Ketubot 15b — the Talmud in English

But did we not learn:

concerning a city in which Israelites and gentiles dwell, if

he found in it

in that city

an abandoned infant,

and he does not know whether this infant is an Israelite or a gentile, the law is:

If the majority of

the residents of the city are

gentiles,

then he is

a gentile.

If the majority of

the residents of the city are

Israelite

s, then he is

an Israelite.

And if there are

half

Israelites

against half

gentiles, then he is

an Israelite. (The Gemara will explain below what the difference is between when there is a majority of Israelites and when there are half against half, for in both cases the law is that he is judged as an Israelite; if so, why did they divide them in the Mishna into two cases?)

And later the Gemara will explain what difference there is between a majority of Jews and an equal division, since in both cases the law is that he is treated as Jewish; if so, why did the Mishna divide them into two cases?)

And Rav said

in explanation of this Mishna:

They taught

that when there is a majority of Israelites, his law is that of an Israelite

only

with regard to

sustaining him, for the court is commanded to provide him with food, because of “and your brother shall live with you” (Leviticus 25).

for the court is obligated to support him, because of the verse: “And your brother shall live with you” (Leviticus 25).

But with regard to

the matter of

lineage, he is not

considered an Israelite, for if the infant he found is a girl, she is forbidden to a kohen, and even if there is no concern that she is an asufi (for example, her limbs are formed and aligned, such that if she had been an asufi, her limbs would not have been formed. And likewise in other ways that were brought in Tractate Kiddushin 73b), nevertheless, we are concerned that perhaps she is the daughter of a gentile. And according to the one who says that a female convert is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, even this minor girl is forbidden to a kohen, and even though there is a majority of Israelites there, she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

And Shmuel said

also with regard to being permitted

to clear the mound from upon him on Shabbat in order to save him while violating Shabbat, the infant is considered an Israelite when there is a majority of Israelites in the city.

on Shabbat in order to save him, thereby desecrating Shabbat, the infant is considered Jewish when the city has a Jewish majority.

And if so, we see from Rav’s words that one majority is not effective for lineage regarding the priesthood.

And the Gemara says concerning Rabbi Yirmeya’s objection:

It escaped the notice of

Rabbi Yirmeya

that which Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav,

that

at

the time of

the wagons of Tzippori was

the

incident

of our Mishna, for there were “two majorities” there, and therefore they ruled there according to the majority.

And we object:

But according to Rav Hanan bar Rava, who said

in the name of Rav,

it was an exceptional ruling,

and yet according to the words of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, there were “two majorities” there; if so, it follows that for future generations it was ruled that “two majorities” are not required. And

this is difficult,

that which Rav said, “but not with regard to lineage,” for it implies that he requires “two majorities” for future generations.”

And we answer:

Whoever teaches this

of Rav, who said, “but not with regard to lineage”—

does not teach this

that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, that the incident occurred with the wagons of Tzippori; rather, he holds that there was only one majority there, and therefore he holds that it was an exceptional ruling.

The body of the matter:

we learned above

“he found in it an abandoned infant”

in a city.

If the majority of

the residents of the city are

gentiles,

then he is

a gentile.

If the majority of

the residents of the city are

Israelites,

then he is

an Israelite.

If the residents of the city are

half

Israelites

against half

gentiles, then he is

an Israelite.

Rav said: They taught

that he is considered an Israelite

only

with regard to

sustaining him, but with regard to

the matter of

lineage, no.

And Shmuel said: “to clear the mound from upon him.”

And the Gemara understood his intention to be that also with regard to clearing the mound from upon him on Shabbat, we follow the majority in order to validate him as an Israelite.

And we object:

And did Shmuel say this,

that with regard to saving a life, a majority is required in order to consider him an Israelite so as to violate Shabbat for him?

But Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel: In saving a life, we do not follow the majority!

And in a case of uncertainty whether he is a gentile or an Israelite, even if the majority are gentiles, we clear the mound from upon him on Shabbat.

Rather,

perforce,

when Shmuel’s statement was said—

it was said with regard to the first clause,

which is stated in the first clause:

If the majority of

the residents of the city are

gentiles,

then he is considered

a gentile.

And concerning this

Shmuel said: “And to clear the mound from upon him”

on Shabbat

it is not so.

For we do not follow the majority in a matter of possible lives, and we clear it.

