Ketubot 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

MeitivI: 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 kohen, and he is my father's brother's son,

who is of established priestly lineage.

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible.

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

with one disqualified, such as

a netin

or

a mamzer, until she brings proof for her statement.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to Ze'iri,

who holds that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree even in a case where she was secluded with the man,

this is why it teaches two cases

—two circumstances:

“into seclusion,”

which is a place of seclusion;

“or into a ruin,”

which is a place of licentiousness and is presumed to have been entered for intercourse.

But according to Rav Asi, who says

that they disagree only when she

had relations,

there is a difficulty:

Why do I need two cases?

And we answer:

It teaches one case:

it is referring to one circumstance, in which she entered

into the seclusion of a ruin.

That is, she entered with him into a secluded area of a ruin, where it is presumed that they entered for the purpose of intercourse.

And we raise a difficulty:

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

This indicates that they are two different places.

And we answer: Indeed, it teaches two cases; however, Rav Asi also requires two cases.

One case is a ruin in a city,

a ruin in the city, where intercourse is presumed to have been with one of the residents of the city; and it is possible to establish that the case concerns a city whose majority are fit Jews.

And one case is a ruin in the wilderness,

a ruin in the wilderness, where the entire world is included in the uncertainty, as perhaps someone came there from the other end of the world, and the majority of the world's population are gentiles, whose intercourse disqualifies a woman from marrying into the priesthood.

And both are necessary

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

For if it had taught us

only the case of

a ruin in a city,

I would have said that only

in this case does Rabban Gamliel deem her fit, because the majority of those around her are fit. But with regard to a ruin in the wilderness, where the majority of those around her are disqualified, I would say

that

he agrees with Rabbi Yehoshua

that she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

And if it had taught us

only

that case,

the ruin in the wilderness, I would have said that only

in that case does Rabbi Yehoshua say

that she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, because the majority of those around her are disqualified;

but in this case,

the ruin in the city, where the majority of those around her are fit,

I would say that he agrees with Rabban Gamliel

that she is not disqualified. Therefore,

both cases are necessary.

We again raise a difficulty against Rav Asi:

It was taught in a baraita: This is testimony for which the woman

herself

is deemed fit

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

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not deemed credible.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Do you not agree

with me

concerning 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 deemed credible

to marry a kohen?

They said to him: Indeed,

yes.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them:

And what difference is there between this one

the captive woman

and this one,

who is deemed credible to testify that she had relations with a fit man?

They said to him:

In the case of this one,

the captive woman,

there are witnesses

that she had relations. Since she was taken captive among gentiles, and they are uninhibited with regard to illicit relations, we are all witnesses that she had relations.

But in the case of this one,

who is deemed credible to testify that she had relations with a fit man,

there are no witnesses

that she had relations. They saw her only speaking with the man, and she has a migo, since she could have said, “I did not have relations,” and therefore, when she says, “I had relations with a fit man,” she is also deemed credible.

He said to them,

Rabbi Yehoshua:

Even in the case of this one,

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

there are witnesses:

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

for her belly is between her teeth,

as her pregnancy testifies about her as would a hundred witnesses that she had relations.

They said to him:

In the case of a woman taken captive,

the majority of gentiles are uninhibited with regard to illicit relations

[The Gemara will explain below what Rabbi Yehoshua said to them, and that they answered him that the majority of gentiles are uninhibited with regard to illicit relations. For this is not an answer to his statement that even in the case of this woman there are witnesses, since there is no greater evidence of licentiousness than the fact that she became pregnant by him.]

He said to them: There is no guardian against illicit relations!

[The Gemara will explain this below.]

When are these words stated,

that she is deemed credible according to the Sages?

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

that is, to establish her as fit to marry into the priesthood, so that we do not presume that she had relations with a disqualified man.

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

And we inquire about this:

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 Sages 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 relations. But

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

who has no witnesses that she had relations?

He said to them: A woman who was seen speaking with a man is like a captive woman!

Just as there are no witnesses that the captive woman had relations, so too there are no witnesses that the woman seen speaking had relations; rather, she is presumed to have had relations. If so, we should likewise presume that the woman seen speaking had relations.

