Ketubot 14a — the Talmud in English

And he said: “There is none from me.”

He is certainly not from me.

Rav Yosef said: “For what need we be concerned?”

There is no concern that she became pregnant from another man and that the offspring is a mamzer, for two reasons.

First, for behold, he admits

the betrothed man, according to her statement.

And furthermore, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is according to Rabban Gamliel

that she is believed to say with whom she had intercourse.

Abaye said to him: And

if

in this case

of a betrothed woman,

when he does not [ [A0015]]if he does not

if not

admit

the betrothed man,

does Rabban Gamliel deem [the offspring] fit?

And is she believed according to Rabban Gamliel even without the admission of the betrothed man? For Rav Yosef says “and furthermore,” and his words imply that she is believed even without the admission of the betrothed man.

And Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: “Sharp one,”

the halakha is according to Rabban Gamliel, but you shall not act

do not issue a practical ruling according to him

until there is a majority of fit men around her.

And here

with a betrothed woman,

there is a majority of unfit men around her

apart from the betrothed man, for she is a married woman.

And we answer:

But according to your reasoning, this very matter should be difficult for you: “The halakha”

according to Rabban Gamliel—if so, why did Shmuel say

“but you shall not act,”

meaning, if he wished to say that the halakha is according to Rabban Gamliel when there is a majority of fit men, but the halakha is not according to him when there is a majority of unfit men, this is what he should have said: “The halakha is according to Rabban Gamliel, and that is when there is a majority of fit men.” And if he wished to say that the halakha is that [we follow] Rabban Gamliel, and that Rabban Gamliel also deemed [her] fit only when there is a majority of fit men, he should have said this explicitly.

Rather,

of necessity,

what have you to say,

that one must explain Shmuel’s words as follows:

this

that the halakha is not according to Rabban Gamliel when there is not a majority of fit men around her applies only

initially,

so that if a koen comes to consult the court, they do not permit him to marry her unless there was a majority of fit men around her. But

this

in

retrospect,

if a koen married her without consulting [the court], they do not remove her from him. And as they said: “The halakha, but one does not instruct [people] in this manner.”

And according to this, Rav Yosef has no difficulty from Shmuel’s words. For

this too

with a betrothed man and his betrothed woman

is considered like retrospect,

for she has already become pregnant and you are coming to disqualify the offspring and to prohibit the betrothed woman to the betrothed man; and if you do not believe her, you are removing her from her husband.

And now the Gemara comes to discuss the matter of an “almanat issa,” which has the status of “double doubt.”

Several explanations were stated among the early authorities in explaining the concept of an “almanat issa.”

Rashi’s method is that this concerns the widow of a koen who is a doubtful chalal.

And she is considered “double doubt” because she also has the aspect of her presumption of fitness for the priesthood, besides the doubt whether her husband was not a chalal; but this is not the usual double doubt, which is composed of two doubts.

For example, the doubt was concerning the mother of her koen husband: whether she married his koen father while she was a divorcee, in which case this son born from him is a chalal, and since she married this son, she too is a chalala; or perhaps she was not a divorcee but a widow, and the son born [to her] is a fit koen, and she too, who married this son, is fit for the priesthood.

And this doubt arose because previously this man’s mother had been married to another man, and he threw her a bill of divorce, and the bill of divorce was doubtfully nearer to him—and she is not divorced—or doubtfully nearer to her—and she is divorced—and afterward he died. Thus she is a doubtful divorcee, a doubtful widow; she went and married a koen, and bore a son from him. This [son] is a doubtful chalal. And the widow of this [son] is the one called an almanat issa.

And she is called “double doubt,” because the mother of this doubtful chalal, through whom the doubt arose, herself was not prohibited except on account of doubt; and this widow, who comes on account of her son, has a presumption of fitness concerning herself, and is called “double doubt.”

The method of Rabbi Yosef Tov Elem (cited in Rashi below) is that an “almanat issa” is a woman whose husband was a double doubt. For example: her mother was divorced from her first husband by a bill of divorce that doubtfully fell nearer to him or doubtfully nearer to her, and she is a doubtful divorcee; and her first husband died within three months from the giving of the bill of divorce, and she married a koen within three months, and bore this [son], who is doubtful whether he was born after nine months of gestation from her first husband, in which case he is fit; or doubtful whether he was born after seven months of gestation to her latter husband, in which case he is the son of a koen who married a doubtful divorcee, and he is a doubtful chalal. Thus there is double doubt: perhaps he is not the son of the koen, but of the first husband, the Israelite. And if you wish to say that he is the son of the koen, perhaps his mother was not a divorcee but a widow. Therefore his widow is called an almanat issa, for there are many intermingled doubts in her, like this dough, which is mixed.

