Ketubot 14b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Meir said: I heard: anyone in whose mixture of doubts there is not

among her doubtful ancestries

one of all these

doubts—

they may marry her

to

the priesthood (

and later the Gemara will challenge that this is exactly like the words of the first tanna, who said that because she does not contain one of all these doubts, they testified concerning her to declare her fit).

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Meir, and so too Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya would say in accordance with his words:

a.

What is a widow of issa—

anyone into whom a doubtful halal became assimilated.

b.

Israel recognize the mamzerim among them,

and therefore a doubtful mamzer must be declared fit, because if he were a mamzer, they would know about him.

But they do not recognize the halalim among them.

And therefore a doubtful halal must be disqualified (and later the Gemara will challenge: for it was stated at the beginning, “What is a widow of issa? Anyone into whom a doubtful halal became assimilated,” implying that a doubtful halal is fit).

The Master said:

We learned in the beraita above:

what is

a widow of issa, anyone in whose mixture of doubts there is

among her doubtful ancestries

not because of

a concern of

illegitimacy and not because of

a concern of

the netinim and not because of

a concern of

the slaves of kings.

And the Gemara infers:

this—

if there is in her a doubt of

a halal—

is fit

and does not disqualify her.

And we raise several difficulties against this.

The first:

what is different about these

doubts—a doubtful mamzer, netin, or gentile, who disqualify through intercourse

by Torah law

as is learned in tractate Yevamot (page 68) from the verse, “When there will be to a man a foreigner,” that since she had intercourse with one disqualified for her, he disqualified her from the priesthood.

But a doubt of

a halal also,

when he is certain, disqualifies

by Torah law,

as is learned there from the verse, “He shall not profane his seed,” which compares his seed to him: just as he disqualifies through his intercourse, so too his seed disqualifies; and the fact that he himself disqualifies is learned from “he shall not profane”—two profanations are implied, one for his seed and one for his wife.

Furthermore,

we also learned in the beraita above:

Rabbi Meir said: I heard: anyone in whose mixture of doubts there is not

among her doubtful ancestries

one of all these

doubts

they may marry

her

into the priesthood.

And

this is

exactly like the words of

the first tanna,

who said that because she does not contain one of all these doubts, they testified concerning her to declare her fit.

Furthermore,

we also learned in the beraita above:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Meir, and so too Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya would say in accordance with his words:

a.

What is a widow of issa? Anyone into whom a doubtful halal became assimilated.

b.

Israel recognize the mamzerim among them, but they do not recognize the halalim among them.

And therefore a doubtful halal must be disqualified.

But you said at the beginning

“what is a widow of issa? Anyone into whom a doubtful halal became assimilated,” and this implies that a doubtful

halal is fit.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the first tanna, and likewise the dispute between the first tanna of the beraita according to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar according to Rabbi Meir, is concerning a person who, when they call him

a mamzer,

he

cries out,

whereas when they call him

a halal,

he

remains silent—

this is what differs between them,

in this they disagree.

The first tanna holds: concerning every disqualification, when they call him so and he remains silent,

this is considered an admission, and

he is disqualified.

And this is what the first tanna is saying [

this is how the words of the first tanna are to be interpreted]:

what is a widow of issa

to declare fit?

Anyone in whom there is neither silence concerning illegitimacy, nor silence concerning the netinim, nor silence concerning the slaves of kings, and

likewise

not silence concerning a halal.

Since the tanna made the reason for the disqualification dependent upon silence, the same law applies to every silent person who is disqualified, and he did not need to enumerate them all.

And in what manner did they declare her fit? In the case of the wife of a doubtful halal, when we recognize his doubt—that his mother was divorced in a doubtful circumstance. But one whom we do not recognize, and we heard people disqualifying him and he remains silent, is disqualified.

And Rabbi Meir said to him

to the first tanna: specifically

these

disqualified ones (mamzer, netin, gentile)

he

is disqualified through his silence, because

he disqualifies him from entering the congregation [

for this is a type of disqualification through which he is disqualified from entering the congregation], and he should not have remained silent. And if he remained silent, it is a sign that he admits it.

But a silent halal is fit,

and there is no proof from his silence that he admits it.

And the fact that he remains silent—

is because it does not matter to him.

Since it is not a disqualification through which he is disqualified from entering the congregation.

