Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 19, 2022 | 讻壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 13

If the husband claims his wife is not a virgin and she says that it was from an injury (mukat etz) and he accuses her of having been with another man, again we have a debate between Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer on one side and Rabbi Yehoshua on the other. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about whether the man claims 100 zuz and woman 200 zuz or the man claims that she deserves nothing and she claims 100 zuz. Their debate is based on the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding a mukat etz – whether she gets a ketuba or 100 or 200. It is also based on a disagreement regarding a man who finds out after the marriage that his wife was not a virgin, does she receive a ketuba or 100 or none at all. If a woman was “talking” to another man and there is concern she had relations with him, if she claims he was of “kosher” lineage, can we rely on her testimony and permit her to marry a kohen? Again, the same rabbis as above debate this issue. They also debate a case where the woman was pregnant and she testifies that the father is “kosher”. What is the meaning of “talking” – was it that she went into a room alone with him or is it that we know she had intercourse with him? Zeiri and Rav Asi debate this issue and several sources are brought to raise difficulties against each of them and each difficulty is resolved, other than the last one which is left as a difficulty against Rav Asi. The last source was from the Tosefta Ketubot 1:9 which had a more detailed conversation between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer which ended with a confusing exchange regarding the differences/similarities between a woman taken into captivity and a pregnant woman or a woman who was seen in a secluded area with a man. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree regarding whether each side holds their position also regarding the woman’s testimony regarding the status of her daughter. Rabbi Eliezer raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan from the Tosefta. Rabbi Yochanan responds by limiting what was meant by the designation in the Tosefta of the child being a shtuki.

讚讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讚讬谞讬 讜讘讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讚诪砖谞讬谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Because if that were not so, it is difficult, as there would be a contradiction between one halakha and another halakha. Since, on the one hand, we maintain a principle in halakhic ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an in civil law; and, on the other hand, in that case involving the claims of the bride and the groom Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. Rather, can we not conclude from this apparent contradiction that the matter must be understood as we are teaching, that the opinion of Rav Na岣an can be reconciled with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the case.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诪讜讻转 注抓 讗谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讚专讜住转 讗讬砖 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讚专讜住转 讗讬砖 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛

MISHNA: In a case where she says: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, i.e., she admits that her hymen is not intact but claims that it was not ruptured through intercourse, and the groom says: No; rather, you are one who was trampled by a man, and your hymen was ruptured through intercourse, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible and her claim is accepted because she certainly knows what actually happened. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives; rather, she retains the presumptive status of one who was trampled by a man, until she brings proof supporting her statement that her hymen was ruptured by wood.

讙诪壮 讟注谞转讬讬讛讜 讘诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜诪谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讘诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are their respective financial claims? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The bride claims that since her hymen was ruptured by wood, her legal status is that of a virgin and she is entitled to a marriage contract of two hundred dinars; and the groom claims that she engaged in intercourse and is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. Rabbi Elazar said: The bride claims that although her hymen is not intact she did not completely deceive him, as she never engaged in intercourse, and therefore she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars; and the groom claims that she engaged in intercourse, rendering the betrothal a mistaken transaction, and therefore she is entitled to nothing at all.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜诪谞讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘讬谉 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讘讬谉 诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 诪谞讛

The Gemara elaborates. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The dispute between the bride and groom is whether the marriage contract is two hundred dinars or one hundred dinars, because the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Whether the husband was aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood or whether he was not aware of her condition, she receives payment of her marriage contract of two hundred dinars and it is not a mistaken transaction. And Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute between the bride and groom is whether the marriage contract is one hundred dinars or whether she is entitled to nothing at all, because the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said: Whether the husband was aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood or whether he was not aware of her condition, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: Granted, Rabbi Elazar did not state his explanation of the mishna in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan because he preferred to establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, according to which the halakha is ruled, and not the opinion of Rabbi Meir. However, what is the reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan did not state his explanation of the mishna in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Elazar?

拽住讘专 讻谞住讛 讘讞讝拽转 讘转讜诇讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 拽讗诪专 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讗 拽讗诪专讛 诪谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讟注谞讛 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讟注谞讛 讚讬讚讛

The Gemara answers: The reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan explained the mishna in that manner is that he holds: If the groom married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin, and she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars. Therefore, here, according to the explanation of Rabbi Elazar, who explains the mishna according to the opinion of the Rabbis, he is saying that she engaged in intercourse and is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars; and she is saying that her hymen was ruptured by wood and she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. What difference is there between his claim and her claim? Therefore, Rabbi Yo岣nan explains the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the dispute between the bride and the groom is whether she is entitled to a marriage contract of two hundred dinars or a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 讞讚讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗

Again we question: Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who explains that the dispute between the bride and the groom is with regard to whether she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars because her hymen was ruptured by wood, or whether she is entitled to nothing because she engaged in intercourse, that is why the tanna teaches two similar disputes, in this mishna and in the previous one. One dispute, in this mishna, comes to exclude the opinion of Rami bar 岣ma, who said: If he was not aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood, everyone agrees that she receives no marriage contract at all, as the marriage was a mistaken transaction. From this mishna it is clear that according to her claim that her hymen was ruptured by wood, she is entitled to one hundred dinars.

