Ketubot 13b — the Talmud in English

It was objected: If they saw her enter with one man into seclusion or into a ruin, and they said to her, “What is the nature of this man?”

and she said

“He is a priest, and he is my father’s brother’s son,”

who is of established priestly lineage.

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar say: She is believed.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: We do not live by her mouth; rather, she has the presumptive status of one who has had intercourse

with one disqualified, such as

a natin

or

a mamzer, until she brings proof for her words.

And we ask:

Granted according to Zeiri,

who holds that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree also in the case of seclusion,

this is why it teaches two

two ways]:

“into seclusion,”

which is a place of seclusion;

“or into a ruin,”

which is a place of sexual immorality and is presumed to be for intercourse.

But according to Rav Asi, who says

that they disagree only when she

had intercourse,

it is difficult:

Why do I need two?

And we answer:

It teaches one case,

that it is speaking of one situation, in which she entered

into the seclusion of a ruin.

That is to say, she entered with him into the secluded place of a ruin, for it is presumed that they entered there for intercourse.

And we ask:

But it teaches, “into seclusion or into a ruin”!

And it implies that they are two different places.

And we answer: Indeed, it is so; it teaches two cases, but two cases are necessary also according to Rav Asi.

One, a ruin of the city [

a ruin in the city], where her intercourse is presumed to have been with one of the city’s inhabitants, and it is possible to establish that it is speaking of a city whose majority are fit Jews.

And one, a ruin of the wilderness [

a ruin in the wilderness], where the entire world is included in the doubt, lest one came here from the end of the world, and the majority of the world are gentiles, who disqualify a woman from the priesthood through intercourse with her.

And they are necessary

to inform us of the dispute between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in both places.

For if it had informed us

only of

a ruin of the city,

I would say that only

in this case Rabban Gamliel declares her fit, because the majority are fit in relation to her. But with regard to a ruin of the wilderness, where the majority are disqualified in relation to her, say [

I would say]:

He agrees with Rabbi Yehoshua

that she is disqualified from the priesthood.

And if it had informed us

only

of that case,

the ruin in the wilderness, I would say that only

in that case Rabbi Yehoshua says

that she is disqualified from the priesthood, because the majority are disqualified in relation to her,

but in this case,

the ruin in the city, where the majority are fit in relation to her,

say that he agrees with Rabban Gamliel

that she is not disqualified; therefore

they are necessary.

We further raise an objection to Rav Asi:

It was objected: This is testimony that the woman

herself

is fit to give,

to say, “I had intercourse with a fit man.”

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not believed.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Do you not concede

to me

with regard to a captive woman who was taken captive, and there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and she says, “I am pure,” that she is not believed

to marry a priest?

They said to him: Indeed [

truthfully] (as in “But Sarah your wife,” which is translated as “in truth”).

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them:

And what difference is there between this one [

the captive woman]

and this one,

who is believed to testify, “I had intercourse with a fit man”?

They said to him:

This one [

the captive woman]

has witnesses

that she had intercourse, for once she was taken captive among the gentiles, and they are unrestrained with regard to sexual prohibitions, we are all witnesses that she had intercourse.

But this one,

who is believed to testify, “I had intercourse with a fit man,”

has no witnesses

that she had intercourse, for they saw her only speaking with him, and she has a migo, since she could have said, “I did not have intercourse”; therefore, also when she says, “I had intercourse with a fit man,” she is believed.

He said to them,

Rabbi Yehoshua:

Even this one,

who says, “I had intercourse with a fit man,”

has witnesses;

there is one situation in which she has witnesses and you disagree with me: in the case of a pregnant woman,

for her belly is between her teeth,

as her pregnancy testifies concerning her like a hundred witnesses that she had intercourse.

They said to him:

With regard to a woman taken captive,

the majority of gentiles are unrestrained with regard to sexual prohibitions (

the Gemara will explain below what Rabbi Yehoshua said to them, that they answered him, “The majority of gentiles are unrestrained with regard to sexual prohibitions,” for this is not an answer to what he said to them, “Even this one has witnesses,” since there is no greater instance of being unrestrained than this, when they see that she became pregnant from him).

He said to them: There is no guardian with regard to sexual prohibitions! (

The Gemara will explain this below.)

In what circumstance is this said,

that she is believed according to the Rabbis?

With regard to a woman’s testimony concerning her own person,

that is, to declare herself fit for the priesthood, so that we do not presume her to have had intercourse with one who is disqualified.

But with regard to a woman’s testimony concerning her daughter, everyone agrees that the child is a shtuki.

And we inquire into it:

What is he saying to them,

Rabbi Yehoshua,

and what are they answering him [

and what did they answer him]?

And the Gemara explains:

This is what the Rabbis are saying to him,

Rabbi Yehoshua:

We have answered you

with a complete and decisive answer

concerning the pregnant woman,

who has witnesses that she had intercourse. But

what will you answer us concerning the woman who was speaking with him,

who has no witnesses that she had intercourse?

He said to them: The woman who was speaking with him is like a captive woman!

Just as with the woman who was speaking with him there are no witnesses that she had intercourse, so too with a captive woman there are no witnesses that she had intercourse; rather, we presume that she had intercourse. If so, we should also presume that the woman who was speaking with him had intercourse.