And this is what Rabbi Meir said: “Anyone in whom there is not one of all these [silences], they may marry their daughters into the priesthood,” even if there is in him the silence of a halal.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said to the first tanna

who taught the

w

ords of

Rabbi Meir

in the beit-midrash, and said in the name of Rabbi Meir:

If you heard [

if you heard]

that Rabbi Meir declares fit through silence, you did not

hear that he declared fit in the manner

that they call him a halal and he remains silent, but

in the manner

that they call him a mamzer and he remains silent,

for then his silence is not because he admits it, but

the fact that he remains silent

is because

he thinks: a mamzer has a public reputation,

and everyone knows that I am not a mamzer, since Israel recognize the mamzerim among them.

But a mamzer who cries out

is disqualified, because Israel recognize the mamzerim among them.

And likewise

a halal who remains silent is disqualified.

And the fact that he remains silent

is because

he thinks: it is enough for me [

that is enough]

that they do not take me out [

that they do not disqualify me with a disqualification that takes me out]

of

entering the

congregation.

And this is how the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in the name of Rabbi Meir in the beraita are to be interpreted: a. What is a widow of issa? Anyone into whom a doubtful halal became assimilated, whose disqualification we recognize—that his mother was a doubtful divorcee. b. But a silent halal whom we do not recognize is disqualified.

However, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rabbi Meir disagrees with the first tanna in this: the first tanna holds that anyone who remains silent concerning a disqualification is disqualified, whereas according to Rabbi Meir only a silent halal is disqualified, but a silent mamzer is fit, for his silence is not an admission, as has been explained.

And according to this, the contradiction that we raised is resolved.

And now the Gemara raises a contradiction between two beraitot:

It was taught

in

one

beraita:

Rabbi Yosei says: A silent mamzer is fit; a silent halal is disqualified.

And it was taught

in

another

beraita:

A silent halal is fit; a silent mamzer is disqualified.

And we answer:

It is not difficult!

This is the first tanna according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that a silent halal is fit and a silent mamzer is disqualified.

This is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that a silent mamzer is fit and a silent halal is disqualified.

Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving a young girl who went down to draw water from the spring [

from the spring],

and she was violated,

and she did not know who had violated her.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: If the majority of the people of the city

are fit to

marry

their daughters and widows

into the priesthood,

for the majority of the people of the city are not among those who disqualify a woman from the priesthood through their intercourse,

this one

the young girl

may marry into the priesthood.

Gemara:

Introduction to the discussion of following the majority, and “

every fixed matter is considered like half against half.”

The law of “following the majority” means an instruction to follow the majority in every doubt in which there is a majority on one side and a minority on the other, such as in a ruling concerning prohibition and permission, or in a ruling concerning impurity and purity.

The source of the law is learned from what is stated in the Torah in the portion of Mishpatim concerning the decision in a court, when the judges disagreed: “Follow the majority to incline,” and this teaches that everywhere the doubt is decided according to the side of the majority.

But when the doubt arises concerning something fixed in its place, the Torah innovated that one does not follow the majority in it, since every doubt that arose concerning something fixed is considered a doubt of half against half, and the majority is not considered sufficient to decide it.

And the later authorities explained that concerning a fixed matter, the foundation of the doubt concerns the object itself—what is it? Therefore the sides of the doubt are balanced even when there is a majority, since in a doubt of “what is the object?” there are only two sides: whether it is like the majority or like the minority.

This is not so with a doubt concerning a mobile object, for then the foundation of the doubt concerns the separation—from where did it separate? And the majority causes the sides of the doubt not to be balanced, since each individual in the majority is another side in the doubt; it follows that there is a majority of sides from which the doubtful object separated, against a minority of sides, and therefore the majority decides.

Rava said to Rav Nahman: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri,

who requires a majority of fit people in order to declare the young girl fit,

in accordance with whom did he say this?

If

he holds

in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel,

but Rabban Gamaliel

declares her fit even when the majority are disqualified,

because he holds: establish the woman upon her presumption that she is fit, and the majority cannot decide against the presumption.

If

he holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

but Rabbi Yehoshua

disqualifies her even when the majority are fit

because of the doubt, since he holds that the majority does not decide the doubt (as will be explained later).

He said to him

Rav Nahman: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri always holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, who disqualifies her even when there is a majority in favor of declaring her fit. Rather, our Mishna is speaking of a situation in which there were “two majorities” [two majorities] for fitness, and therefore it declared her fit, since he holds in accordance with Rav Yehuda, and in accordance with Rabbi Ami, and in accordance with Rabbi Yannai, as will be explained.

a.

Thus said Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav: