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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 17, 2015 | 讻状讞 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Ketubot 15

讘拽专讜谞讜转 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讬转讛 住讬注讛 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讻砖专讬谉 注讜讘专转 诇砖诐 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 谞讘注诇转 讘拽专讜谞讜转 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛

The incident transpired among the wagons [keronot] in the marketplace of Tzippori on the market day, and this halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: And this is the ruling only in a case where there was a contingent of men of unflawed lineage passing there. Due to the fact that both the lineage of the majority of the people of the city where the girl was raped and the lineage of the majority of the passersby is unflawed, the rape is attributed to a man of unflawed lineage. And this ruling is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yannai, as Rabbi Yannai said: If she engaged in intercourse in the wagons, she is fit to marry a member of the priesthood.

讘拽专讜谞讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 谞讘注诇转 讘砖注转 拽专讜谞讜转 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讘诇 驻讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪爪讬驻讜专讬 讜讘注诇 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬

The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind to say that the woman was raped in the wagons, in the crowded area of the marketplace where business is conducted? Rather, Rabbi Yannai is saying that if she was forced to engage in intercourse at the time of the wagons, i.e., when the convoys pass, she is fit to marry a member of the priesthood. However, if one individual, whose lineage is unknown, left Tzippori and engaged in intercourse with a woman, the child is a shetuki and deemed unfit to marry into the priesthood even though the majority of the inhabitants of city are of unflawed lineage.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 专讜讘 讛注讬专 讜讗讬谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 专讜讘 住讬注讛

The Gemara notes: That is similar to this statement that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, Ze鈥檈iri said that Rabbi 岣nina said, and some say directly that Ze鈥檈iri said that Rabbi 岣nina said: One follows the flawed lineage of the majority of the people in the city and one does not follow the unflawed lineage of the majority of the traveling contingent, and the woman who engaged in intercourse with a member of the itinerant contingent is deemed unfit to marry into the priesthood.

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讛谞讬 谞讬讬讚讬 讜讛谞讬 拽讘讬注讬 讜拽讬讬诪讬

The Gemara asks: On the contrary [kelapei layya], the opposite is logical. These members of the contingent are moving, and in that case the principle is that one follows the majority. And these people of the city are fixed and standing in one place, and in that case the principle is that even if the lineage of the majority is unflawed, the uncertainty is treated as if it were equally balanced.

讗诇讗 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 专讜讘 讛注讬专 讜讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讘 住讬注讛 讘讛讚讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 专讜讘 讛注讬专 讙专讬讚转讗 讜诇讗 讗讞专 专讜讘 住讬注讛 讙专讬讚转讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讛 专讜讘 住讬注讛 讗讟讜 专讜讘 讛注讬专

Rather, this is what Rabbi Yannai is saying: One follows the lineage of the majority of the city, and that is specifically in a case where there is a majority of men of unflawed lineage in the passing contingent together with the city鈥檚 unflawed majority. In that case, from both perspectives the intercourse can be attributed to a man of unflawed lineage. However, neither does one follow the unflawed lineage of the majority of the city alone, nor does he follow the unflawed lineage of the majority of the contingent alone. What is the reason that one does not follow the lineage of the majority of the moving contingent? It is because the Sages issued a decree not to follow the majority of the contingent due to the majority of the city, where one does not follow the majority.

讜专讜讘 讛注讬专 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诇讙讘讛 讻诇 讚驻专讬砖 诪专讜讘讗 驻专讬砖 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讗讝诇讗 讗讬讛讬 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽讘讜注 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there cases where one follows the majority of the city as well, as, if one of the residents of the city goes out of the city to her and rapes her, the principle is: The legal status of any item that is separated from the group is that of one separated from the majority? Therefore, there is no reason to issue a decree. The Gemara answers: The decree is necessary only due to a case where she went into the city to them, in which case the rapist is an indistinguishable member of a fixed set, and Rabbi Zeira said: The legal status of uncertainty with regard to any item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, and one does not follow the majority.

讜诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 转专讬 专讜讘讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 转砖注 讞谞讜讬讜转 讻讜诇谉 诪讜讻专讜转 讘砖专 砖讞讜讟讛 讜讗讞转 诪讜讻专转 讘砖专 谞讘诇讛 讜诇拽讞 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪讗讬 讝讛 诪讛谉 诇拽讞 住驻讬拽讜 讗住讜专 讜讘谞诪爪讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘

The Gemara questions the statement of Rabbi Ami: And do we require two majorities to overcome the minority? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and a person bought meat from one of the stores and he does not know from which store he bought the meat, in this case of uncertainty, the meat is prohibited. The legal status of uncertainty with regard to any item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, and one does not follow the majority. This baraita continues: And in the case of meat found in the street, outside the stores, follow the majority of stores that sell kosher meat. In other words, the meat is kosher.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘砖讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 谞注讜诇讜转 讚拽讗 讗转讬 诇讛 专讜讘讗 诪注诇诪讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讚诇转讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 谞注讜诇讜转 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讬讜讞住讬谉

And if you would say that one follows the majority only in a case where the gates of the city are unlocked, where the meat could have come to the city from the majority of kosher meat outside the city and only by combining that majority with the majority of kosher meat stores inside the city, creating two majorities, is the meat ruled kosher; but didn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say: Even if the city gates are locked, one follows the majority and the meat is kosher even without a double majority? The Gemara answers: The Sages require two majorities only in cases such as establishing the identity of the child鈥檚 father, because they established a higher standard with regard to matters of lineage. However, in other cases, e.g., concerning kosher meat, a single majority is sufficient.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

搂 In terms of the matter itself, Rabbi Zeira said: The legal status of uncertainty with regard to any item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, both when it leads to leniency, e.g., in a case where, were one to follow the majority, the ruling would be stringent, and when it leads to stringency, e.g., in a case where, were one to follow the majority, the ruling would be lenient.

诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪转砖注 讞谞讜讬讜转 讻讜诇谉 诪讜讻专讜转 讘砖专 砖讞讜讟讛 讜讗讞转 讘砖专 谞讘诇讛 讜诇拽讞 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 诇拽讞 住驻讬拽讜 讗住讜专 讜讘谞诪爪讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讛转诐 诇讞讜诪专讗

The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Zeira learn that the legal status of uncertainty with regard to any item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, both when it leads to leniency and when it leads to stringency? If we say that it is derived from the case of nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and a person bought meat from one of the stores and he does not know from which store he bought the meat, in this case of uncertainty the meat is prohibited. And in the case of meat found in the street, outside the stores, follow the majority of stores that sell kosher meat, and therefore the meat would be kosher. There, in the first case, ruling it an equally balanced uncertainty is a stringency, as there is a majority of kosher stores.

讗诇讗 诪转砖注讛 爪驻专讚注讬诐 讜砖专抓 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜谞讙注 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 谞讙注 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讞讜诪专讗

Rather, Rabbi Zeira learns that halakha from a different baraita. If there were nine frogs, which is a creeping animal that does not impart ritual impurity while alive or when dead, and one ritually impure creeping animal, whose carcass imparts ritual impurity, among them, and a person touched one of the ten creatures, and he does not know which of them he touched, in this case of uncertainty the person is ritually impure. There too, ruling it an equally balanced uncertainty is a stringency, as the majority of the creeping animals do not impart impurity.

讗诇讗 诪转砖注讛 砖专爪讬诐 讜爪驻专讚注 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜谞讙注 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 谞讙注 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专

Rather, Rabbi Zeira learns that halakha from the continuation of that baraita. If there are nine creeping animals, whose carcasses impart ritual impurity, and one frog among them, and a person touched one of them, and he does not know which of them he touched, if it was in the private domain, in this case of uncertainty the person is ritually impure, as all cases of uncertainty with regard to ritual impurity are ruled impure in the private domain. This is derived from the case of sota. However, in the public domain, in that case of uncertainty the person is ritually pure. Although contact with a creeping animal from the majority would render him ritually impure, since the uncertainty is with regard to a fixed group, its legal status is that of an equally balanced uncertainty, and in the public domain he is ritually pure. Rabbi Zeira learns that halakha from this case of leniency.

讜诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗专讘 诇讜 讜拽诐 注诇讬讜 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讬谉 诇讜 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 驻专讟 诇讝讜专拽 讗讘谉 诇讙讜

After citing a tannaitic source for Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara asks: And from where in the Torah do we derive that the legal status of any item fixed in its place is like that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, both when it leads to leniency and when it leads to stringency? It is derived from the verse that states with regard to a murderer: 鈥淎nd lie in wait for him, and rise up against him鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:11), indicating that one is liable only in a case where he intends to kill him. One who intended to kill one person and inadvertently killed another is exempt from punishment. And how do the Rabbis, who hold that one is liable in that case, interpret that verse? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: It excludes the case of one who throws a stone into a crowd and did not intend to kill a specific person.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚专讜讘讗 讙讜讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讛拽诇

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case where he threw the stone and is exempt? If we say that there are nine gentiles in the crowd and one Jew among them, even without the verse, let him derive the exemption from the fact that they are a majority of gentiles. Alternatively, even if we say that half of the ten people are considered gentiles and half are considered Jews, let him derive the exemption from the principle: In a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, the halakha is lenient.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讜讙讜讬 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 拽讘讜注 讜讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: No, the verse is necessary only in a case where there are nine Jews and one gentile among them. Were the ruling to follow the majority the one who threw the stone would be liable. But in that case, because the gentile is fixed among them, and the legal status of any item fixed in its place is like that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, he is exempt, based on the principle: In a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, the halakha is lenient. Apparently, even in cases of Torah law in which the result would be a leniency, i.e., exemption from the death penalty for murder, the legal status of any item fixed in its place is like that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜专讗转 砖注讛 讛讬转讛

搂 With regard to the matter of following the majority in cases of lineage, it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute: Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in the mishna, and it is permitted for the young girl who was raped to marry a priest. And Rav 岣nan bar Rava said that Rav said: That was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances. However, typically, with regard to matters of lineage two majorities are required.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 转专讬 专讜讘讬 讜讛转谞谉

Rav Yirmeya raised an objection to the ruling of Rav 岣yya bar Ashi, who apparently ruled that even in cases where there is one majority the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: And in matters of lineage, do we not require two majorities, a majority of the city鈥檚 inhabitants and a major-ity of the passing contingent? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Makhshirin 2:7):

诪爪讗 讘讛 转讬谞讜拽 诪讜砖诇讱 讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讬砖专讗诇

If there is a city in which both Jews and gentiles reside, and one found an unidentified, abandoned baby in the city, if there is a majority of gentiles in the city the baby is deemed a gentile; if there is a majority of Jews in the city the baby is deemed a Jew. If half the population is gentile and half Jewish, the baby is deemed a Jew.

讜讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讞讬讜转讜 讗讘诇 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇驻拽讞 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇

And Rav said with regard to this mishna: The Sages taught that if there is a majority of Jews in the city the baby is deemed a Jew only with regard to sustaining him; however, with regard to lineage, e.g., marrying him to a Jewish woman, no, he is not deemed a Jew based on the majority and would require conversion. And Shmuel said: It was taught that he is deemed a Jew in order to create an opening in a heap of debris on his behalf on Shabbat, i.e., desecrating Shabbat in order to save his life. Apparently, contrary to the ruling of Rav 岣yya bar Ashi, Rav holds that a single majority is insufficient to deem him Jewish in matters of lineage.

讗砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘拽专讜谞讜转 砖诇 爪驻讜专讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara answers: Rav Yirmeya overlooked that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said with regard to the mishna: The incident of the rape of the young girl transpired among the wagons in the marketplace of Tzippori, and there were two majorities; the majority of the inhabitants of the city and the majority of the passing contingent. Therefore, when Rav 岣yya bar Ashi ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that the young girl may marry a priest, it was in a case of two majorities.

讜诇专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讛讜专讗转 砖注讛 讛讬转讛 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪转谞讬 讛讗

The Gemara asks: And if the case in the mishna is one of two majorities, according to Rav 岣nan bar Rava who said in the name of Rav: That was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances, meaning that two majorities were required in that case but typically one majority is sufficient, it is difficult. Didn鈥檛 Rav say that in matters of lineage one majority is insufficient? The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. The one who teaches this, that the ruling in our mishna was a provisional edict, does not teach that statement that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that the incident took place among the wagons in the marketplace of Tzippori. Rather, he holds that there was a single majority and nevertheless, due to exigent circumstances, the girl was permitted to marry into the priesthood, although generally two majorities are required in cases of lineage.

讙讜驻讗 诪爪讗 讘讛 转讬谞讜拽 诪讜砖诇讱 讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讞讬讜转讜 讗讘诇 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇驻拽讞 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇

搂 Apropos the case of the abandoned baby, the Gemara analyzes the matter itself: If there is a city in which both Jews and gentiles reside, and one found an unidentified, abandoned baby in the city, if there is a majority of gentiles in the city the baby is deemed a gentile. If there is a majority of Jews in the city the baby is deemed a Jew. If half the population is gentile and half Jewish, the baby is deemed a Jew. Rav said: The Sages taught that the baby is deemed a Jew only with regard to sustaining him; however, with regard to lineage, no. And Shmuel said: It was taught that he is deemed a Jew in order to create an opening in a heap of debris on his behalf on Shabbat.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讘驻讬拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讬砖讗 讗转诪专 讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇驻拽讞 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇 讗讬谞讜 讻谉

The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel say that? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef say that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One does not follow the majority in matters involving saving a life? Even if there is the slightest concern that the life of a Jew may be in danger, one takes all steps necessary to save him, even on Shabbat. Rather, when the statement of Shmuel was stated with regard to saving a life it was stated concerning the first clause of the mishna: If there is a majority of gentiles in the city the baby is deemed a gentile. Shmuel said: And with regard to creating an opening in a heap of debris on his behalf [lefake鈥檃岣 alav et hagal] on Shabbat, that is not so. Even if there is a gentile majority in the city, one does not follow the majority in cases involving the saving of a life.

讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 谞讘讬诇讜转

The mishna continues: If there is a majority of gentiles the baby is deemed a gentile. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Rav Pappa said: It was stated in order to feed the baby animal carcasses, i.e., non-kosher food.

讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗讘讬讚讛

And it is taught in the mishna: If there is a majority of Jews the baby is deemed a Jew. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Rav Pappa said: It was stated in order to return lost property to him, as one is required to return lost property to a Jew.

诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚谞讙讞讬讛 转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讜砖拽讜诇

And it is taught in the mishna: If half the population is gentile and half Jewish, the baby is deemed a Jew. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Reish Lakish said: It was stated with regard to damages. In terms of payment of damages, the courts judge him as a Jew. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that our ox, one belonging to a Jew, gored his ox, one belonging to a person of uncertain status, and he claims that he should be compensated for the damages as a Jew, let the owner of the ox that gored say to him: Bring proof that you are a Jew, and take payment. Due to the uncertainty surrounding his status, he is unable to produce any proof.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞讙讞讬讛 转讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉 驻诇讙讗 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚诇讗讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗谞讗 讜讗转谉 诇讻讜谉

Rather, this halakha is necessary only in a case where his ox gored our ox, one belonging to a Jew. In that case, there is no question that he pays half the damage, which is the payment when an innocuous ox belonging to a Jew gores an ox belonging to a Jew. And with regard to the other half, which the owner of the gored ox is claiming, asserting that this person of uncertain status is a gentile and therefore liable to pay full damages, the owner of the ox that gored can say to the claimants: Bring proof that I am not a Jew and I will give you payment of the other half of the damages. It is with regard to that case that Reish Lakish ruled that in a case of uncertainty, the baby has the presumptive status of a Jew, and it is incumbent upon the claimant to prove otherwise.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讗诇诪谞讛 谞砖讗转讬讱 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讬爪讗转 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讬诇讜拽 拽诇讬讜转 专讗讬讛

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who was widowed or divorced, and is now claiming payment of her marriage contract that is not before the court, and she says: You married me as a virgin, who is entitled to two hundred dinars, and he says: No; rather, I married you as a widow, who is entitled to one hundred dinars, then, if there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a hinnuma or with her hair uncovered, in a manner typical of virgins, payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: Even testimony that there was distribution of roasted grain, which was customary at weddings of virgins, constitutes proof that she is a virgin.

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖讚讛 讝讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讱 讛讬转讛 讜诇拽讞转讬讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉

Several disputes between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were cited previously with regard to the credibility accorded to the respective claims of parties to a dispute. Based on one of those disputes, the tanna adds: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field, which is currently in my possession, belonged to your father and I purchased it from him, that he is deemed credible, and his entire claim is accepted. The court accepts not only his admission that it once belonged to the other鈥檚 father, but also his statement that he purchased it.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 15

讘拽专讜谞讜转 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讬转讛 住讬注讛 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讻砖专讬谉 注讜讘专转 诇砖诐 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 谞讘注诇转 讘拽专讜谞讜转 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛

The incident transpired among the wagons [keronot] in the marketplace of Tzippori on the market day, and this halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: And this is the ruling only in a case where there was a contingent of men of unflawed lineage passing there. Due to the fact that both the lineage of the majority of the people of the city where the girl was raped and the lineage of the majority of the passersby is unflawed, the rape is attributed to a man of unflawed lineage. And this ruling is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yannai, as Rabbi Yannai said: If she engaged in intercourse in the wagons, she is fit to marry a member of the priesthood.

讘拽专讜谞讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 谞讘注诇转 讘砖注转 拽专讜谞讜转 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讘诇 驻讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪爪讬驻讜专讬 讜讘注诇 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬

The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind to say that the woman was raped in the wagons, in the crowded area of the marketplace where business is conducted? Rather, Rabbi Yannai is saying that if she was forced to engage in intercourse at the time of the wagons, i.e., when the convoys pass, she is fit to marry a member of the priesthood. However, if one individual, whose lineage is unknown, left Tzippori and engaged in intercourse with a woman, the child is a shetuki and deemed unfit to marry into the priesthood even though the majority of the inhabitants of city are of unflawed lineage.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 专讜讘 讛注讬专 讜讗讬谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 专讜讘 住讬注讛

The Gemara notes: That is similar to this statement that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, Ze鈥檈iri said that Rabbi 岣nina said, and some say directly that Ze鈥檈iri said that Rabbi 岣nina said: One follows the flawed lineage of the majority of the people in the city and one does not follow the unflawed lineage of the majority of the traveling contingent, and the woman who engaged in intercourse with a member of the itinerant contingent is deemed unfit to marry into the priesthood.

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讛谞讬 谞讬讬讚讬 讜讛谞讬 拽讘讬注讬 讜拽讬讬诪讬

The Gemara asks: On the contrary [kelapei layya], the opposite is logical. These members of the contingent are moving, and in that case the principle is that one follows the majority. And these people of the city are fixed and standing in one place, and in that case the principle is that even if the lineage of the majority is unflawed, the uncertainty is treated as if it were equally balanced.

讗诇讗 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 专讜讘 讛注讬专 讜讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讘 住讬注讛 讘讛讚讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 专讜讘 讛注讬专 讙专讬讚转讗 讜诇讗 讗讞专 专讜讘 住讬注讛 讙专讬讚转讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讛 专讜讘 住讬注讛 讗讟讜 专讜讘 讛注讬专

Rather, this is what Rabbi Yannai is saying: One follows the lineage of the majority of the city, and that is specifically in a case where there is a majority of men of unflawed lineage in the passing contingent together with the city鈥檚 unflawed majority. In that case, from both perspectives the intercourse can be attributed to a man of unflawed lineage. However, neither does one follow the unflawed lineage of the majority of the city alone, nor does he follow the unflawed lineage of the majority of the contingent alone. What is the reason that one does not follow the lineage of the majority of the moving contingent? It is because the Sages issued a decree not to follow the majority of the contingent due to the majority of the city, where one does not follow the majority.

讜专讜讘 讛注讬专 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诇讙讘讛 讻诇 讚驻专讬砖 诪专讜讘讗 驻专讬砖 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讗讝诇讗 讗讬讛讬 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽讘讜注 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there cases where one follows the majority of the city as well, as, if one of the residents of the city goes out of the city to her and rapes her, the principle is: The legal status of any item that is separated from the group is that of one separated from the majority? Therefore, there is no reason to issue a decree. The Gemara answers: The decree is necessary only due to a case where she went into the city to them, in which case the rapist is an indistinguishable member of a fixed set, and Rabbi Zeira said: The legal status of uncertainty with regard to any item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, and one does not follow the majority.