讜讞讚讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

And one dispute, in the previous mishna, is brought in order to exclude that which Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav Sheshet said: If the groom married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin and she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars. In the previous mishna he claims: Before I betrothed you, you were raped and my transaction was a mistaken transaction, indicating that she is entitled to nothing. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, why do I need the tanna to teach two similar disputes? In his opinion, the previous mishna could not have been taught to exclude that which Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav Sheshet said. It has already been established that Rabbi Yo岣nan agrees with the opinion that if she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

讞讚讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讞讚讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽诪讬讬转讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬讙讜 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讘转专讬讬转讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬讙讜 诪讛讬诪谞讗

The Gemara answers: The two similar disputes were necessary. One is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and the extent of the credibility that he accords to her claim; and one is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and the extent to which he does not accord credibility to her claim. The Gemara elaborates: The first mishna, where she admits she was raped but claims that it was after betrothal, conveys to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua: That even though there is room to say that her claim is bolstered by a miggo, she is not deemed credible. The second mishna, where she claims that her hymen was ruptured by wood and he claims that she engaged in intercourse, conveys to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabban Gamliel: That even though there is no room to say that her claim is bolstered by a miggo, in his opinion she is deemed credible.

诪转谞讬壮 专讗讜讛 诪讚讘专转 注诐 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 讗讬砖 讝讛 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讘注讜诇讛 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛

MISHNA: If people saw a woman speaking to one man, but they did not recognize him, and they said to her: What is the nature [tivo] of this man? And she said to them: He is a man called so-and-so and he is a priest; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, men of flawed lineage who disqualify her from marrying a priest, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

讛讬转讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 讝讛 诪讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 诪注讜讘专转 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛

Similarly, if a single woman was pregnant, and people said to her: What is the nature of this fetus? And she says to them: It is from a man called so-and-so and he is a priest; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who conceived from a Gibeonite or a mamzer, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诪讚讘专转 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 谞住转专讛 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 谞讘注诇讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讝注讬专讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 诪讚讘专转 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 诪讗讬 诪讚讘专转 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讗讻诇讛 讜诪讞转讛 驻讬讛 讜讗诪专讛 诇讗 驻注诇转讬 讗讜谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of speaking mentioned in the mishna? Ze鈥檈iri said: It means that she secluded herself with a man and it is unknown whether she engaged in intercourse. Rav Asi said: It means that she engaged in intercourse. Granted, according to Ze鈥檈iri, that is why the mishna teaches the case employing the term speaking, as it is certain only that they were in seclusion. Perhaps all they did was speak. However, according to Rav Asi, what is the reason the mishna employed the term speaking if the reference is to intercourse? The Gemara answers: The mishna employed a euphemism, as it is written with regard to licentious women: 鈥淪he eats and wipes her mouth and says: I have done no wickedness鈥 (Proverbs 30:20). The verse euphemistically ascribes the act of intercourse to the mouth instead of to the appropriate body part.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讝注讬专讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 诪讚讘专转 讜诪注讜讘专转 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Ze鈥檈iri, who said that speaking means that she secluded herself with him, that is the reason that the tanna teaches two cases in the mishna: A woman speaking to a man and a woman who is pregnant. However, according to Rav Asi, if speaking means that she engaged in intercourse, why do I need two cases addressing the same issue?

讞讚讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讛 讜讞讚讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛

The Gemara answers: The tanna teaches one case, the case of speaking to a man, to deem her fit to marry a priest, because although she engaged in intercourse, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel rule that she is deemed credible and is not considered to have engaged in intercourse with a man of flawed lineage. And the tanna teaches one case, the case of the single woman who is pregnant, in order to deem her daughter born from that pregnancy fit to marry a priest, as Rabbi Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel rule the mother is deemed credible.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 驻讜住诇 讘讘转讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讘 讗住讬 住讘专 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: With regard to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he deems her daughter fit to do so as well. However, according to the one who says: With regard to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he nevertheless deems her daughter unfit, what is there to say? Why did the mishna cite two cases addressing the same issue? The Gemara answers: Rav Asi holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who said: With regard to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he deems her daughter fit to do so as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讝注讬专讬 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 诪讚讘专转 谞住转专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛讗诪专 专讘 诪诇拽讬谉 注诇 讛讬讞讜讚 讜讗讬谉 讗讜住专讬谉 注诇 讛讬讞讜讚

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Ze鈥檈iri, who said: What is the meaning of the term speaking? It means that she secluded herself, and Rabbi Yehoshua said that she is not deemed credible to say that she engaged in intercourse with a man of proper lineage, but the assumption is that she engaged in intercourse with a man of flawed lineage. Didn鈥檛 Rav say: One flogs a man and a woman for entering into seclusion, for violating rabbinic law, but one does not render a woman forbidden to her husband for entering into seclusion? Only if it is established as a certainty that she engaged in intercourse with a man other than her husband, is she forbidden to her husband.

诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讬讜讞住讬谉

Let us say that this statement of Rav is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as Rabbi Yehoshua rules that she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, and she is forbidden to marry a priest even for entering into seclusion. The Gemara rejects that conclusion. Even if you say that Rav鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to matters of lineage. Although she is not forbidden to her husband for entering into seclusion, she is deemed unfit to marry a priest.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讗讜讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 注诐 讗讞讚 诇住转专

The Gemara raises an objection: If people saw that a woman entered with one man into seclusion,

讗讜 诇讞讜专讘讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 讗讬砖 讝讛 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜讘谉 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讘注讜诇讛 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛

or into a ruin, which is typically located outside the city, and if a man and woman meet there it is presumably in order to engage in sexual relations, and people said to her: What is the nature of this man with whom you secluded? She said to them: He is a priest, and he is the son of my father鈥檚 brother, a respectable person of impeccable lineage. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives; rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, men of flawed lineage who disqualify her from marrying a priest, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讝注讬专讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 诇住转专 讗讜 诇讞讜专讘讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 谞讘注诇讛 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚讗 拽转谞讬 诇住转专 讚讞讜专讘讛

Granted, according to Ze鈥檈iri, who said that speaking means that she secluded herself, that is the reason that the tanna teaches two cases where there is merely concern: The case of: Into seclusion, where there is lesser concern that she engaged in intercourse, and the case of: Into a ruin, where there is greater concern. However, according to Rav Asi, who said that speaking means that she had intercourse, and only in that case is she not deemed credible according to Rabbi Yehoshua, why do I need two cases? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Asi, the tanna is teaching one case: If people saw a woman enter with one man into the seclusion of a ruin, where the likelihood is that that they entered to engage in relations.

讜讛讗 诇住转专 讗讜 诇讞讜专讘讛 拽转谞讬 讞讚讗 诇讞讜专讘讛 讚诪转讗 讜讞讚讗 诇讞讜专讘讛 讚讚讘专讗 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讞讜专讘讛 讚诪转讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讻砖专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚专讜讘 讻砖专讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讞讜专讘讛 讚讚讘专讗 讚专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗爪诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the mishna teaching two different cases: Into seclusion or into a ruin? The Gemara suggests a different explanation. According to Rav Asi, two cases are necessary, one with regard to a ruin in the city and one with regard to a ruin in the field, distant from the city. And both cases are necessary, because if the tanna taught us only the case of a ruin in the city, one might have concluded that in that case Rabban Gamliel deems her fit to marry a priest due to the fact that the majority of the people in its proximity are honorable and of impeccable lineage. However, with regard to a ruin in the field, where the majority of the people in its proximity are unfit and of flawed lineage, as people from all over the world pass the ruin in the field and the majority of the people in the world are of flawed lineage, say that Rabban Gamliel concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua and deems her unfit to marry a priest.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 爪专讬讻讗

And if the tanna taught us only that case of a ruin in the field, one might have concluded that in that case Rabbi Yehoshua said she is not deemed credible, because the majority of the people there are of flawed lineage. However here, in the case of a ruin in the city, where the majority of the people are of impeccable lineage, say that Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabban Gamliel that she is deemed credible. Therefore, both cases were necessary.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讝讜 注讚讜转 砖讛讗砖讛 讻砖专讛 诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖讘讜讬讛 砖谞砖讘讬转 讜讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 砖谞砖讘讬转 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta: This, i.e., that she engaged in intercourse with a man of impeccable lineage, is testimony that a woman is fit to testify. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua said to the Sages: Do you not agree in the case of a woman who was taken captive, and she has witnesses testifying that she was taken captive, and she says: I am pure, i.e., I was not violated by my captors, that she is not deemed credible? The assumption in that case is that most captive women are violated by their captors.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讘诇 讜诪讛 讛驻专砖 讬砖 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇讝讜 诇讝讜 讬砖 注讚讬诐 讜诇讝讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 注讚讬诐

The Sages said to him: But there is a difference between the cases. And what difference is there between this case of a captive, where the woman is not accorded credibility, and that case of a woman who secluded herself with a man? For this captive, there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and due to the prevalent immorality in that situation, she loses the presumptive status of virtue and is considered to have certainly engaged in intercourse. But for this woman who secluded herself with a man, she does not have witnesses that she engaged in intercourse. Since she could have claimed that she did not engage in intercourse and instead admitted that she engaged in intercourse and claimed that it was with a man of impeccable lineage, she should be accorded credibility.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗祝 诇讝讜 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讛专讬 讻专讬住讛 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 驻专讜爪讬诐 讘注专讬讜转 讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讬谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 诇注专讬讜转

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Even for that woman, the one who secluded herself, there are witnesses, because her belly is between her teeth, i.e., her pregnancy is conspicuous and therefore she does not have the option of claiming that she did not engage in intercourse. The Sages said to him: There remains a difference between the cases, as most gentiles are steeped in sexual immorality. Therefore, presumably, they engaged in intercourse with the captive woman. However, in the case of the woman in seclusion there is no presumption that she engaged in intercourse specifically with a man with flawed lineage. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality, and therefore, everyone is suspect in that regard. Therefore, this woman, since she engaged in intercourse, lost her presumptive status of virtue, and there is no basis to trust her that it was with a person of impeccable lineage.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘讙讜驻讛 讗讘诇 注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘讘转讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬

The baraita continues: In what case are these divergent statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua said? It is in the case of the testimony of a woman with regard to herself, to render her fit to marry a priest. However, in the case of testimony of a woman with regard to the fact that the father of her daughter is a man of unflawed lineage, everyone agrees that her testimony is not deemed credible, and the legal status of the child is that of a shetuki, the identity of whose father is unknown and to whom all the stringencies that apply to a mamzer apply, due the uncertainty of his lineage.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诪讗讬 拽诪讛讚专讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讛砖讘转谞讜 注诇 讛诪注讜讘专转 诪讛 转砖讬讘谞讜 注诇 讛诪讚讘专转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讚讘专转 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讘讜讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讗谞讬 砖讘讜讬讛 讚专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 驻专讜爪讬诐 讘注专讬讜转 讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬住转转专 讗讬谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 诇注专讬讜转

The Gemara seeks to understand the exchange between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Sages. What did he say to them and what did they reply to him? It appears that they were not discussing the same case. This is what the Sages are saying to him: You answered us concerning the pregnant woman, asserting that there is testimony in the case of the pregnant woman comparable to the testimony in the case of the captive. However, what will you answer us concerning the woman who was seen speaking to a man? In that case, there is no testimony that she had intercourse. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: The case of speaking is the same as the case of the captive, as there is reason to believe that she engaged in intercourse. The Sages said to him: The case of a captive is different, as most gentiles are steeped in sexual immorality, and presumably they engaged in intercourse with the captive woman. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: In this case too, since she secluded herself with a man, based on the principle: There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality, presumably she engaged in intercourse with him.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 转专转讬 诪讚讘专转 讜诪注讜讘专转 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗住讬 转讬讜讘转讗

With regard to the dispute over the meaning of the term: Speaking, the Gemara says: In any event, from this discussion it is clear that the tanna is teaching two different cases, one case of speaking, where there is uncertainty whether she engaged in intercourse, and one case where she is pregnant, and there is no uncertainty in that regard. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Asi, who explained that speaking in the mishna means that she engaged in intercourse. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation of his opinion.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛转诐 专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗爪诇讛 讜讛讻讗 专讜讘 讻砖专讬谉 讗爪诇讛 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讚讘专讬 讛驻讜住诇 驻讜住诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讻砖专讬诐

The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita: And let the tanna derive this distinction between a captive woman and a woman who secluded herself with a man from the fact that there, in the case of the captive, the majority of the men in her proximity are unfit and of flawed lineage, but here, where she was secluded, the majority of the men in her proximity are honorable and of impeccable lineage. Since she is unmarried, most men are not unfit for her. The Gemara notes: The fact that the tanna did not derive the distinction from that source supports the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: According to the statement of Rabban Gamliel, the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he deems her fit even in a case where the majority of the men in her proximity are unfit. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, the one who deems her unfit to marry a priest, he deems her unfit even in a case where the majority of the men in her proximity are fit.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛驻讜住诇 讘讛 驻讜住诇 讘讘转讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 驻讜住诇 讘讘转讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: According to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest and accepts her claim that she engaged in intercourse with a man of unflawed lineage, he deems her daughter fit as well. According to the statement of the one who deems her unfit, he deems her daughter unfit as well. But Rabbi Elazar says: According to the statement of the one who deems her fit, he deems her daughter unfit.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讛讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讻砖专讜转 讘转讛 诇讬转 诇讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讻砖专讜转

Rabba said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who distinguishes between the effectiveness of the woman鈥檚 claim in determining her own status and its effectiveness in determining the status of her daughter? The reason is that granted, her claim is effective with regard to her status because she has the presumptive status of fitness. Therefore, until proven otherwise, she retains that status. Her daughter, the identity of whose father is unknown, does not have the presumptive status of fitness. Therefore, a full-fledged proof is required to establish her fitness.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘讙讜驻讛 讗讘诇 注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘讘转讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖转讜拽讬 讜驻住讜诇 诇讗 砖转讜拽讬 讜讻砖专

Rabbi Elazar raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from the baraita: In what case are these disputing statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua said? It is in the case of a woman鈥檚 testimony with regard to herself. However, in the case of testimony of a woman with regard to her daughter, everyone agrees that her testimony is not credible, and the legal status of the child is that of a shetuki. What, is it not that contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, the baraita means that the child is a shetuki and unfit until proof can be brought that the lineage of the father is unflawed? The Gemara rejects that objection: No, the baraita means that the child is a shetuki, as her lineage is unclear, but she is nevertheless fit.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 砖转讜拽讬 讻砖专 讗讬谉 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注砖专讛 讻讛谞讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 讜驻讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜讘注诇 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬

The Gemara asks: And is there a case of a shetuki who is nevertheless fit? The Gemara answers: Yes, as in the statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: If ten priests were standing and one of them left and engaged in intercourse, the child is a shetuki, literally one who is silenced, because the identity of the father is unclear. In that case it is clear that the child is fit, because it is known that the father is a priest of flawless lineage.

诪讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诪砖转讬拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讜诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讘讜讛 诪谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪砖转讬拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讚讬谉 讻讛讜谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 讗讞专讬讜 讘专讬转 讻讛谞转 注讜诇诐 诪讬 砖讝专注讜 诪讬讜讞住 讗讞专讬讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 诪讬讜讞住 讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara asks: In what sense is this child a shetuki? If we say that it means that one silences him from a claim to his father鈥檚 assets and he does not inherit his estate, that is obvious. Do we know who his father is? It could be any one of the ten. Rather, it means that one silences him from a claim to the status of priesthood. Although there is no doubt that his father is a priest, the son is not a priest, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall be for him and for his offspring after him an everlasting covenant of priesthood鈥 (Numbers 25:13). From this it is derived: In the case of a priest whose offspring are attributed to him, his offspring are priests; to the exclusion of this priest, whose offspring are not attributed to him, and whose offspring are not priests. This child, therefore, is a shetuki only in the sense that he may not perform the Temple service as a priest. However, he is permitted to marry a Jewish woman.

讛讛讜讗 讗专讜住 讜讗专讜住转讜 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讗 讗诪专讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专

Apropos paternity, the Gemara relates: There was a certain betrothed man and his betrothed, who was pregnant, who came before Rav Yosef. She said that she conceived from relations with him, and he said:

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 7-13 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the seven blessings, Sheva Brachot, recited at the wedding and for a week after...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 13: Speaking Together (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

A case of mukat eitz, and whether she is believed (and what the value of her ketubah would be). Also,...

Ketubot 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 13

讚讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讚讬谞讬 讜讘讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讚诪砖谞讬谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Because if that were not so, it is difficult, as there would be a contradiction between one halakha and another halakha. Since, on the one hand, we maintain a principle in halakhic ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an in civil law; and, on the other hand, in that case involving the claims of the bride and the groom Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. Rather, can we not conclude from this apparent contradiction that the matter must be understood as we are teaching, that the opinion of Rav Na岣an can be reconciled with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the case.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诪讜讻转 注抓 讗谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讚专讜住转 讗讬砖 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讚专讜住转 讗讬砖 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛

MISHNA: In a case where she says: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, i.e., she admits that her hymen is not intact but claims that it was not ruptured through intercourse, and the groom says: No; rather, you are one who was trampled by a man, and your hymen was ruptured through intercourse, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible and her claim is accepted because she certainly knows what actually happened. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives; rather, she retains the presumptive status of one who was trampled by a man, until she brings proof supporting her statement that her hymen was ruptured by wood.

讙诪壮 讟注谞转讬讬讛讜 讘诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜诪谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讘诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are their respective financial claims? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The bride claims that since her hymen was ruptured by wood, her legal status is that of a virgin and she is entitled to a marriage contract of two hundred dinars; and the groom claims that she engaged in intercourse and is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. Rabbi Elazar said: The bride claims that although her hymen is not intact she did not completely deceive him, as she never engaged in intercourse, and therefore she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars; and the groom claims that she engaged in intercourse, rendering the betrothal a mistaken transaction, and therefore she is entitled to nothing at all.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜诪谞讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘讬谉 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讘讬谉 诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 诪谞讛

The Gemara elaborates. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The dispute between the bride and groom is whether the marriage contract is two hundred dinars or one hundred dinars, because the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Whether the husband was aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood or whether he was not aware of her condition, she receives payment of her marriage contract of two hundred dinars and it is not a mistaken transaction. And Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute between the bride and groom is whether the marriage contract is one hundred dinars or whether she is entitled to nothing at all, because the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said: Whether the husband was aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood or whether he was not aware of her condition, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: Granted, Rabbi Elazar did not state his explanation of the mishna in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan because he preferred to establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, according to which the halakha is ruled, and not the opinion of Rabbi Meir. However, what is the reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan did not state his explanation of the mishna in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Elazar?

拽住讘专 讻谞住讛 讘讞讝拽转 讘转讜诇讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 拽讗诪专 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讗 拽讗诪专讛 诪谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讟注谞讛 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讟注谞讛 讚讬讚讛

The Gemara answers: The reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan explained the mishna in that manner is that he holds: If the groom married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin, and she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars. Therefore, here, according to the explanation of Rabbi Elazar, who explains the mishna according to the opinion of the Rabbis, he is saying that she engaged in intercourse and is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars; and she is saying that her hymen was ruptured by wood and she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. What difference is there between his claim and her claim? Therefore, Rabbi Yo岣nan explains the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the dispute between the bride and the groom is whether she is entitled to a marriage contract of two hundred dinars or a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 讞讚讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗

Again we question: Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who explains that the dispute between the bride and the groom is with regard to whether she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars because her hymen was ruptured by wood, or whether she is entitled to nothing because she engaged in intercourse, that is why the tanna teaches two similar disputes, in this mishna and in the previous one. One dispute, in this mishna, comes to exclude the opinion of Rami bar 岣ma, who said: If he was not aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood, everyone agrees that she receives no marriage contract at all, as the marriage was a mistaken transaction. From this mishna it is clear that according to her claim that her hymen was ruptured by wood, she is entitled to one hundred dinars.

讜讞讚讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

And one dispute, in the previous mishna, is brought in order to exclude that which Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav Sheshet said: If the groom married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin and she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars. In the previous mishna he claims: Before I betrothed you, you were raped and my transaction was a mistaken transaction, indicating that she is entitled to nothing. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, why do I need the tanna to teach two similar disputes? In his opinion, the previous mishna could not have been taught to exclude that which Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav Sheshet said. It has already been established that Rabbi Yo岣nan agrees with the opinion that if she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

讞讚讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讞讚讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽诪讬讬转讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬讙讜 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讘转专讬讬转讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬讙讜 诪讛讬诪谞讗

The Gemara answers: The two similar disputes were necessary. One is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and the extent of the credibility that he accords to her claim; and one is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and the extent to which he does not accord credibility to her claim. The Gemara elaborates: The first mishna, where she admits she was raped but claims that it was after betrothal, conveys to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua: That even though there is room to say that her claim is bolstered by a miggo, she is not deemed credible. The second mishna, where she claims that her hymen was ruptured by wood and he claims that she engaged in intercourse, conveys to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabban Gamliel: That even though there is no room to say that her claim is bolstered by a miggo, in his opinion she is deemed credible.

