משנה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ וּבְנָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וּבָאוּ וְאָֽמְרוּ מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת בְּנֵךְ וְנִישֵּׂאת וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָֽמְרוּ לָהּ חִילּוּף הָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים. תֵּצֵא וְהַװְלָד הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהָאַחֲרוֹן מַמְזֵר. MISHNAH: A woman’s husband and son⁹²The husband’s only child. went overseas and people came and told her, your husband died and after that your son died⁹³From the last sentence in the Mishnah it follows that there were two separate informations, one about the husband’s death and later one about the son’s., and she remarried. After that, they said to her, the sequence was inverted⁹⁴If the husband had a brother she would need levirate or ḥalîṣah to marry outside the family.. Then she must leave and the first⁹⁵Everybody agrees that a child conceived while the first husband was still alive is a bastard. and the last⁹⁶Only R. Aqiba holds that a child from a widow remarried without levirate or ḥalīṣah is a bastard. children are bastards.

הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶּׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ וּבְנָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם כוּל׳. מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד. כְּעֵידֵי מִיתָה אוֹ כְעֵידֵי גֵירוּשִׁין. אִין תַּעַבְדִּינָהּ כְּעֵידֵי מִיתָה. פְּלִיגָא עַל רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. אִין תַּעַבְדִּינָהּ כְּעֵידֵי גֵירוּשִׁין פְּלִיגָא בֵּין עַל רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא בֵין עַל רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. שֻׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים מֵת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא מֵת. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וִאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִתְגָּֽרְשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְגָּֽרְשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין. לֹא שַׁנְייָא. הִיא מִיתָה הִיא גֵירוּשִׁין לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. עַל דַעֲתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן נִיחָא. הִיא מִיתָה הִיא גֵירוּשִׁין. עַל דַעֲתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן דְּהָכָא מַה בֵין מִיתָה מַה בֵין גֵּירוּשִׁין. רִבִּי זְעִירָה אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הַדַּעַת מַכְרָעַת בְּעֵידֵי מִיתָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ יָבוֹא הוּא מַכְחִישׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן כְּדַעְתִּין. כְּמוֹ דְּרַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן אוֹמְרִים. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיָּצָאת בְּעֵידוּת בְּרוּרָה יָצָאת בּוֹ. כֵּן רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא אָֽמְרִין. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּיסֵּית בְּעֵידוּת בְּרוּרָה נִיסֵּית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלָא מִחְלְפָא שִּׁיטָּתִין דְּרַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. לֹא מוֹדֵיי רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן שֶׁאִילּוּ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. מֵת אָבִיהָ מִתּוֹכָהּ. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא מֵת אָבִיהָ מִתּוֹכָהּ. שֶׁהַשָּׂדֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁלָּרְאוּבֵן. אִילּוּ אָֽמְרוּ שְׁנַיִם. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה וְנִתְגָּֽרְשָׁה וְנִשֵּׂאת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְגָּֽרְשָׁה. לֹא תֵצֵא. יְאוּת. HALAKHAH: “If a woman’s husband and son went overseas,” etc. How do you consider this situation, comparing⁹⁷The two pairs of witnesses mentioned in the Mishnah. to witnesses of death or witnesses of divorce? If you compare it to witnesses of death, it disagrees with the (rabbis there)⁹⁸The argument in the Halakhah shows that the positions of “rabbis there” and “rabbis here and those there” must be switched.. If you compare it to witnesses of divorce, it disagrees (both with the rabbis here and those there). ⁹⁹From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Ketubot 2:2:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.2.2.2-4">Ketubot 2:2. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses said, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses said, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave¹⁰⁰Ketubot.22b">Babli Ketubot 22b; Tosephta 14:1. In the Babli, the position of “the rabbis here” is that of R. Joḥanan only, based on a minor Tanna R. Menaḥem bar Yose.. There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave¹⁰⁰Ketubot.22b">Babli Ketubot 22b; Tosephta 14:1. In the Babli, the position of “the rabbis here” is that of R. Joḥanan only, based on a minor Tanna R. Menaḥem bar Yose.. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he comes he contradicts them¹⁰¹The Babli is a little more explicit. Since a return of the husband is absolute proof that he is alive, the wife will not remarry unless she is absolutely convinced that the witnesses are truthful. But in the case of divorce, if the husband claims that he never divorced her, she can contradict him based on her witnesses.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain¹⁰²This refers to Ketubot 2:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.2.2.1">Mishnah Ketubot2:2: “Rebbi Joshua agrees if somebody says to another person: This field did belong to your father but I bought it from him, one believes him [in the absence of documents] since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permitted {the person stating that the field was another person’s being the same who states that now it belongs to him}. But if there are witnesses that it belongs to [the second person’s] father and [the first] says I bought it from him, he cannot be believed [without documents].
The situation described in the Yerushalmi is that each party in a court case brings two witnesses; Simeon proves that when his father died the field was still in his possession and Reuben (who is in actual possession) brings two witnesses that the field was not in Simeon’s father’s possession when he died. In that case, we do not say that the case is undecidable on basis of the evidence before the court and, therefore, the field should be split between the parties (position of Symmachos, in Babli Baba meṣi‘a 2b) but that the burden of proof is on the claimant and, therefore, the field remains in the possession of Reuben.
The situation discussed in the Ketubot.22b">Babli Ketubot 22b is different: Reuben is in actual possession of the field the number of years which creates a presumption of ownership, but he has no documentation of his acquisition. Simeon brings two witnesses that his father had died in possession of the field. Since squatting is no proof of ownership, the court puts Simeon in possession. Later, Reuben comes again to court with two witnesses who testify that Simeon’s father was not in possession at the time of his death. By the same principle as above, the field remains in the possession of Simeon.
The commentators, following the Babli, require to substitute “Simeon” for “Reuben” at all occurrences here and in Ketubot. Such a correction is unwarranted.. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certain testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, and two say his father died while not in possession, that the field is in Reuben’s possession¹⁰²This refers to Ketubot 2:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.2.2.1">Mishnah Ketubot2:2: “Rebbi Joshua agrees if somebody says to another person: This field did belong to your father but I bought it from him, one believes him [in the absence of documents] since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permitted {the person stating that the field was another person’s being the same who states that now it belongs to him}. But if there are witnesses that it belongs to [the second person’s] father and [the first] says I bought it from him, he cannot be believed [without documents].
The situation described in the Yerushalmi is that each party in a court case brings two witnesses; Simeon proves that when his father died the field was still in his possession and Reuben (who is in actual possession) brings two witnesses that the field was not in Simeon’s father’s possession when he died. In that case, we do not say that the case is undecidable on basis of the evidence before the court and, therefore, the field should be split between the parties (position of Symmachos, in Babli Baba meṣi‘a 2b) but that the burden of proof is on the claimant and, therefore, the field remains in the possession of Reuben.
The situation discussed in the Ketubot.22b">Babli Ketubot 22b is different: Reuben is in actual possession of the field the number of years which creates a presumption of ownership, but he has no documentation of his acquisition. Simeon brings two witnesses that his father had died in possession of the field. Since squatting is no proof of ownership, the court puts Simeon in possession. Later, Reuben comes again to court with two witnesses who testify that Simeon’s father was not in possession at the time of his death. By the same principle as above, the field remains in the possession of Simeon.
The commentators, following the Babli, require to substitute “Simeon” for “Reuben” at all occurrences here and in Ketubot. Such a correction is unwarranted.? Therefore, if two say, she was married, divorced, and remarried, and two say¹⁰³Later. she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave.

מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. פָּתַר לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַים אוֹמְרִים. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה וְנִתְגָּֽרְשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְגָּֽרְשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. מַה בֵּינָהּ לְקַדְמִיתָא. תַּמָּן הוּחְזְקָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בִּפְנֵי הַכֹּל. בְּרַם הָכָא לֹא הוּחְזְקָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ. זֶהוּ שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁰⁴His statement that the woman who married on testimony that she was divorced by an absent husband must be divorced by the second husband on contradicting testimony.: “If two are saying, she was betrothed¹⁰⁵As a minor by an absent father. The situation should be the same as in the case of witnesses to the divorce., and two are saying, she was not betrothed, she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was betrothed and divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case¹⁰⁴His statement that the woman who married on testimony that she was divorced by an absent husband must be divorced by the second husband on contradicting testimony.? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others would come and identify the man who was betrothed to her¹⁰⁶Then the case can be independently investigated and we are no longer dependent on contradictory testimonies..

מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא טְמֵיאָה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לֹא תֵצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. טְהוֹרָה. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. טְמֵיאָה. כְּמִי שֶׁאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. נִשְׁבֵּית. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִשְּׁבֵּית. וְאָנוּ כְּחַיִין מִפִּיהָ. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁰⁴His statement that the woman who married on testimony that she was divorced by an absent husband must be divorced by the second husband on contradicting testimony.: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure¹⁰⁷The kidnappers slept with her. She cannot marry a Cohen., she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave¹⁰⁸A similar text is Tosephta Ketubot 2:2..” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says¹⁰⁹The trustworthiness of a person concerning himself is the topic of Mishnaiot Ketubot 1:6–9..

שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה מְדַמֵּי לָהּ לַחֲלָבִין. אִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. פְּלוֹנִי אָכַל חֵלֶב. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא אָכַל חֵלֶב. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי מִסָּפֵק. וְהָכָא יִתֵּן גֵּט מִסָּפֵק. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא תְדַמִּינָהּ לַחֲלָבִין. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ אָמַר. לִבִּי נוֹקְרֵינִי. מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה. לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא. וְסֵיפָא פְלִיג עַל רִבִּי יוֹנָה. אִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. תִּינָּשֵׂא. וְלֹא דְרִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר אִם נִישֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. לֹא אָמַר לָהּ אֶלָּא לֹא תְדַמִּינָהּ לַחֲלָבִים. שֶּׁאֲפִילוּ אָמַר. לִבִּי נוֹקְרֵינִי. מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rebbi Jonah compares that to fat¹¹⁰Cf. Yevamot 10:2:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.10.2.5">Note 91.. If two would say, X ate fat, and two would say, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice¹¹¹The sacrifice of expiation for a sin which is only suspected; cf. Bikkurim 2:6:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.2.6.4">Bikkurim 2, Note 162. because of the doubt? Here, he¹¹²The second husband who had married the adult girl under the impression that as a minor she had not been betrothed by her father to a man unknown to her. should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rebbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice¹¹³Even in the absence of witnesses.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not be married. The end disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rebbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice¹¹⁴Their disagreement is one of classification, not of differences in practice..