Deuteronómio 22:14 Referencias del Talmud: Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot, Jerusalem Talmud Sotah & Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51., the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here⁴⁴Deut. 25:5., does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law⁴⁷Since an argument based on the invariable meaning of words in legal texts must work both ways and Lev.18:18 obviously includes the prohibition of a sister-in-law who is not a brother’s wife, R. Yose ben Ḥanina’s argument seems illogical.? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions⁴⁴Deut. 25:5. the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51. one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law⁴⁸The implication from Deut. to Lev. would restrict the prohibition of the sister-in-law to a brother’s widow!! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there⁴⁴Deut. 25:5. is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51. is even about a brother’s widow⁴⁹The correct implication, parallel to the argument of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, is that Lev. 18:18 applies even to the widow of the childless brother as claimed in the Mishnah..

It was stated¹⁶⁷Sifry Num. 8, Num. Rabba 9(38); a more elaborate text in Babli 7a, Tosephta 1:1.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, her husband is believed about her by an argument de minore ad majus. Since he is believed about her when she is menstruating¹⁶⁸The menstruating woman is forbidden to her husband on penalty of extirpation (Lev. 20:18). Nobody requires chaperones during the time the wife is forbidden to her husband., when he would be subject to extirpation because of her, but for this one¹⁶⁹A wife suspected of adultery (and even a proven adulteress) is forbidden to her husband but no penalties are specified. he is not subject to extirpation because of her, is it not logical that he should be believed about her? They said to him, no. If you mention the menstruating, she will be permitted after being forbidden, what can you say about this one who may not be permitted after being forbidden¹⁷⁰If she is found guilty, she will be permanently forbidden and he will be forced to divorce her.? And it says, “stolen waters are sweet”¹⁷¹Prov. 9:17. She is more attractive forbidden than permitted.. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, it is a decree of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the priest”¹⁷⁸Num. 5:15., etc. They said to him, only with witnesses¹⁷⁹General statements in verses are never interpreted to override the general principles of administration of justice. Since relatives cannot testify for or against a person, the husband cannot testify for himself, just as he cannot testify against his bride whom he accuses of prenuptial adultery (Deut. 22:14)..

“I came to her and did not find her a virgin⁸³Deut. 22:14..” Should we not worry that he found and made disappear⁸⁴It is difficult to accept that the court should take the case simply on the husband’s statement, in particular because the husband cannot be cross-examined as a witness since he is related to his wife and relatives are barred from being witnesses.? The husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery while in her father’s house. “This is proof of my daughters virginity.⁸⁵Deut. 22:17. The father also is barred from being a witness in a case involving his daughter.” Should we not worry that this is bird’s blood? The father brought witnesses to prove perjury by the husband’s witnesses⁸⁶The case is a regular criminal case to be adjudicated following all rules of criminal procedure; the only new feature is the punishment inflicted on the husband if his case is not sustained in court.
In talmudic law, there are unreliable witnesses and there are perjurers. If the story of the witnesses does not hold up under cross-examination, or if the witnesses’s story is contradicted by equally trustworthy witnesses, the witnesses are unreliable and their testimony is not accepted as basis of a judgment. Perjury with its attendant penalties (Deut. 19:18–20) only is impossible testimony, i. e., that the opposing party produces witnesses to testify that the other witnesses could not possibly have seen what they testify to since they were at another place at the time they pretend to have seen certain things.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in this paragraph there are witnesses, witnesses of perjury, and witnesses of perjury of the witnesses of perjury: The husband says, these are witnesses that she whored in her father’s house. The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. And the husband brought witnesses to prove perjury of the father’s witnesses. Some Tannaïm state: “If this was true,” that the father found witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses⁸⁷The penalties mentioned in this paragraph can only be imposed if the case is one of proven formal perjury..