Talking Talmud

The Gemara makes assumptions about couples that have divorced to protect them against future inappropriate intimacy. Also, a mishnah on adults who recall key information from childhood, and whether their testimony about those past events is legitimate. Plus, the "ketzatzah."

A mishnah: A city that was conquered - the women who were married to kohanim are now forbidden to their husbands. But if there were witnesses that the women were unscathed, they are believed, even if they aren't usually considered credible. Plus, a counter example to weaken the strong mishnah statement, via barrels of wine, even during wartime. What if circumstances indicate that they were protected? The sages know they want to be lenient in these cases - let's call it, "magical halakhic thinking." Also, the very sad story of a kohen who couldn't testify about himself. [Who's Who: R. Zechariyah Ben HaKatzav] || Talmud Principles: A person can't testify on his (or her) own behalf.

Some historical context for kohanim and leviim, and who got to collect the terumah and ma'aser rishon when... Note the penalty of Ezra with regard to those who did not return to the land of Israel in the time of Shivat Tzion. Plus, kohanim getting their tithes on the threshing floor. Also, a new mishnah: a woman who is imprisoned by non-Jews to get her husband to pay his debt - she's allowed to return to her husband after he pays and she's released. Unlike a "captive woman." But if she's imprisoned for a capital offense, and then later freed, she can't go back to her husband, even if he's not a kohen. The circumstances seem to depend on the degree of Jewish autonomy, and who is governing the non-Jewish world. Plus, an example of such a case in Ashkelon, which calls the claim about the non-Jewish immorality into question.

A focus on terumah, with the distinction of how that was applied in the land of Israel, as compared to in Babylonia - where terumah derabbanan was in play. Also, it was contingent on the "chazakah" status as kohanim. Note also different kohen practices as establishing kohanim as such, in the various places. Also, how were the kohanim actually established in practice? Various narratives illustrate the ways.

What happens when 2 people claim that each other is a kohen? Is that sufficient, or is a third person needed to corroborate, such that each person has 2 witnesses confirming his status as a kohen? The answer is found in donkey drivers or merchants, who are presumed to be more likely to collude, among other examples of trustworthy business practices (or not). Also, other practices by kohanim that seem to attest to their legitimate status as kohanim... but are they enough??

What happens if witnesses as to a woman's captivity only show up after she's already married (as per the mishnah)? The Gemara explains that the mishnah doesn't mean actually married. And if she has witnesses who can corroborate that she was unscathed - that is believed. Likewise, if there are witnesses that she's NOT unscathed, she's supposed to leave her marriage (especially if she's married to a kohen). Plus, a case of events that took place - actual captive women. With Shmuel knocking his father, and with his father winning, after all. Also, a paid of witnesses who each said they were pure - they can testify on behalf of the others, but not for themselves. Plus the full range of permutations, so that all basis are covered. Including what happens if the party, or some parties, are kohanim, or people waiting to be established as kohanim.

What is a "Beit Din chatzuf"? When the court isn't quite proper, but its acts are upheld. Also, a new mishnah who speaks about herself as having been married and is now divorced - we know that she is believed. And what of this principle of the same mouth permitting and prohibiting, where's its source? Plus, backing up one's statement with a rationale. Also, keeping the hordes away with a false claim of marriage. || Talmudic Principles: chatikha de-isura; amatla.

Starting with the mishnah on the bottom of the previous daf - the case of witnesses who testify to their own handwriting and also to that if the co-witness - that's credible and upholds the document. But what if they only speak to their own handwriting, and not the other guy? It's a machloket whether the authentication of the other guy, beyond his own corroboration, is necessary. Also, can a witness become a judge? Does a judge need to have been able to be a witness? The discussion begins with the witnesses for the new moon. There are open questions here, specifically whether a judge can be a witness for non-Rosh Chodesh cases (like documents) and a hierarchy of each rabbi asking up, to the next one with greater knowledge.

More on witnesses, and how they prove themselves as reliable. What about when their signatures need validation? What if they are challenged? Plus, a real tangent to a discussion on mounds of dirt that were near the city or on the path - whatever that precisely means - and when they were considered ritually impure.

Defining and explaining the "shtar amanah" - and why a document of "trust" is not to be believed in terms of monetary transactions. How does one prove payment, however? The documentation for loans ends up being key. It's a commitment to good faith, though it's not binding. Also, a case of witnesses who signed and died before the document was needed. People came and attested to the signatures - that they were the handwriting of the witnesses who had died. But the claim is that they signed under duress. Which complicates matters, of course.