Ketubot 23A

מאי שנא רישא, ומאי שנא סיפא?

The Talmud asks: What is different in the first clause of the baraita with regard to betrothal, where, if she married another, she need not leave her husband; and what is different in the second clause with regard to divorce, where, if she remarried, she must leave her husband?

אמר אביי, תרגמה בעד אחד: עד אחד אומר ״נתקדשה״, ועד אחד אומר ״לא נתקדשה״⁠ — תרוייהו בפנויה קמסהדי, והאי דקאמר ״נתקדשה״⁠ — הוה ליה חד, ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים.

Abaye said: Interpret the baraita in a case in which each testimony was given by one witness. If one witness says: She was betrothed, and one witness says: She was not betrothed, they are both testifying that she was unmarried. And that witness who says that she was betrothed is one witness, and the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses.

סיפא, עד אחד אומר ״נתגרשה״, ועד אחד אומר ״לא נתגרשה״⁠ — תרוייהו באשת איש קמסהדי, והאי דקאמר ״נתגרשה״⁠ — הוה ליה חד, ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים.

In the latter clause, if one witness says: She was divorced, and one witness says: She was not divorced, they are both testifying that she was a married woman. And that witness who says that she was divorced is one witness, and the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses. Therefore, even if she remarried she must leave her husband.

רב אשי אמר: לעולם תרי ותרי, ואיפוך: שנים אומרים ״ראינוה שנתקדשה״, ושנים אומרים ״לא ראינוה שנתקדשה״⁠ — הרי זו לא תנשא, ואם נשאת ⁠— תצא.

Rav Ashi said: Actually it is a case where there are two witnesses testifying that she is betrothed and divorced, and two testifying that she is not betrothed and divorced. And in order to explain the difference between the first and latter clauses, reverse the two rulings. In the first clause, if two witnesses say: We saw her that she was betrothed, and two witnesses say: We did not see her that she was betrothed, this woman may not marry, and if she marries she must leave her husband.