Parallel
כתובות 9:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
He who says. I have found an 'open opening' is trusted to make her forbidden for him. Why? It is a double doubt: It is a doubt [whether she had the intercourse with the other man while] under him, or, [while] not under him. And if you say that [she had that intercourse while] under him, [there is] the [other] doubt [whether she had that intercourse] by violence or by [her free] will! — It was necessary [to state this rule] in the case of the wife of a priest. And if you wish, you may say [that it speaks of] the wife of an Israelite, and for instance when her father received the betrothal for her [when] she was less than three years and one day old. What does he let us hear by [this since] we have already learnt [it]: 'If a man says to a woman, "I have betrothed thee [to myself]", and she says, "Thou hast not betrothed me [to thyself]," she is allowed [to marry] his relatives, but he is forbidden [to marry] her relatives.' — What you might have supposed is that there [he causes a prohibition to himself] because it is certain to him, but here it is not quite certain to him. [Therefore] he lets us hear [this rule]. But did R. Eleazar say so? Did not R. Eleazar say: The wife does not become forbidden for her husband save in the case of warning and seclusion, and as [we find in] the occurrence that happened? But how can you [in any case] understand it? Was the occurrence that happened accompanied by warning and seclusion? And again, did they declare her forbidden? — This is no difficulty, [for] thus he means to say: The wife does not become forbidden for her husband save in the case of warning and seclusion, [and this we learn] from the occurrence that happened, because [there] there was no warning and seclusion and [therefore] she was not forbidden. But [the former question] is nevertheless difficult. In the [case of] warning and seclusion but not [in the case of] 'an open opening'! — But according to your argument [the question could be asked]: [in the case of] warning and seclusion, yes, [and in the case of] witnesses, no! Hence he means to say thus: The wife does not become forbidden for her husband through one witness but through two witnesses; but in the case of warning and seclusion: even through one witness, and 'an open opening' is like two witnesses. And if you will say: [In the case of] the occurrence that happened. why did they not declare her forbidden? [The answer is:] There it was compulsion. And if you wish you can say as R. Samuel the son of Nahmani said [that] R. Jonathan said:
—