For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 22
To download, click/tap here: PDF
The Mishna on our daf introduces us to the halakhic argument: “Ha-peh she-asar hu ha-peh she-hitir – the voice that forbade is the voice that permitted.”
In other words, when we are only aware of a potentially problematic situation because of someone’s admission, we trust that person to explain why the situation is, in fact, not a problem at all.
Thus, if a woman walks into court and says “I was married, but have received a divorce,” we will accept her story and allow her to marry with no need for her to prove that she is now single.
If, however, we knew that she was married based on other evidence, we cannot accept her word that she is divorced without some proof to that effect.
The Gemara quotes a baraita that goes one step further. The baraita teaches that a woman who says “I am married” can come to court afterwards and say “I am single” and will be believed if she gives an amatla – a convincing rationale for why she originally said what she did.
We continue our exploration of the credibility of women to give testimony with Prof Judith Hauptman’s work, followed by a review of the conservative movement’s struggle between tradition and change allowing for more latitude when it comes to women’s rights and equal participation in the legal process.