Mishnayos Kesuvos Perek 2 Mishnah 2
Change text layout:
כתובות פרק ב׳ משנה ב׳
Several disputes between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were cited previously with regard to the credibility accorded to the respective claims of parties to a dispute. Based on one of those disputes, the tanna adds: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field, which is currently in my possession, belonged to your father and I purchased it from him, that he is deemed credible, and his entire claim is accepted. The court accepts not only his admission that it once belonged to the other’s father, but also his statement that he purchased it. This is so, as the mouth that prohibited, i.e., claimed that the field had belonged to the other’s father, is the mouth that permitted, i.e., claimed that he purchased the field. Even if he had not admitted that it had belonged to the other’s father, the field would have remained in his possession. Therefore, his claim is accepted. However, if there are witnesses that the field belonged to his father, and the one who has the field in his possession says: I purchased it from him, he is not deemed credible and his claim is rejected.
וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיךָ הָיְתָה וּלְקַחְתִּיהָ הֵימֶנּוּ, שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן, שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אָבִיו וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לְקַחְתִּיהָ הֵימֶנּוּ, אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן:
Bartenura
ומודה רבי יהושע. אף על גב דלעיל בפ״ק גבי היא אומרת משארסתני נאנסתי פליג רבי יהושע ארבן גמליאל ואמר דלא מהמנינן לאשה במאי דאמרה משארסתני נאנסתי ופסלה עצמה מן הכהונה במגו דאי בעיא אמרה מוכת עץ אני והיתה כשרה לכהונה. הני מילי היכא דאיכא איסור והיתר לפסול לכהונה או להכשיר, בהא פליג רבי יהושע ארבן גמליאל ואמר דלא מהימנינן לה במגו, אבל היכא דליכא איסור והיתר אלא דררא דממונא, כגון האומר לחבירו שדה זו של אביך היתה ולקחתיה ממנו, מודה ר׳ יהושע לר׳ גמליאל דבכהאי גונא מהימנינן ליה במגו דאי בעי אמר שלי היא ואמר של אביך היתה ולקחתיה ממנו נאמן:
ואם יש עדים שהיא של אביו אינו נאמן. בגמרא מפרש דהא מתניתין אתא לאשמועינן כגון שלא אכלה אלא שתי שנים בפני האב ושנה אחת בפני הבן, כיון דלא שלמו לו שלש שני חזקה בחיי האב, השנה שאכלה בפני הבן אינו עולה למנין שני חזקה:
ומודה רבי יהושע – even though that above in the first chapter (Mishnah 6), regarding what she says: “after you betrothed me, I was raped,” Rabbi Yehoshua disputes Rabban Gamaliel and states, “we do not believe the woman.” In what she said: “after you betrothed me, I was raped,” and she disqualifies herself from [being able to marry into] the priesthood through “Miggo”-the legal rule according to which the deponent’s statement is accepted as true on the ground that, if he (or she) had intended to tell a lie, he/she might have invented one more advantageous to his/her case (see Talmud Ketubot 16a), for if she had wanted, she could have stated, “I was one who lost my hymen through an accidental lesion and was fit [to being able to marry into] the priesthood. These words [apply] where there is [a case] of prohibition or permission to prohibit [her to marry into] the priesthood or to validate it – in this Rabbi Yehoshua disputes Rabban Gamaliel and states that we don’t believe her through “Miggo,” but where there isn’t a case of prohibition and permission other than money at stake/eventual loss (see Talmud Ketubot 23b) such as, for example, where a person says to his fellow: “this field was your father’s, and I purchased it from him,” Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabban Gamaliel that in a case like this, we believe him through “Miggo,” for if he had wanted, he could have said, “it is mine,” and when he said, “this field was your father’s, and I purchased it from him,” he Is believed.
ואם יש עדים שהיא של אביו אינו נאמן – In the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 17b) it explains that this Mishnah comes to inform us as for example, that he did not consume other than two years in the presence of the father and one year in the presence of the son, since he did not pay him three years of legal claim of undisturbed possession during a legally fixed period in the lifetime of the father, the year that he ate in the presence of the son does not count for him for the count of the years of presumptive ownership.