诪转谞讬壮 专讗讜讛 诪讚讘专转 注诐 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 讗讬砖 讝讛 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讘注讜诇讛 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛

MISHNA: If people saw a woman speaking to one man, but they did not recognize him, and they said to her: What is the nature [tivo] of this man? And she said to them: He is a man called so-and-so and he is a priest; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, men of flawed lineage who disqualify her from marrying a priest, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

讛讬转讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 讝讛 诪讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 诪注讜讘专转 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛

Similarly, if a single woman was pregnant, and people said to her: What is the nature of this fetus? And she says to them: It is from a man called so-and-so and he is a priest; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who conceived from a Gibeonite or a mamzer, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诪讚讘专转 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 谞住转专讛 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 谞讘注诇讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讝注讬专讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 诪讚讘专转 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 诪讗讬 诪讚讘专转 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讗讻诇讛 讜诪讞转讛 驻讬讛 讜讗诪专讛 诇讗 驻注诇转讬 讗讜谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of speaking mentioned in the mishna? Ze鈥檈iri said: It means that she secluded herself with a man and it is unknown whether she engaged in intercourse. Rav Asi said: It means that she engaged in intercourse. Granted, according to Ze鈥檈iri, that is why the mishna teaches the case employing the term speaking, as it is certain only that they were in seclusion. Perhaps all they did was speak. However, according to Rav Asi, what is the reason the mishna employed the term speaking if the reference is to intercourse? The Gemara answers: The mishna employed a euphemism, as it is written with regard to licentious women: 鈥淪he eats and wipes her mouth and says: I have done no wickedness鈥 (Proverbs 30:20). The verse euphemistically ascribes the act of intercourse to the mouth instead of to the appropriate body part.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讝注讬专讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 诪讚讘专转 讜诪注讜讘专转 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Ze鈥檈iri, who said that speaking means that she secluded herself with him, that is the reason that the tanna teaches two cases in the mishna: A woman speaking to a man and a woman who is pregnant. However, according to Rav Asi, if speaking means that she engaged in intercourse, why do I need two cases addressing the same issue?

讞讚讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讛 讜讞讚讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛

The Gemara answers: The tanna teaches one case, the case of speaking to a man, to deem her fit to marry a priest, because although she engaged in intercourse, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel rule that she is deemed credible and is not considered to have engaged in intercourse with a man of flawed lineage. And the tanna teaches one case, the case of the single woman who is pregnant, in order to deem her daughter born from that pregnancy fit to marry a priest, as Rabbi Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel rule the mother is deemed credible.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 驻讜住诇 讘讘转讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讘 讗住讬 住讘专 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: With regard to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he deems her daughter fit to do so as well. However, according to the one who says: With regard to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he nevertheless deems her daughter unfit, what is there to say? Why did the mishna cite two cases addressing the same issue? The Gemara answers: Rav Asi holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who said: With regard to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he deems her daughter fit to do so as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讝注讬专讬 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 诪讚讘专转 谞住转专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛讗诪专 专讘 诪诇拽讬谉 注诇 讛讬讞讜讚 讜讗讬谉 讗讜住专讬谉 注诇 讛讬讞讜讚

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Ze鈥檈iri, who said: What is the meaning of the term speaking? It means that she secluded herself, and Rabbi Yehoshua said that she is not deemed credible to say that she engaged in intercourse with a man of proper lineage, but the assumption is that she engaged in intercourse with a man of flawed lineage. Didn鈥檛 Rav say: One flogs a man and a woman for entering into seclusion, for violating rabbinic law, but one does not render a woman forbidden to her husband for entering into seclusion? Only if it is established as a certainty that she engaged in intercourse with a man other than her husband, is she forbidden to her husband.

诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讬讜讞住讬谉

Let us say that this statement of Rav is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as Rabbi Yehoshua rules that she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, and she is forbidden to marry a priest even for entering into seclusion. The Gemara rejects that conclusion. Even if you say that Rav鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to matters of lineage. Although she is not forbidden to her husband for entering into seclusion, she is deemed unfit to marry a priest.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讗讜讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 注诐 讗讞讚 诇住转专

The Gemara raises an objection: If people saw that a woman entered with one man into seclusion,

讗讜 诇讞讜专讘讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 讗讬砖 讝讛 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜讘谉 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讘注讜诇讛 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛

or into a ruin, which is typically located outside the city, and if a man and woman meet there it is presumably in order to engage in sexual relations, and people said to her: What is the nature of this man with whom you secluded? She said to them: He is a priest, and he is the son of my father鈥檚 brother, a respectable person of impeccable lineage. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives; rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, men of flawed lineage who disqualify her from marrying a priest, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讝注讬专讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 诇住转专 讗讜 诇讞讜专讘讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 谞讘注诇讛 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚讗 拽转谞讬 诇住转专 讚讞讜专讘讛

Granted, according to Ze鈥檈iri, who said that speaking means that she secluded herself, that is the reason that the tanna teaches two cases where there is merely concern: The case of: Into seclusion, where there is lesser concern that she engaged in intercourse, and the case of: Into a ruin, where there is greater concern. However, according to Rav Asi, who said that speaking means that she had intercourse, and only in that case is she not deemed credible according to Rabbi Yehoshua, why do I need two cases? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Asi, the tanna is teaching one case: If people saw a woman enter with one man into the seclusion of a ruin, where the likelihood is that that they entered to engage in relations.

讜讛讗 诇住转专 讗讜 诇讞讜专讘讛 拽转谞讬 讞讚讗 诇讞讜专讘讛 讚诪转讗 讜讞讚讗 诇讞讜专讘讛 讚讚讘专讗 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讞讜专讘讛 讚诪转讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讻砖专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚专讜讘 讻砖专讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讞讜专讘讛 讚讚讘专讗 讚专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗爪诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the mishna teaching two different cases: Into seclusion or into a ruin? The Gemara suggests a different explanation. According to Rav Asi, two cases are necessary, one with regard to a ruin in the city and one with regard to a ruin in the field, distant from the city. And both cases are necessary, because if the tanna taught us only the case of a ruin in the city, one might have concluded that in that case Rabban Gamliel deems her fit to marry a priest due to the fact that the majority of the people in its proximity are honorable and of impeccable lineage. However, with regard to a ruin in the field, where the majority of the people in its proximity are unfit and of flawed lineage, as people from all over the world pass the ruin in the field and the majority of the people in the world are of flawed lineage, say that Rabban Gamliel concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua and deems her unfit to marry a priest.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 爪专讬讻讗

And if the tanna taught us only that case of a ruin in the field, one might have concluded that in that case Rabbi Yehoshua said she is not deemed credible, because the majority of the people there are of flawed lineage. However here, in the case of a ruin in the city, where the majority of the people are of impeccable lineage, say that Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabban Gamliel that she is deemed credible. Therefore, both cases were necessary.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讝讜 注讚讜转 砖讛讗砖讛 讻砖专讛 诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖讘讜讬讛 砖谞砖讘讬转 讜讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 砖谞砖讘讬转 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta: This, i.e., that she engaged in intercourse with a man of impeccable lineage, is testimony that a woman is fit to testify. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua said to the Sages: Do you not agree in the case of a woman who was taken captive, and she has witnesses testifying that she was taken captive, and she says: I am pure, i.e., I was not violated by my captors, that she is not deemed credible? The assumption in that case is that most captive women are violated by their captors.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讘诇 讜诪讛 讛驻专砖 讬砖 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇讝讜 诇讝讜 讬砖 注讚讬诐 讜诇讝讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 注讚讬诐

The Sages said to him: But there is a difference between the cases. And what difference is there between this case of a captive, where the woman is not accorded credibility, and that case of a woman who secluded herself with a man? For this captive, there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and due to the prevalent immorality in that situation, she loses the presumptive status of virtue and is considered to have certainly engaged in intercourse. But for this woman who secluded herself with a man, she does not have witnesses that she engaged in intercourse. Since she could have claimed that she did not engage in intercourse and instead admitted that she engaged in intercourse and claimed that it was with a man of impeccable lineage, she should be accorded credibility.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗祝 诇讝讜 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讛专讬 讻专讬住讛 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 驻专讜爪讬诐 讘注专讬讜转 讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讬谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 诇注专讬讜转

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Even for that woman, the one who secluded herself, there are witnesses, because her belly is between her teeth, i.e., her pregnancy is conspicuous and therefore she does not have the option of claiming that she did not engage in intercourse. The Sages said to him: There remains a difference between the cases, as most gentiles are steeped in sexual immorality. Therefore, presumably, they engaged in intercourse with the captive woman. However, in the case of the woman in seclusion there is no presumption that she engaged in intercourse specifically with a man with flawed lineage. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality, and therefore, everyone is suspect in that regard. Therefore, this woman, since she engaged in intercourse, lost her presumptive status of virtue, and there is no basis to trust her that it was with a person of impeccable lineage.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘讙讜驻讛 讗讘诇 注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘讘转讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬

The baraita continues: In what case are these divergent statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua said? It is in the case of the testimony of a woman with regard to herself, to render her fit to marry a priest. However, in the case of testimony of a woman with regard to the fact that the father of her daughter is a man of unflawed lineage, everyone agrees that her testimony is not deemed credible, and the legal status of the child is that of a shetuki, the identity of whose father is unknown and to whom all the stringencies that apply to a mamzer apply, due the uncertainty of his lineage.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诪讗讬 拽诪讛讚专讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讛砖讘转谞讜 注诇 讛诪注讜讘专转 诪讛 转砖讬讘谞讜 注诇 讛诪讚讘专转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讚讘专转 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讘讜讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讗谞讬 砖讘讜讬讛 讚专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 驻专讜爪讬诐 讘注专讬讜转 讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬住转转专 讗讬谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 诇注专讬讜转

