Ketubot

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,  why is she not believed as to herself? She says, 'I was taken captive and I am pure!'  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?  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.  [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,  [and] her friend becomes permitted through her testimony.  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,  she is not believed  [as to herself], [and] her friend becomes permitted through the testimony  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?  It is [the same as in] the first part!  — You might have said [that] they are both pure and the reason why she says so  is that she acts [in accordance with the saying:] 'Let me die with the Philistines',  so he lets us hear.  [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,  she is not believed,' [and] her friend becomes permitted through her testimony.  What need is there again for this? It is [the same as in] the very first clause!  — You might have said [that] she is believed  only when she declares herself as unfit,  but when she declares herself as fit  I might say that she is not believed,  so he lets us hear  [that this is not so]. MISHNAH. AND LIKEWISE TWO MEN, [IF] ONE SAYS, 'I AM A PRIEST',  AND THE OTHER SAYS. 'I AM A PRIEST', THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED.  BUT WHEN THEY TESTIFY TO ONE ANOTHER, THEY ARE BELIEVED. R. JUDAH SAID: ONE DOES NOT RAISE [A PERSON] TO THE PRIESTHOOD THROUGH THE TESTIMONY  OF ONE WITNESS. R. ELEAZAR SAID: ONLY THEN, WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO OBJECT;  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:  ONE RAISES [A PERSON] TO THE PRIESTHOOD THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS. GEMARA. What need is there for all these [cases]?  They are needed. For if he had stated [only the case of] 'R. Joshua admits'  [I might have said that only in that case is that principle applied]. because there is a possible loss of money.  but [in the case of] 'If witnesses say this is our handwriting'  where there is no possible loss of money.  I would not say so.  And if he had stated [the case of] 'If witnesses say this is our handwriting'. [I might have said that Only in that case does that principle apply] because [their statement concerns] other people.  but where it concerns himself