They said to him: A captive woman is different, for the majority of gentiles are unrestrained with regard to sexual prohibitions;

therefore, even if there are no witnesses that she had intercourse, we presume that she certainly had intercourse. This is not so when she secluded herself with a Jew, for then we do not presume that she had intercourse.

He said to them: This

woman who was speaking with him,

too, since she secluded herself, [

that she was alone with him],

you have no

ability to be her

guardian with regard to sexual prohibitions,

to say that she did not have intercourse; rather, she is presumed to have had intercourse .

And we raise an objection to Rav Asi:

In any event, it teaches two cases: “the woman who was speaking,”

who has no testimony that she had intercourse,

“and the pregnant woman,”

who has testimony that she had intercourse. And if so, it is explicitly explained that Rabbi Yehoshua also disagrees in the case of seclusion and holds that she is disqualified from the priesthood.

A refutation of Rav Asi,

who said that when she merely secluded herself everyone agrees that she is believed,

a refutation.

And we challenge Rabbi Yehoshua: Indeed, there is no guardian with regard to sexual prohibitions, but in any event,

let it emerge for him

that a woman whom they saw speaking with a man is not similar to a captive woman, because

there

with regard to the captive woman,

the majority are disqualified in relation to her, whereas here,

with regard to the woman whom they saw speaking with a man,

the majority are fit in relation to her.

Rather, it is proven from this that Rabbi Yehoshua did not distinguish, for he holds that even when the majority are fit in relation to her, she is disqualified.

And this proof

supports Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: According to the view of the one who declares fit

the unmarried woman who had intercourse, permitting her to the priesthood,

he declares fit even when

the case is one in which

the majority are disqualified

in relation to her, because we establish her on the presumption that she is fit. [And concerning the fact that they declared her fit even when the majority are disqualified in relation to her, Rabbi Yehoshua brought them proof from the captive woman.] But

according to the view of

Rabbi Yehoshua,

who disqualifies

her from the priesthood,

he disqualifies even when

the case is one in which

the majority are fit

in relation to her.

Rabbi Yohanan said: According to the view of the one who declares her fit [

her] on the basis of her trustworthiness,

he declares fit

also

with regard to her daughter .

And

according to the view of the one who disqualifies her [

her],

he disqualifies

also

with regard to her daughter.

And Rabbi Elazar says: According to the view of the one who declares her fit [

her] on the basis of her trustworthiness,

he disqualifies her daughter,

for she is not believed with regard to her daughter, who was born from an adulterous intercourse.

Rabba said: What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar?

Because he holds that

granted, she herself

with regard to herself

has a presumption of fitness,

and one can say that this woman stands with a presumption of fitness, and you come to disqualify her because of a doubt; therefore we say, do not disqualify her because of a doubt. But this is not so with regard to

her daughter,

for she is not believed, because

she has no presumption of fitness .

Rabbi Elazar raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan:

We learned above:

In what circumstance is this said,

that the woman is believed,

with regard to a woman’s testimony concerning her own person; but with regard to a woman’s testimony concerning her daughter,

who was born from this intercourse,

everyone agrees that the child is a shtuki.

Is it not

the meaning

of “shtuki,” and disqualified?

If so, we see that according to the view of the one who declares her fit, he disqualifies her daughter.

And Rabbi Yohanan answers:

No,

the meaning is

“a shtuki and fit.”

That is, he is a shtuki in one respect: if the man who had intercourse was a priest, and the fetus is male, they “silence” the fetus with regard to priesthood, as will be explained below. But he is fit with regard to lineage. If the child is female, she may marry a priest. And if he is male, his daughter and his widow are fit for the priesthood.

And we inquire into it:

Is there, then, a shtuki who is fit?

And we answer:

Yes [

yes],

as in the statement of Shmuel.

For Shmuel said: If ten priests are standing, and one of them withdrew and had intercourse

with the unmarried woman, and it is not known who had intercourse, the law is that

the child is a shtuki.

Even though it is clear to us that he came from a fit priest.

And this shtuki must necessarily be fit with regard to lineage, and if the child is female, she is fit for a priest. But rather,

what

with regard to what is he considered a

“shtuki”?

If you say

with regard to

silencing him from his father’s property,

that he does not receive from his father’s inheritance,

it is obvious! For do we know who his father is?

Do we know who his father is, so that it is necessary to say that he does not inherit?

Rather,

he is a shtuki with regard to

silencing him from the status of priesthood,

so that he may not perform the Temple service and may not eat teruma, because

it is written [

Numbers 25]

“And it shall be for him and for his offspring after him a covenant of eternal priesthood.”

And we must infer from the wording of the verse that only

one whose offspring is attributed to him

is fit to perform the service and eat teruma.

This one is excluded, for his offspring is not attributed to him,

since we do not know who his father is.

The “betrothed woman” — she is a woman who was betrothed through kiddushin but has not yet entered the wedding canopy, and who does not yet have a marriage contract, but she is already a married woman; and if she commits adultery with another man, even involuntarily, and becomes pregnant, the child is a mamzer.

There was an incident involving

a certain betrothed man and his betrothed woman, who came before Rav Yosef. She said: “I became pregnant from him,”

from the betrothed man.