Yerushalmi Ketubot 2:10 ירושלמי כתובות ב׳:י׳

MISHNAH: In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what one saw in one’s minority. A man is trustworthy to say, this is my father’s handwriting, my teacher’s handwriting, my brother’s handwriting¹⁷⁶Even though a minor is not admitted as a witness in money matters, since he testifies only to the genuineness of the document, not about its monetary implications, he can be admitted. A similar text is in Tosephta 3:3.; I remember that this person went out in hinuma²²As explained in Chapter 1, Note 65, originally a virgin was led to her husband’s house with ὑμέναιοι “wedding songs”. After the war of Bar Kokhba, when these songs were forbidden (Soṭah 9:13, Note 189), the word hinuma changed its meaning. In Babylonia it became “a veil” (Babli 17b), literally “a slumber cloth” from נום “to sleep”, in Galilee φόρημα “that which is carried”, i. e., “a litter”. and uncovered hair¹⁷⁷The implication of the testimony is that the woman can collect a virgin’s ketubah; but this is not the direct text of the testimony., or that this man left school to immerse himself to eat heave¹⁷⁸He is a Cohen and was taken by his father to learn how to eat heave in purity., or that he took his part with us on the threshing floor¹⁷⁹One Cohen testifies for another that he is a Cohen., or that this place is bet happeras¹⁸⁰A “field of pieces” is a lot of which it is known that there had been a grave but which was ploughed over and, therefore, there might be pieces of human bones anywhere and the passage through this lot is forbidden to Cohanim., or this far we went on the Sabbath¹⁸¹To indicate the Sabbath boundary, 2000 cubits from the town. There may be implications for money matters, as noted in the Halakhah, if the town expanded or shrank in the meantime.. But a person is not trustworthy to say that X had a right of way at this place¹⁸²In that case, his testimony would directly transfer money’s worth from one person to another., or that X had a space for eulogies at this place.¹⁸³Eulogies cannot be delivered in the graveyard; since the dead cannot deliver sermons, sermonizing there would be blasphemy since (Pr. 17:5) “he who mocks the poor insults his Maker”. There were public places on the road from the town to the graveyard where eulogies were held; some families had their own spots for eulogies of their deceased. The right to hold these eulogies has monetary value.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Only these which they are used to¹⁸⁵The adult is restricted to testifying about the handwriting of his father, teacher, and brother which he saw in his youth. He is not able to testify about other people’s handwriting even if he saw it frequently.. It was stated: Only if they are supported by others¹⁸⁶The need for two witnesses is not waved..

Should one not worry that he might be a slave¹⁸⁷May the child taken after school to be immersed to be purified for heave not be the slave of a Cohen who is entitled to eat it (Lev. 22:11)?? This supports what Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁸⁸In the Babli, 28a, in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi.: It is forbidden for a man to teach Torah to his slave¹⁸⁹In contrast to the Greek and Roman world, the literate person was supposed to be free, not a slave.. But did not Rebbi Ze‘ira say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A slave is counted as one of the seven readers¹⁹⁰On the Sabbath, he can be one of the seven people called to read in the Torah. If he is illiterate, how could he possibly read? The same argument in the Babli, 28b.; wayedabber is counted as one of three verses¹⁹¹In any public Torah reading, three verses are the minimum. The short verse: “The Eternal spoke to Moses, saying” is a full verse and counted as one of the three; the rule also is stated in Megillah 21b.
This was the version written by the scribe. The corrector crossed out “3” and replaced it by “7”; followed in the editio princeps.! Explain it, if he learned it by himself or his master taught him like Tebi¹⁹²Rabban Gamliel’s slave; cf. Mishnah Berakhot 2:8.. Should one not worry that he might be a slave¹⁹³This refers to the testimony that the person was receiving heave on the threshing floor.? This supports what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Women¹⁹⁴Since a Cohen’s daughter loses her claim to heave upon marriage to a non-Cohen and the wife of a Cohen might lose it by divorce, they should not establish customary rights to receive heave directly from the farmer (Babli Yoma 10a). and slaves cannot share in the distribution on the threshing floor, but one gives them the gifts of priesthood and levitic status from the house¹⁹⁵Since they are entitled to eat. In all these cases, the Babli restricts the testimony to cases of rabbinic heave (other than heave of grain, wine, and olive oil in the Holy Land)..