讜诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 转专讬 专讜讘讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 转砖注 讞谞讜讬讜转 讻讜诇谉 诪讜讻专讜转 讘砖专 砖讞讜讟讛 讜讗讞转 诪讜讻专转 讘砖专 谞讘诇讛 讜诇拽讞 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪讗讬 讝讛 诪讛谉 诇拽讞 住驻讬拽讜 讗住讜专 讜讘谞诪爪讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘

The Gemara questions the statement of Rabbi Ami: And do we require two majorities to overcome the minority? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and a person bought meat from one of the stores and he does not know from which store he bought the meat, in this case of uncertainty, the meat is prohibited. The legal status of uncertainty with regard to any item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, and one does not follow the majority. This baraita continues: And in the case of meat found in the street, outside the stores, follow the majority of stores that sell kosher meat. In other words, the meat is kosher.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘砖讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 谞注讜诇讜转 讚拽讗 讗转讬 诇讛 专讜讘讗 诪注诇诪讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讚诇转讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 谞注讜诇讜转 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讬讜讞住讬谉

And if you would say that one follows the majority only in a case where the gates of the city are unlocked, where the meat could have come to the city from the majority of kosher meat outside the city and only by combining that majority with the majority of kosher meat stores inside the city, creating two majorities, is the meat ruled kosher; but didn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say: Even if the city gates are locked, one follows the majority and the meat is kosher even without a double majority? The Gemara answers: The Sages require two majorities only in cases such as establishing the identity of the child鈥檚 father, because they established a higher standard with regard to matters of lineage. However, in other cases, e.g., concerning kosher meat, a single majority is sufficient.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

搂 In terms of the matter itself, Rabbi Zeira said: The legal status of uncertainty with regard to any item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, both when it leads to leniency, e.g., in a case where, were one to follow the majority, the ruling would be stringent, and when it leads to stringency, e.g., in a case where, were one to follow the majority, the ruling would be lenient.

诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪转砖注 讞谞讜讬讜转 讻讜诇谉 诪讜讻专讜转 讘砖专 砖讞讜讟讛 讜讗讞转 讘砖专 谞讘诇讛 讜诇拽讞 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 诇拽讞 住驻讬拽讜 讗住讜专 讜讘谞诪爪讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讛转诐 诇讞讜诪专讗

The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Zeira learn that the legal status of uncertainty with regard to any item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, both when it leads to leniency and when it leads to stringency? If we say that it is derived from the case of nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and a person bought meat from one of the stores and he does not know from which store he bought the meat, in this case of uncertainty the meat is prohibited. And in the case of meat found in the street, outside the stores, follow the majority of stores that sell kosher meat, and therefore the meat would be kosher. There, in the first case, ruling it an equally balanced uncertainty is a stringency, as there is a majority of kosher stores.

讗诇讗 诪转砖注讛 爪驻专讚注讬诐 讜砖专抓 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜谞讙注 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 谞讙注 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讞讜诪专讗

Rather, Rabbi Zeira learns that halakha from a different baraita. If there were nine frogs, which is a creeping animal that does not impart ritual impurity while alive or when dead, and one ritually impure creeping animal, whose carcass imparts ritual impurity, among them, and a person touched one of the ten creatures, and he does not know which of them he touched, in this case of uncertainty the person is ritually impure. There too, ruling it an equally balanced uncertainty is a stringency, as the majority of the creeping animals do not impart impurity.

讗诇讗 诪转砖注讛 砖专爪讬诐 讜爪驻专讚注 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜谞讙注 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 谞讙注 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专

Rather, Rabbi Zeira learns that halakha from the continuation of that baraita. If there are nine creeping animals, whose carcasses impart ritual impurity, and one frog among them, and a person touched one of them, and he does not know which of them he touched, if it was in the private domain, in this case of uncertainty the person is ritually impure, as all cases of uncertainty with regard to ritual impurity are ruled impure in the private domain. This is derived from the case of sota. However, in the public domain, in that case of uncertainty the person is ritually pure. Although contact with a creeping animal from the majority would render him ritually impure, since the uncertainty is with regard to a fixed group, its legal status is that of an equally balanced uncertainty, and in the public domain he is ritually pure. Rabbi Zeira learns that halakha from this case of leniency.

讜诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗专讘 诇讜 讜拽诐 注诇讬讜 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讬谉 诇讜 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 驻专讟 诇讝讜专拽 讗讘谉 诇讙讜

After citing a tannaitic source for Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara asks: And from where in the Torah do we derive that the legal status of any item fixed in its place is like that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, both when it leads to leniency and when it leads to stringency? It is derived from the verse that states with regard to a murderer: 鈥淎nd lie in wait for him, and rise up against him鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:11), indicating that one is liable only in a case where he intends to kill him. One who intended to kill one person and inadvertently killed another is exempt from punishment. And how do the Rabbis, who hold that one is liable in that case, interpret that verse? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: It excludes the case of one who throws a stone into a crowd and did not intend to kill a specific person.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚专讜讘讗 讙讜讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讛拽诇

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case where he threw the stone and is exempt? If we say that there are nine gentiles in the crowd and one Jew among them, even without the verse, let him derive the exemption from the fact that they are a majority of gentiles. Alternatively, even if we say that half of the ten people are considered gentiles and half are considered Jews, let him derive the exemption from the principle: In a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, the halakha is lenient.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讜讙讜讬 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 拽讘讜注 讜讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: No, the verse is necessary only in a case where there are nine Jews and one gentile among them. Were the ruling to follow the majority the one who threw the stone would be liable. But in that case, because the gentile is fixed among them, and the legal status of any item fixed in its place is like that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, he is exempt, based on the principle: In a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, the halakha is lenient. Apparently, even in cases of Torah law in which the result would be a leniency, i.e., exemption from the death penalty for murder, the legal status of any item fixed in its place is like that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜专讗转 砖注讛 讛讬转讛

搂 With regard to the matter of following the majority in cases of lineage, it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute: Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in the mishna, and it is permitted for the young girl who was raped to marry a priest. And Rav 岣nan bar Rava said that Rav said: That was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances. However, typically, with regard to matters of lineage two majorities are required.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 转专讬 专讜讘讬 讜讛转谞谉

Rav Yirmeya raised an objection to the ruling of Rav 岣yya bar Ashi, who apparently ruled that even in cases where there is one majority the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: And in matters of lineage, do we not require two majorities, a majority of the city鈥檚 inhabitants and a major-ity of the passing contingent? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Makhshirin 2:7):

诪爪讗 讘讛 转讬谞讜拽 诪讜砖诇讱 讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讬砖专讗诇

If there is a city in which both Jews and gentiles reside, and one found an unidentified, abandoned baby in the city, if there is a majority of gentiles in the city the baby is deemed a gentile; if there is a majority of Jews in the city the baby is deemed a Jew. If half the population is gentile and half Jewish, the baby is deemed a Jew.

讜讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讞讬讜转讜 讗讘诇 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇驻拽讞 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇

And Rav said with regard to this mishna: The Sages taught that if there is a majority of Jews in the city the baby is deemed a Jew only with regard to sustaining him; however, with regard to lineage, e.g., marrying him to a Jewish woman, no, he is not deemed a Jew based on the majority and would require conversion. And Shmuel said: It was taught that he is deemed a Jew in order to create an opening in a heap of debris on his behalf on Shabbat, i.e., desecrating Shabbat in order to save his life. Apparently, contrary to the ruling of Rav 岣yya bar Ashi, Rav holds that a single majority is insufficient to deem him Jewish in matters of lineage.

讗砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘拽专讜谞讜转 砖诇 爪驻讜专讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara answers: Rav Yirmeya overlooked that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said with regard to the mishna: The incident of the rape of the young girl transpired among the wagons in the marketplace of Tzippori, and there were two majorities; the majority of the inhabitants of the city and the majority of the passing contingent. Therefore, when Rav 岣yya bar Ashi ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that the young girl may marry a priest, it was in a case of two majorities.

讜诇专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讛讜专讗转 砖注讛 讛讬转讛 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪转谞讬 讛讗

The Gemara asks: And if the case in the mishna is one of two majorities, according to Rav 岣nan bar Rava who said in the name of Rav: That was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances, meaning that two majorities were required in that case but typically one majority is sufficient, it is difficult. Didn鈥檛 Rav say that in matters of lineage one majority is insufficient? The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. The one who teaches this, that the ruling in our mishna was a provisional edict, does not teach that statement that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that the incident took place among the wagons in the marketplace of Tzippori. Rather, he holds that there was a single majority and nevertheless, due to exigent circumstances, the girl was permitted to marry into the priesthood, although generally two majorities are required in cases of lineage.