And since Shmuel said that we clear the mound from upon him even when the majority of the residents of the city are gentiles, if so, we see that he is not considered a gentile for all matters. Therefore, we raised the question:

If the majority are gentiles, he is a gentile—

for what halakhic purpose?

With regard to what is he considered a gentile?

Rav Pappa said:

with regard to

feeding him carrion

by hand, he is considered a gentile; and all the more so he is considered a gentile with regard to not being required to return a lost item to him, and not being required to pay him for damages.

If the majority are Israelites,

then he is

an Israelite—

for what halakhic purpose [what novelty is there in this halakha]?

is this a new teaching?

Rav Pappa said:

it was innovated that he must

return a lost item to him.

And this is a novelty, that they remove it from the Israelite who acquired it in order to give it to this one. And another novelty is that the Sages said in Sanhedrin (76b): concerning one who returns a lost item to a Canaanite, Scripture says, “in order to add the sated soul to the thirsty one—the Lord will not be willing to forgive him.” Yet despite all this, to this one, who has a majority supporting him in his uncertainty, one must return the lost item.

Half against half

then he is

an Israelite—

for what halakhic purpose?

Reish Lakish said: For damages,

for we learned in the Mishna in Bava Kamma (37b): an Israelite’s ox that gored a gentile’s ox is exempt, and a gentile’s ox that gored an Israelite’s ox, whether innocuous or forewarned, pays full damages. And an Israelite’s ox that gored an Israelite’s ox: an innocuous ox pays half-damages, and a forewarned ox pays full damages.

And we raised the question:

What are the circumstances?

In what manner is he judged as an Israelite with regard to damages?

If you say

in a case

that our ox gored his ox [that an Israelite’s ox gored his ox], he being the injured party, and we judge him as an Israelite, and the one who caused the damage is obligated to pay him half-damages.

—that is, his ox gored the ox of a Jew, which was the injured animal, and he is treated as Jewish, so the owner of the damaging ox must pay him half the damages—

Then

he can say to him,

the Israelite can say to the injured party,

bring [bring]

your

proof that you are an Israelite, and take! [First bring proof that you are an Israelite, and only afterward receive the payment], since the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof, for the case concerns an infant found in a city that is half against half, and there is uncertainty whether he is an Israelite.

First bring proof that you are Jewish, and only afterward will you receive payment, since the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. For this is a case in which the infant was found in a city divided equally between Jews and gentiles, and it is uncertain whether he is Jewish.

It is not necessary,

that he is considered an Israelite with regard to damages in a case

that his ox gored our ox [his ox gored an Israelite’s ox], and the injured party demands from him full damages for an innocuous ox, as is the law of a gentile’s ox that caused damage.

—his ox gored the ox of a Jew, and the injured party demands full damages for the harmless ox, as would be the law if the damaging ox belonged to a gentile.

And the tanna taught us that

half [half]

of the damages he

he pays

in any event, for if the one who caused the damage is a gentile, he is liable for full damages, and if he is an Israelite, he is liable for half-damages in the case of an innocuous ox.

And the other half [and concerning the second half],

the second half,

he said to them—the one who caused the damage said to the injured parties: since it is uncertain whether I am a gentile and owe you another half of the damages, or whether I am a Jew and am exempt, therefore

the injured parties: Since it is uncertain whether I am a gentile and owe you the additional half of the damages, or whether I am Jewish and exempt from paying it,

bring [you bring]

you

proof that I am not an Israelite, and I will give it to you.

For the injured party is the one who seeks to extract, and the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

We will return to you, chapter “A virgin is married.”

Mishna:

The woman who was widowed

who was widowed]

or divorced,

and came to claim her ketuba from her husband or from his heirs,

she says: “He married me as a virgin,”

and therefore my ketuba is two hundred.

And he

or his heirs

say

:

“Not so; rather, I married you as a widow,”

and your ketuba is one hundred.

If there are witnesses that she went out

the woman at the time of her marriage

with a bridal canopy, and her head

was

uncovered,

as is the custom of virgins who go out from their homes to the bridal canopy with their hair uncovered ,

her ketuba is two hundred.

But without witnesses, the husband is believed . And in the Gemara it will be explained.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: Even

if they testify only about

the distribution of roasted grain

that took place at her wedding in the manner of virgins, it is

evidence.

And Rabbi Yehoshua agrees—

concerning

one who

says to his fellow:

“This field

that I hold,

belonged to your father, and I took it from him.” He is believed,

even without evidence of his purchase,