Ketubot 28: When Memories Count and When They Don't

A divorced couple is not allowed to live in close proximity.  But what does that mean?  How close is close?  And who has to move away?  And in a small village, does one person have to leave the village? What if the couple was divorced after betrothal only?  And what if the chatan is a priest?  The rabbi discuss these questions eventually deciding that the couple should not live within three homes of each other, and that the woman must move away for it is easier for her to move on (because of generosity toward women or because she need not build a new house, the rabbis aren't clear).  

The rabbis are most concern that the couple does not transgress by engaging in intercourse when they are not legally allowed to do so.  They suggest that couples who were divorced after a betrothal are less likely to transgress for they are not yet comfortable with each other.  However, if they appear to be comfortable with each other the rabbis should take care to keep them apart.  Because this transgression is more severe for priests, there should be little leniency around this when it happens to kohanim.  The example of usufruct property is utilized here.  The rabbis suggest that couples who are accustomed to each other should use an intermediary to settle any outstanding debts.

A new Mishna tells us what a witness is deemed credible to testify about:

• His father's, brother's or teacher's signature, even if that signature was seen years ago as a minor
• a woman's status as a virgin when she was married, resulting in a $200 ketuba, based on seeing her wear a hinnuma at her wedding or seeing her with no hair covering at all
• a person's status as a priest based on watching him leave school early to immerse and then collect teruma; seeing him as a child receiving teruma on the threshing floor
• remembering the placement of a beit happara
• remembering the place of the Shabbat eiruv

On the other hand, a witness was not deemed credible if testifying about land ownership:

• where someone had a path running through someone else's property
• where a person would sit and stand; delivering eulogies and thus determining ownership

The Gemara begins by questioning each and every directive of the Mishna.  First, about handwriting - how could an adult possibly remember such a thing?  Only if he was awed by the writer.  But would one be awed by his father? his teacher? Certainly not by his brother?!  

And what about the hinnuma - one would be testifying that the young woman did what most young women do at their weddings based on their presumed virginity.  She could have been violated already and was presenting as a virgin, regardless.  

And perhaps that person who left school to be on the threshing floor was not a priest but the slave of a priest.  But slaves were not to study Torah, certainly not in school!  The rabbis remind us that even a slave who can read three verses of Torah, don tefillin, lend money to his master and run his master's property is not 'elevated' to the status of priest.  

Moving on to the testimony regarding a beit happara, the rabbis are more lenient.  Our notes remind us that there are two sorts of beit happara: the first is a place where a corpse was certainly buried and that area was plower, certainly spreading ritually impure bones within a 100 cubit area.   The other type of beit happara is avoided based upon suspicion.  The only way to impart ritual impurity in this case would be through the use of a tent.  The rabbis tell us that it is possible to blow on the ground before each step, erasing the possibility of stepping on something ritually impure which must be at least the size of a grain of barley.  Because the regulations around the beit happara are rabbinic, the rabbis accept the testimony of a person regarding their memories.

Same goes for memories about the eiruv - because eruvin as rabbinic law, a person's memory of the placement of an eiruv for Shabbat are considered credible.  People can use this testimony as a guideline to know the 2000 cubit walking limit on Shabbat.

Finally, the rabbis focus upon a minor or a slave who is testifying.  One cites the experience of a child who testifies about the purity of a family.  The rabbis question this - doesn't he mean the lineage of a family?  In any case, this young person has remembered eating fruit at a specific ceremony called the ketzatza.  Apparently, if a person married someone unfit for him/her, the family would host a ketzatza ceremony where many different kinds of fruit were opened together and the community was invited to partake.  Afraid that this couple's children would mingle with others and taint the family name, the ketzatza let families offer prayers against intermingling.  A minor is deemed credible remembering such a ceremony.  In a case where the minor remembers being told by his father about a family's lineage, that could count as more than one witness, for the father's words could man something as well.

Just imagine, a community fruit salad that warns couples about the consequences of intermingling.  And imagine being a slave, or a woman, for that matter, seeing what you see and knowing what you know, and understanding that your words do not count.