讙讜驻讗 诪爪讗 讘讛 转讬谞讜拽 诪讜砖诇讱 讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讞讬讜转讜 讗讘诇 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇驻拽讞 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇

搂 Apropos the case of the abandoned baby, the Gemara analyzes the matter itself: If there is a city in which both Jews and gentiles reside, and one found an unidentified, abandoned baby in the city, if there is a majority of gentiles in the city the baby is deemed a gentile. If there is a majority of Jews in the city the baby is deemed a Jew. If half the population is gentile and half Jewish, the baby is deemed a Jew. Rav said: The Sages taught that the baby is deemed a Jew only with regard to sustaining him; however, with regard to lineage, no. And Shmuel said: It was taught that he is deemed a Jew in order to create an opening in a heap of debris on his behalf on Shabbat.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讘驻讬拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讬砖讗 讗转诪专 讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇驻拽讞 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇 讗讬谞讜 讻谉

The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel say that? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef say that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One does not follow the majority in matters involving saving a life? Even if there is the slightest concern that the life of a Jew may be in danger, one takes all steps necessary to save him, even on Shabbat. Rather, when the statement of Shmuel was stated with regard to saving a life it was stated concerning the first clause of the mishna: If there is a majority of gentiles in the city the baby is deemed a gentile. Shmuel said: And with regard to creating an opening in a heap of debris on his behalf [lefake鈥檃岣 alav et hagal] on Shabbat, that is not so. Even if there is a gentile majority in the city, one does not follow the majority in cases involving the saving of a life.

讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 谞讘讬诇讜转

The mishna continues: If there is a majority of gentiles the baby is deemed a gentile. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Rav Pappa said: It was stated in order to feed the baby animal carcasses, i.e., non-kosher food.

讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗讘讬讚讛

And it is taught in the mishna: If there is a majority of Jews the baby is deemed a Jew. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Rav Pappa said: It was stated in order to return lost property to him, as one is required to return lost property to a Jew.

诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚谞讙讞讬讛 转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讜砖拽讜诇

And it is taught in the mishna: If half the population is gentile and half Jewish, the baby is deemed a Jew. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Reish Lakish said: It was stated with regard to damages. In terms of payment of damages, the courts judge him as a Jew. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that our ox, one belonging to a Jew, gored his ox, one belonging to a person of uncertain status, and he claims that he should be compensated for the damages as a Jew, let the owner of the ox that gored say to him: Bring proof that you are a Jew, and take payment. Due to the uncertainty surrounding his status, he is unable to produce any proof.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞讙讞讬讛 转讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉 驻诇讙讗 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚诇讗讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗谞讗 讜讗转谉 诇讻讜谉

Rather, this halakha is necessary only in a case where his ox gored our ox, one belonging to a Jew. In that case, there is no question that he pays half the damage, which is the payment when an innocuous ox belonging to a Jew gores an ox belonging to a Jew. And with regard to the other half, which the owner of the gored ox is claiming, asserting that this person of uncertain status is a gentile and therefore liable to pay full damages, the owner of the ox that gored can say to the claimants: Bring proof that I am not a Jew and I will give you payment of the other half of the damages. It is with regard to that case that Reish Lakish ruled that in a case of uncertainty, the baby has the presumptive status of a Jew, and it is incumbent upon the claimant to prove otherwise.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讗诇诪谞讛 谞砖讗转讬讱 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讬爪讗转 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讬诇讜拽 拽诇讬讜转 专讗讬讛

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who was widowed or divorced, and is now claiming payment of her marriage contract that is not before the court, and she says: You married me as a virgin, who is entitled to two hundred dinars, and he says: No; rather, I married you as a widow, who is entitled to one hundred dinars, then, if there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a hinnuma or with her hair uncovered, in a manner typical of virgins, payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: Even testimony that there was distribution of roasted grain, which was customary at weddings of virgins, constitutes proof that she is a virgin.

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖讚讛 讝讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讱 讛讬转讛 讜诇拽讞转讬讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉

Several disputes between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were cited previously with regard to the credibility accorded to the respective claims of parties to a dispute. Based on one of those disputes, the tanna adds: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field, which is currently in my possession, belonged to your father and I purchased it from him, that he is deemed credible, and his entire claim is accepted. The court accepts not only his admission that it once belonged to the other鈥檚 father, but also his statement that he purchased it.

Scroll To Top