The Gemara seeks to understand the exchange between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Sages. What did he say to them and what did they reply to him? It appears that they were not discussing the same case. This is what the Sages are saying to him: You answered us concerning the pregnant woman, asserting that there is testimony in the case of the pregnant woman comparable to the testimony in the case of the captive. However, what will you answer us concerning the woman who was seen speaking to a man? In that case, there is no testimony that she had intercourse. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: The case of speaking is the same as the case of the captive, as there is reason to believe that she engaged in intercourse. The Sages said to him: The case of a captive is different, as most gentiles are steeped in sexual immorality, and presumably they engaged in intercourse with the captive woman. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: In this case too, since she secluded herself with a man, based on the principle: There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality, presumably she engaged in intercourse with him.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 转专转讬 诪讚讘专转 讜诪注讜讘专转 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗住讬 转讬讜讘转讗

With regard to the dispute over the meaning of the term: Speaking, the Gemara says: In any event, from this discussion it is clear that the tanna is teaching two different cases, one case of speaking, where there is uncertainty whether she engaged in intercourse, and one case where she is pregnant, and there is no uncertainty in that regard. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Asi, who explained that speaking in the mishna means that she engaged in intercourse. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation of his opinion.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛转诐 专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗爪诇讛 讜讛讻讗 专讜讘 讻砖专讬谉 讗爪诇讛 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讚讘专讬 讛驻讜住诇 驻讜住诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讻砖专讬诐

The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita: And let the tanna derive this distinction between a captive woman and a woman who secluded herself with a man from the fact that there, in the case of the captive, the majority of the men in her proximity are unfit and of flawed lineage, but here, where she was secluded, the majority of the men in her proximity are honorable and of impeccable lineage. Since she is unmarried, most men are not unfit for her. The Gemara notes: The fact that the tanna did not derive the distinction from that source supports the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: According to the statement of Rabban Gamliel, the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he deems her fit even in a case where the majority of the men in her proximity are unfit. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, the one who deems her unfit to marry a priest, he deems her unfit even in a case where the majority of the men in her proximity are fit.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛驻讜住诇 讘讛 驻讜住诇 讘讘转讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 驻讜住诇 讘讘转讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: According to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest and accepts her claim that she engaged in intercourse with a man of unflawed lineage, he deems her daughter fit as well. According to the statement of the one who deems her unfit, he deems her daughter unfit as well. But Rabbi Elazar says: According to the statement of the one who deems her fit, he deems her daughter unfit.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讛讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讻砖专讜转 讘转讛 诇讬转 诇讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讻砖专讜转

Rabba said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who distinguishes between the effectiveness of the woman鈥檚 claim in determining her own status and its effectiveness in determining the status of her daughter? The reason is that granted, her claim is effective with regard to her status because she has the presumptive status of fitness. Therefore, until proven otherwise, she retains that status. Her daughter, the identity of whose father is unknown, does not have the presumptive status of fitness. Therefore, a full-fledged proof is required to establish her fitness.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘讙讜驻讛 讗讘诇 注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘讘转讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖转讜拽讬 讜驻住讜诇 诇讗 砖转讜拽讬 讜讻砖专

Rabbi Elazar raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from the baraita: In what case are these disputing statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua said? It is in the case of a woman鈥檚 testimony with regard to herself. However, in the case of testimony of a woman with regard to her daughter, everyone agrees that her testimony is not credible, and the legal status of the child is that of a shetuki. What, is it not that contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, the baraita means that the child is a shetuki and unfit until proof can be brought that the lineage of the father is unflawed? The Gemara rejects that objection: No, the baraita means that the child is a shetuki, as her lineage is unclear, but she is nevertheless fit.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 砖转讜拽讬 讻砖专 讗讬谉 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注砖专讛 讻讛谞讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 讜驻讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜讘注诇 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬

The Gemara asks: And is there a case of a shetuki who is nevertheless fit? The Gemara answers: Yes, as in the statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: If ten priests were standing and one of them left and engaged in intercourse, the child is a shetuki, literally one who is silenced, because the identity of the father is unclear. In that case it is clear that the child is fit, because it is known that the father is a priest of flawless lineage.

诪讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诪砖转讬拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讜诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讘讜讛 诪谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪砖转讬拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讚讬谉 讻讛讜谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 讗讞专讬讜 讘专讬转 讻讛谞转 注讜诇诐 诪讬 砖讝专注讜 诪讬讜讞住 讗讞专讬讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 诪讬讜讞住 讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara asks: In what sense is this child a shetuki? If we say that it means that one silences him from a claim to his father鈥檚 assets and he does not inherit his estate, that is obvious. Do we know who his father is? It could be any one of the ten. Rather, it means that one silences him from a claim to the status of priesthood. Although there is no doubt that his father is a priest, the son is not a priest, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall be for him and for his offspring after him an everlasting covenant of priesthood鈥 (Numbers 25:13). From this it is derived: In the case of a priest whose offspring are attributed to him, his offspring are priests; to the exclusion of this priest, whose offspring are not attributed to him, and whose offspring are not priests. This child, therefore, is a shetuki only in the sense that he may not perform the Temple service as a priest. However, he is permitted to marry a Jewish woman.

讛讛讜讗 讗专讜住 讜讗专讜住转讜 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讗 讗诪专讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专

Apropos paternity, the Gemara relates: There was a certain betrothed man and his betrothed, who was pregnant, who came before Rav Yosef. She said that she conceived from relations with him, and he said:

Scroll To Top