They said to him: A captive woman is different, since the majority of gentiles are uninhibited with regard to illicit relations;

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

He said to them: In this case

the woman seen speaking

too, since she was secluded

with him,

there is no

possibility for you to act as her

guardian against illicit relations,

saying that she did not have relations; rather, she is presumed to have had relations.

And we raise a difficulty against Rav Asi:

In any event, it teaches two cases: the woman seen speaking

who has no testimony that she had relations,

and the pregnant woman

who has testimony that she had relations. If so, it is explicitly established that Rabbi Yehoshua also disagrees in a case where she was secluded, and holds that she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

This is a refutation of Rav Asi,

who said that when she was merely secluded, everyone agrees that she is deemed credible;

this is a conclusive refutation.

And we challenge Rabbi Yehoshua: Although there is no guardian against illicit relations, in any event,

let it follow

that a woman seen speaking with a man is not comparable to a captive woman, because

there,

in the case of a captive woman,

the majority of those around her are disqualified, whereas here,

in the case of a woman seen speaking with a man,

the majority of those around her are fit.

Rather, it is proven from this that Rabbi Yehoshua does not distinguish between the cases; he holds that she is disqualified even when the majority of those around her are fit.

And this proof

supports Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: According to the one who deems her fit

the unmarried woman who had relations to marry into the priesthood,

he deems her fit even when

the circumstance is that

the majority are disqualified

around her, because we maintain her presumptive status as fit. [And concerning the fact that they deemed her fit even when the majority around her are disqualified, Rabbi Yehoshua brought them proof from the captive woman.] But

according to

Rabbi Yehoshua,

who disqualifies

her from marrying into the priesthood,

he disqualifies her even when

the circumstance is that

the majority are fit

around her.

Rabbi Yohanan said: According to the one who deems her fit

her, on the basis of her credibility,

he deems

her

daughter fit as well.

And

according to the one who disqualifies her,

her,

he disqualifies

her

daughter as well.

And Rabbi Elazar says: According to the one who deems her fit

her, on the basis of her credibility,

he disqualifies her daughter,

since she is not deemed credible with regard to her daughter, who was born from an illicit union.

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 has an established status of fitness, and one seeks to disqualify her on the basis of uncertainty. Therefore, we say: Do not disqualify her on the basis of uncertainty. But this is not so with regard to

her daughter,

who is not deemed credible, because

she has no presumption of fitness .

Rabbi Elazar raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan:

We learned above:

When are these words stated,

that the woman is deemed credible?

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 union,

everyone agrees that the child is a shtuki.

Is it not

the meaning

of “a shtuki” that he is disqualified?

If so, it follows that according to the one who deems her fit, he disqualifies her daughter.

And Rabbi Yohanan answers:

No,

the meaning is

a shtuki who is fit.

That is, he is a shtuki in a limited sense: if the man who had relations with her was a kohen and the fetus is male, the fetus is “silenced” with regard to priestly status, as will be explained below. But he is fit with regard to lineage. If the child is female, she may marry a kohen; and if the child is male, his daughter and widow are fit to marry kohanim.

And we inquire about this:

Is there such a thing as a fit shtuki?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed,

as Shmuel stated.

For Shmuel said: If ten kohanim are standing, and one of them separated and had relations

with an unmarried woman, and it is not known which one had relations with her, the ruling is that

the child is a shtuki.

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

This shtuki must, by necessity, be fit with regard to lineage, and if the child is female, she is fit to marry a kohen. But if so,

what

is the sense in which he is considered a

shtuki?

If you say

it is with regard to

silencing him from his father's estate,

so that he does not receive an inheritance from his father,

it is obvious! Do we know who his father is?

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

Rather,

he is a shtuki with regard to

silencing him from priestly status,

so that he may not perform the Temple service or 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 may infer from the wording of the verse that only

one whose offspring is genealogically attributed to him

is fit to perform the service and eat teruma.

This one is excluded, since his offspring is not genealogically attributed to him,

as we do not know who his father is.

The “betrothed woman” is a woman who was betrothed through kiddushin but has not yet entered the wedding canopy and does not yet have a ketuba. Nevertheless, 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, who came before Rav Yosef. She said: I became pregnant from him

from the betrothed man.