May one act in money matters on their testimony¹⁹⁶For example, on the testimony about the Sabbath boundary in earlier times.? How is that? If everybody knew that the Sabbath boundary was at Reuben’s field; they came and said, this far we came on the Sabbath, and it turns out that this field is in Simeon’s hand. May one take it from Simeon and return it to Reuben¹⁹⁷If Reuben claims ownership of the field but has no documents; Simeon also has no documents and does not claim to have bought it from Reuben. Neither this nor the following questions are answered.?

Would they be trustworthy to say, we went out to collect unripe figs in the sabbatical year and heard X talking about his wife Y, or woman Z talking about her children¹⁹⁸The Mishnah gives the adult permission to tell from his youth to confirm another man in the priesthood. Is he also permitted to tell things that would bar a man from the priesthood or even from marrying in the congregation, such as Mr. X telling about the unfaithfulness of his wife, or a woman about the fact that some or all of her children are not her husband’s??

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel asked: If they were proven to be false witnesses¹⁹⁹By biblical decree (Deut. 19:16–21), the punishment of a false witness is that he suffers the punishment that would have been imposed on the defendant had the testimony stood up in court. Since the entire Mishnah is interpreted to speak about money matters, the punishment in this case would be monetary. (In rabbinic theory, a witness can be proven false only if it is shown that his testimony is impossible, i. e., that he was not at the place he testifies about at the time in question.), do they have to pay? ²⁰⁰Soṭah 1:1, Note 44. Or it might be, following what Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah⁴³If during court proceedings there are contradictory statements, none of which can be shown to be false, there is no proof and the claim of legal possession cannot be denied., said in the name of Samuel: One does not infer one thing from another in the matter of false witnesses. And here it is so.

It was stated²⁰¹Tosephta 3:3.: “That we ate in X or Y’s clipping.” What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he bought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, ²⁰²Babli 38b. If a Cohen married a woman forbidden to him, his children would not be Cohanim and forbidden as marriage partners to the rest of the family. (Rabbinically, he himself would be barred from all priestly functions until he divorced the unsuitable wife.) also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his realtives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. Whe he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family.

“In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what he saw in his minority,” etc. They are only trustworthy as adults²⁰³Otherwise, the Mishnah simply could have stated: “In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify about what he saw in his minority.” about what they saw as minors; therefore, not as minors! There²⁰⁴Mishnah Baba Qama 10:2, a statement of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa., we have stated: “A woman or a minor are trustworthy when they said, from there a swarm of bees left. He then can enter another’s field and take his swarm.²⁰⁵The beekeeper has permission to enter to retrieve his swarm but he has to pay for any damage he may cause.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said this only about a swarm of bees because taking it is not robbery by biblical standards²⁰⁶In Baba Qama 10:2: “Because taking it is not robbery by stipulation.” There, the stipulation is attributed to Joshua at the time of the distribution of the Land. The moment the bees swarm, they really become ownerless. If the right of the beekeeper to the swarm which leaves his hive is by stipulation, then the testimony of a minor also can be accepted by stipulation; cf. 13:7, Note 110. The Babli (Baba Qama114b) agrees.. Rav Oshaiah stated, only if it is swarming²⁰⁷Some commentators want to refer “swarming” to the minor; that he can testify only as a “swarming minor” (Babli Berakhot 47b), one for whom it is not clear whether he is a minor or an adult. That does not make sense, in particular because in the Yerushalmi (Berakhot 7:2, Note 66) he is simply called “doubtful”.. But not if it clings to a branch²⁰⁸Sefer Ha‘ittur (part 2, p. 115a, Note 135) reads אֲבָל בְּשָׁכֵן לֹא “but not when it is resting.” The text of the ms. is preferable since (a) it is confirmed by the different editorship of Baba Qama and (b) the Mishnah continues with a dispute whether the beekeeper is entitled to cut off the tree branch on which the bees have settled (and then pay the tree’s owner.). Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Is that not reasonable only when it happens, but not after some time? He said to him, I agree. And we have stated: When is this said? When they testified to what they said²⁰⁹Sefer Ha‘ittur(loc. cit.) reads: בִּוְמַן שֶׁהָעֵדִים בְּמַעֲמָדָן “as long as the witnesses stand (before the court).” The text of the ms. is preferable since (a) by the general rules of procedure no witnesses can testify twice in the same matter (Note 56) and (b) the reference is to the Mishnah here which is interpreted to mean that they are only trustworthy in matters that have pecuniary implications if their testimony is taken as soon as they indicate that they have knowledge of the matter, but not if in the meantime they were subject to outside influences. The Babli (Baba Qama 114b) admits the testimony of the minor about the swarm of bees “if he speaks without being prompted.”. But if they left and came back, I am saying that they speak out of fear or were seduced.