Ketubot

What is the difference between the first case and the second case? — Abaye said: Explain it  [that it speaks] of one witness.  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.  When two say, 'we have seen  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,'  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]?  Although they live in the same courtyard! [But then] this is the same!  — 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. AND IF WITNESSES COME AFTER SHE GOT MARRIED. SHE SHALL NOT GO OUT. R. Oshaia refers it  to the first clause.  Rabbah b. Abin refers it to the second clause.  He who refers it to the first clause, how much more [does he refer it] to the second clause, for in the case of a captive woman they have made it lenient.  But he who refers it to the second clause does not refer it to the first clause.  Is it to say that they differ concerning the view of R. Hamnuna: that he who refers it to the first clause holds the view of R. Hamnuna,  and he who refers it [only] to the second clause does not hold the View of R. Hamnuna? — No, all hold the view of R. Hamnuna. and here they differ in this: one argues: When was that of R. Hamnuna said?  In his presence,  but in his absence she is impudent,  and one holds [that] in his absence also she is not impudent.  AND IF WITNESSES CAME AFTER SHE GOT MARRIED. etc. The father of Samuel said: 'SHE GOT MARRIED', does not mean, 'she actually got married'. but 'as soon as they  allowed her to get married', even if she did not get married yet. But it says: SHE SHALL NOT GO OUT'!  — [This means] she shall not go out from her first permission.  Our Rabbis taught: When she says. 'I was taken captive. and I am pure, and I have witnesses that I am pure. they  do not say: We will wait until the witnesses come, but they  allow her at once [to marry]. If they  allowed her to marry and then the witnesses came and said, 'we do not know',  then she shall not go out. But if witnesses of defilement  came, even if she has many children she shall go out.  Certain women captives came once to Nehardea. The father of Samuel  placed watchmen with them.  Said Samuel to him: And who watched them till now? Said he to him: 'If they had been thy daughters wouldst thou also have spoken of them so lightly?' It was 'as an error which proceedeth from before the ruler,'  and the daughters of Mar Samuel were taken captive. And they were brought  to the Land of Israel. They let their captors stand outside and they went in into the school of R. Hanina. This One  said, 'I was taken captive and I am pure,' and that one said. 'I was taken captive and I am pure. [So] they  allowed them.  Then the captors entered. R. Hanina [thereupon] said: They are the children of a Scholar.  It [then] became known  that they were the daughters of Mar Samuel. R. Hanina [thereupon] said to R. Shaman b. Abba: Go and take care of thy relatives.  Said he to R. Hanina: But there are witnesses in the country beyond the sea!  — Now, however. they are not before us. Witnesses are in the North,  and [therefore] she shall be forbidden [to marry]? [Now] the reason  is because no witnesses came,  but if witnesses came she  is forbidden! But did not the father of Samuel say: As soon as they allowed her to get married, even if she did not get married?  R. Ashi said: It was stated: Witnesses of defilement.