אָמְרִינַן: הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי יִחוּד, הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי בִּיאָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי, אָמְרִינַן: הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי יִחוּד, הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי בִּיאָה. וּמוֹדִים וַדַּאי בְּנִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין, דְּלָא אָמְרִינַן הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי יִחוּד הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי בִּיאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ.

say: These are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse. According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in intercourse. And Beit Hillel hold: We do say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse. Since it is assumed that they engaged in intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him. And Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai that certainly in the case of a woman divorced from betrothal, that we do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse, because he is not accustomed to her.

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּעֵד אֶחָד – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּעֵד אֶחָד, בֵּי דִּינָא רַבָּה אָמְרִי: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו. מַאן בֵּי דִּינָא רַבָּה? רַב. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אֲמַר רַב: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּעֵד אֶחָד, בֵּי דִּינָא רַבָּה אָמְרִי: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו. מַאן בֵּי דִּינָא רַבָּה? רַבִּי.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect, and this is the halakha even if the man and woman both concede that there was a betrothal. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, the Great Court says that one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. The Gemara asks: Who is the Great Court? Rav. And there are those who say a different version of this discussion. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, the Great Court says that one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. Who is the Great Court? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

מְתִיב רַב אַחַדְבוֹי בַּר אַמִי: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאוּ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאִשָּׁה עִמָּהֶם, וַחֲבִילָה עִמָּהֶם. זֶה אוֹמֵר: זוֹ אִשְׁתִּי, וְזֶה עַבְדִּי, וְזוֹ חֲבִילָתִי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: זוֹ אִשְׁתִּי, וְזֶה עַבְדִּי, וְזוֹ חֲבִילָתִי. וְאִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת: אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי עֲבָדַי, וַחֲבִילָה שֶׁלִּי – צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין, וְגוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִן הַחֲבִילָה.

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raises an objection from the following baraita : There were two men who came from overseas and a woman was with them, and they had a bundle with them. This man says: This is my wife, and this other man is my slave, and this is my bundle. And this second man says: This is my wife, and this other man is my slave, and this is my bundle. And the woman says: These are my two slaves and this is my bundle. In this case she requires two bills of divorce, as with each of them there is uncertainty concerning whether she is married to him, and she collects payment of her marriage contract from the bundle. Even according to their claims that she is married to one of them, now that they have each divorced her she is at least entitled to payment of her marriage contract from the bundle.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאִית לֵיהּ סָהֲדֵי לְהַאי וְאִית לֵיהּ סָהֲדֵי לְהַאי – מִי מָצֵי אָמְרָה: אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי עֲבָדַי וַחֲבִילָה שֶׁלִּי? אֶלָּא לָאו – בְּעֵד אֶחָד.

Rav Aḥadvoi’s objection is as follows: What are the circumstances of this case? If the baraita is referring to a case where this man has two witnesses supporting his claim and that man has two witnesses supporting his claim, can the woman say: These are my two slaves, and this is my bundle? After all, there are two witnesses that one of the men is her husband. Rather, is it not referring to a case where each of the men has only one witness? This proves that a betrothal performed in the presence of a single witness is effective, as she requires a bill of divorce from each of them.

וְתִסְבְּרָא, עֵד אֶחָד בְּהַכְחָשָׁה מִי מְהֵימַן? אֶלָּא לְמִישְׁרֵי לְעָלְמָא – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּשָׁרֵי.

The Gemara rejects this opinion: And how can you understand it that way? In a situation involving one witness in the face of contradicting testimony, as in the case here, where another witness claims she is betrothed to the second man, is a single witness deemed credible at all? Rather, one must understand this case as follows: Everyone agrees that with regard to permitting her to marry all other people, she is permitted even without a bill of divorce.

וְהָכָא הָכִי קָאָמַר: צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין כְּדֵי לִגְבּוֹת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִן הַחֲבִילָה. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מִטַּלְטְלֵי מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדִי לִכְתוּבָּה.

And here, this is what the baraita is saying: She requires two bills of divorce in order to collect payment of her marriage contract from the bundle. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Even movable property, not only land, is subject to a lien for payment of a marriage contract. Consequently, to collect from this bundle, which has three claimants, the woman must receive a bill of divorce from both men, thereby obligating them to give her payment of a marriage contract.

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלָהּ? רַב כָּהֲנָא אֲמַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו. רַב פַּפָּא אֲמַר: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִדּוּשָׁיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַשִׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: מַאי דַּעְתֵּיךְ? דְּיָלְפַתְּ ״דָּבָר״ ״דָּבָר״ מִמָּמוֹן?