The method of Rabbi Yehuda and the Riva in Tosafot is that “issa” is a designation for a family into which one doubtful chalal or many doubtful chalalim became mixed, and each one of the members of the family is a double doubt, for it is doubtful whether he is that doubtful person who became mixed among them or not. And his widow is called an almanat issa.

Abaye raised an apparent contradiction to Rava

in the words of Rabbi Yehoshua:

Did Rabbi Yehoshua say

that the woman

is not believed,

and is disqualified even though she has a presumption of fitness?

And we contradict it: Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira testified concerning an almanat issa that she is fit

to marry

into the priesthood.

And it follows that Rabbi Yehoshua holds that we establish the widow upon her presumption of fitness, and say: Do not disqualify this woman on account of the doubt that we have, that perhaps her husband was a chalal.

And it is difficult from our Mishna, where Rabbi Yehoshua said that she is not believed even though she has a presumption of fitness.

He said to him,

Rava:

“How now!?

How do you wish to compare an almanat issa to a woman who had intercourse in licentiousness?

For

there

in the case of an almanat issa, the doubt concerns the marriage into which the mother of the “issa” married, and we have the rule that

a woman

who

marries, examines and marries.

And one can say that she examined after that divorce of the mother of her husband, and it was told to her that the bill of divorce had been nearer to him and she had not been divorced at all; and the mother was a widow, fit for a koen, and her son was not a chalal.

Unlike

here,

where Rabbi Yehoshua says that she is not believed, it concerns licentious intercourse. And does

a woman

who

acts licentiously, examine and act licentiously?

Rava said

to Abaye: Is it only

Rabbi Yehoshua against Rabbi Yehoshua that is difficult

for you, but

Rabban Gamliel against Rabban Gamliel is not difficult

for you, and you did not take care to resolve it?

But it is taught in the latter clause: Rabban Gamliel said to them

to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira,

“We have accepted your testimony,”

you are believed by us that you heard thus, that an almanat issa is fit for the priesthood.

“But what can we do, for Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that a court not be convened concerning this”

to permit her to the priesthood, for she is certainly prohibited to a koen.

For the kohanim listen to you concerning distancing

if you say that she is prohibited,

but not concerning bringing near,

if you say that she is permitted.

And it follows that Rabban Gamliel holds that we do not establish the almanat issa upon a presumption of fitness, and she is disqualified.

And this is difficult concerning Rabban Gamliel’s words in our Mishna, where he said that when she has a presumption of fitness, she is believed and fit.

Rather, Rava said: “Rabban Gamliel against Rabban Gamliel is not difficult.”

Because

there,

in our Mishna, where Rabban Gamliel deems her fit, she says

“certainly”

I am certain that I had intercourse with a fit man; unlike

here,

with regard to an almanat issa, Rabban Gamliel disqualifies her because she says

“perhaps.”

For just as we are uncertain concerning that “issa,” she too is uncertain concerning him, and it is impossible to say here the rule that when one makes a certain claim, one does not raise a doubt in order to remove something from its presumption.

And likewise,

Rabbi Yehoshua against Rabbi Yehoshua is also not difficult.

Because

there

in our Mishna Rabbi Yehoshua disqualifies her since there is only

one doubt,

for it is doubtful whether she had intercourse with a fit or an unfit man, as the man who had intercourse did not appear before us; and if he had appeared, perhaps we would have recognized that he was unfit. Therefore it is impossible to deem her fit.

Unlike

here,

with regard to an almanat issa, Rabbi Yehoshua deems her fit because there are

two doubts [ [A0129]]double doubt.

a doubt upon a doubt.

And the conclusion of Rava’s words:

Therefore: for Rabban Gamliel, it is stronger for him

when she says

“certainly,” for he deems [her] fit even with one doubt as well.

And it is weaker for him

when she says

“perhaps,” for he disqualifies [her] even with double doubt as well.

Whereas

for Rabbi Yehoshua, one doubt is stronger for him, for even when she

says

“certainly,” he also disqualifies [her].

And double doubt is weaker for him, for even when she

says

“perhaps,” he also deems [her] fit.

The Sages taught: What is an almanat issa

concerning whom they testified that she is fit?

Anyone in whom there is

among the intermingling of doubts of the issa

no

doubt

because of mamzerut, and no

doubt

because of netinim, and no

doubt

because of slaves of kings.

Gentiles whose intercourse disqualifies [a woman] from the priesthood.