Kiddushin

say. The witnesses of privacy are likewise witnesses of intercourse;1 Beth Hillel hold: The witnesses of privacy are likewise witnesses of intercourse.2 But they certainly agree that if she was divorced from erusin, we do not say that the witnesses of privacy are likewise witnesses of intercourse, because he is not intimate with her. R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha said on Rab's authority: If a man betroths in the presence of one witness, we disregard his kiddushin even if both admit it. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If a man betroths in the presence of one witness, the Great Court rules: We disregard his kiddushin. Who is the Great Court? — Rab.3 Others state, Rabbah b. R. Huna said in Rab's name: If a man betroths in the presence of one witness, the Great Court rules: We disregard his kiddushin. Who is the Great Court? — Rabbi.4 R. Ahadaboi b. Ammi raised an objection: If two come from overseas with a woman and chattels;5 and one maintains. ‘This is my wife, this is my slave, and these are my chattels’, whilst the other says: ‘this is my wife, this my slave, and these are my chattels’. while the woman claims, ‘These two are my slaves and the chattels are mine’, she requires two divorces, and collects her kethubah out of the chattels. How is this meant? If this one has witnesses and the other has witnesses,6 can she claim, ‘These two are my slaves and the chattels are mine!’ Hence it surely means that there is one witness?7 — Now, is that logical? Is one witness believed when he is rebutted?8 But as for permitting her to the world,9 all agree that she is permitted; here, however, the meaning is this: she needs two divorces in order to collect her kethubah from the chattels,10 and it is according to R. Meir, who ruled: Movables are mortgaged for the kethubah.11 What is the result of the matter? — R. Kahana maintained, We disregard his kiddushin; R. Papa said: We pay heed to his kiddushin.12 R. Ashi said to R. Kahana: What is your opinion? that we learn the meaning of ‘dabar’ [matter] here from civil matters?13 If so, just as there the admission of the litigant is as a hundred witnesses,14 then here too the admission of the litigant is as a hundred witnesses!15 — There, he replied, he does no injury to others; here, however, injury is done to others.16 Mar Zutra and R. Adda the elder, sons of R. Mari b. Issur, divided their property between them. Then they went before R. Ashi and asked him: When the Divine Law said: ‘at the mouth of two witnesses . . . shall a matter be established,’ is it so that they [the litigants] cannot retract if they wish, whereas we do not desire to retract; or perhaps, a transaction can be established [i.e., given legal force] only by witnesses? — Witnesses were created only against liars, he answered them. 17 Abaye said: If one witness says to a person18 ‘You ate heleb’.19 while he is silent, he [the witness] is believed.20 Now, a Tanna supports this: If one witness says to a person. ‘You ate heleb,’ and he replies, ‘I did not eat,’ he is not liable. Thus, it is only because he answered: ‘I did not,’ but if he is silent, he is believed. Abaye also said: If one witness says to a person. Your clean [food] has been defiled,’ and he is silent, he [the witness] is believed.21 Now, a Tanna supports this: If one witness declares, ‘They have been defiled’,22 and he [their owner] replies, ‘They have not been defiled,’23 he is not liable.24 Thus, it is only because he says: ‘No’; but if he is silent, he is believed. Abaye also said: If one witness says to a person, to the chattels, v. supra a. hath found some unseemly matter (dabar) in her; civil suits — ibid. XIX, 15: at the mouth of two witnesses . . . shall a matter (dabar) be established. Hence, just as there two are needed, so for marriage. unclean.