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about the case of one who betroths another in the presence of one witness? Rav Kahana said: One need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. Rav Pappa said: One need be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: What is your opinion that leads you to claim that there is no concern that his betrothal has taken effect? It must be that you derive it by means of a verbal analogy from the word “matter” written with regard to forbidden sexual intercourse and the word matter written with regard to monetary matters. The Torah states concerning one who desires to divorce his wife: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), a reference to adulterous intercourse, and with regard to monetary matters it states: “At the mouths of two witnesses, or at the mouths of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15).

אִי מַה לְּהַלָּן הוֹדָאַת בַּעַל דִּין כְּמֵאָה עֵדִים דָּמֵי – אַף כָּאן הוֹדָאַת בַּעַל דִּין כְּמֵאָה עֵדִים דָּמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא קָא חַיָּיב לְאַחֲרִינֵי. הָכָא קָא חַיָּיב לְאַחֲרִינֵי.

Rav Ashi asks: But if so, just as there, with regard to monetary matters, the legal status of the admission of a litigant is similar to that of one hundred witnesses and it renders him liable, so too here, the admission of a litigant should be similar to that of one hundred witnesses. This would mean that if the man and woman both admit to the betrothal, they should be liable to bear the consequences of this claim. Rav Kahana said to him: There is a difference between the two cases. There, with regard to one who admits that he owes money, he does not act to the detriment of another, whereas here, he acts to the detriment of another, as their confessions render them forbidden to each other’s relatives, which means that their claims affect others as well.

מָר זוּטְרָא וְרַב אַדָּא סָבָא בְּנֵי דְּרַב מָרִי בַּר אִיסּוּר פָּלֵיג נִיכְסַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַשִׁי, אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: ״עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, דְּאִי בָּעֵי לְמִיהֲדַר – לָא מָצֵי הָדְרִי בְּהוּ, וַאֲנַן לָא הָדְרִי?

The Gemara relates: Mar Zutra and Rav Adda the Elder, the sons of Rav Mari bar Issur, divided their shared property between them. They came before Rav Ashi and said to him that they had the following dilemma. The Merciful One states: “At the mouths of two witnesses, or at the mouths of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). Why do we say that two witnesses are required? So that if the parties involved wish to retract from their agreement and say that it never happened, they cannot retract from their agreement. And as we will not retract from our agreement, we do not require witnesses to establish our division of the property.

אוֹ דִּלְמָא לָא מִקַּיְּימָא מִלְּתָא אֶלָּא בְסָהֲדֵי? אָמַר לְהוּ: לָא אִיבְרוּ סָהֲדֵי אֶלָּא לְשַׁקָּרֵי.

Or perhaps the matter is established only through witnesses. In other words, perhaps the witnesses do not merely provide proof that the division occurred, but they are a constitutive factor in its establishment from a legal perspective. Rav Ashi said to them: Witnesses were created only for liars, and they are not needed to establish the matter. If no one denies the transaction, it remains in effect.

אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: אָמַר לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד ״אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב״ וְהַלָּה שׁוֹתֵק – נֶאֱמָן. וְתָנָא תּוּנָא: אָמַר לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד ״אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב״ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ – פָּטוּר. טַעֲמָא – דַּאֲמַר ״לֹא״, הָא אִישְׁתִּיק – מְהֵימַן.

§ With regard to a related issue, Abaye says: If one witness says to someone: You ate forbidden fat, and that one, the subject of the testimony, remains silent and does not deny it, the witness is deemed credible and the person in question must bring a sin-offering for his sin. And the tanna of the mishna also taught ( Karetot 11b): If one witness said to someone: You ate forbidden fat, and that person says: I did not eat it, he is exempt from bringing an offering. One can infer from this that the reason he is exempt is only because he said definitively: I did not eat, which indicates that if he was silent, the witness is deemed credible.

וְאָמַר אַבַּיֵי: אָמַר לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד ״נִטְמְאוּ טָהֳרוֹתֶיךָ״ וְהַלָּה שׁוֹתֵק – נֶאֱמָן. וְתָנָא תּוּנָא: עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״נִטְמְאוּ״ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר ״לֹא נִטְמְאוּ״ – פָּטוּר. טַעֲמָא – דַּאֲמַר ״לֹא״, הָא אִישְׁתִּיק – מְהֵימַן.

And Abaye says that if one witness says to someone: Your ritually pure food was rendered impure, and that person remained silent, the witness is deemed credible. And the tanna of the mishna also taught ( Karetot 12a): If one witness said to someone: Your ritually pure food was rendered impure, and that person says: It was not rendered impure, he is exempt. The reason he is exempt is only because he said definitively that his food was not rendered ritually impure, which indicates that if he was silent, the witness is deemed credible.

וְאָמַר אַבַּיֵי: אָמַר לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד

And Abaye further says that if one witness says to someone: