation R. Yose bar Abun even introduces buying a Red Cow from a Gentile into a story about R. Eliezer; Peah1:1 Notes 99 ff., Qiddušin1:7 Notes 607 ff.) Babli 23a.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not explain it according to everybody, following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave alone⁸One may not leave the animal alone with a Gentile. Chapter 1:6, Note 165. There the first tradent is R. Jonah himself.. If he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion⁹It is not said what everybody’s opinion is; the corresponding passage in G is in the name of “the rabbis of Caesarea, Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav” but then is missing the conclusion. One has to assume that it was “if he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion the animal remains permitted.”. Rebbi Jeremiah said, let us hear from the following¹⁰Mishnah Ketubot2:9. If she is jailed because of money matters one must assume that she was not raped; if she was condemned to death one must assume that she was raped or consented to sex with her jailers. If a woman can be alone in the custody of Gentiles without being raped, may the same not be assumed of female animals?: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles.” Rebbi Yose said, it is different for a woman because she usually cries. Think of it if she was mute! She uses sign language. What about it¹¹The argument appears to be cogent.? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree? About the cow, because of “eminence was given to the cow, an adornment was made for the cow.¹²In the Mishnah, not only do the rabbis permit to buy a Red Cow from a Gentile owner, they also allow to buy sacrificial animals from him. The question arises whether R. Eliezer will agree with this or not. The assumption here is that R. Eliezer will agree that sacrifices can be bought from Gentiles but not the Red Cow, whose ceremonies in pharisaic theory were made with many non-scriptural restrictions because of an important difference with Sadducees in matters of ritual purity (Mishnah Parah3:7,8).” But since the rabbis answer to Rebbi Eliezer all sheep of Qedar will be assembled for you¹³Is.60:7. The verse ends: they will be brought on My altar for pleasure. This gives divine sanction for using animals raised by Gentiles for the altar. Since the verse speaks of sacrifices, not of the Red C ow, R. Eliezer must hold that sacrificial animals cannot be bought from Gentiles. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 24a., this says that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees about everything. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does one reply with an argument about the future against one about the past¹⁴The preceding argument does not prove anything in practice since in the next paragraph it will be shown that in messianic times the Gentiles will accept the Torah. Their animals may well be acceptable then but not now.? Rebbi Abin asked, does one reply with an argument when evil inclinations will have disappeared against one when evil inclinations exist¹⁵This is the same argument as before.?