כתובות יג

כתובות יג

דְּאִם כֵּן, קַשְׁיָא הִלְכְתָא אַהִלְכְתָא. דְּקַיְימָא לַן הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב נַחְמָן בְּדִינֵי, וּבְהָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כִּדְמִשְּׁנֵינַן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Because if that were not so, it is difficult, as there would be a contradiction between one halakha and another halakha. Since, on the one hand, we maintain a principle in halakhic ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman in civil law; and, on the other hand, in that case involving the claims of the bride and the groom Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. Rather, can we not conclude from this apparent contradiction that the matter must be understood as we are teaching, that the opinion of Rav Naḥman can be reconciled with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the case.

מַתְנִי׳ הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: מוּכַּת עֵץ אֲנִי. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא דְּרוּסַת אִישׁ אַתְּ. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין, אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת דְּרוּסַת אִישׁ, עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ.

MISHNA: In a case where she says: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, i.e., she admits that her hymen is not intact but claims that it was not ruptured through intercourse, and the groom says: No; rather, you are one who was trampled by a man, and your hymen was ruptured through intercourse, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible and her claim is accepted because she certainly knows what actually happened. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives; rather, she retains the presumptive status of one who was trampled by a man, until she brings proof supporting her statement that her hymen was ruptured by wood.

גְּמָ׳ טַעֲנָתַיְיהוּ בְּמַאי? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּמָאתַיִם וּמָנֶה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: בְּמָנֶה וְלֹא כְּלוּם.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are their respective financial claims? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The bride claims that since her hymen was ruptured by wood, her legal status is that of a virgin and she is entitled to a marriage contract of two hundred dinars; and the groom claims that she engaged in intercourse and is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. Rabbi Elazar said: The bride claims that although her hymen is not intact she did not completely deceive him, as she never engaged in intercourse, and therefore she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars; and the groom claims that she engaged in intercourse, rendering the betrothal a mistaken transaction, and therefore she is entitled to nothing at all.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּמָאתַיִם וּמָנֶה, סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: בֵּין הִכִּיר בָּהּ, וּבֵין לֹא הִכִּיר בָּהּ — מָאתַיִם. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בְּמָנֶה וְלֹא כְּלוּם — סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: בֵּין הִכִּיר בָּהּ, בֵּין לֹא הִכִּיר בָּהּ — מָנֶה.

The Gemara elaborates. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The dispute between the bride and groom is whether the marriage contract is two hundred dinars or one hundred dinars, because the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Whether the husband was aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood or whether he was not aware of her condition, she receives payment of her marriage contract of two hundred dinars and it is not a mistaken transaction. And Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute between the bride and groom is whether the marriage contract is one hundred dinars or whether she is entitled to nothing at all, because the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said: Whether the husband was aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood or whether he was not aware of her condition, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לֹא קָאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן — דְּקָא מוֹקֵי לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן. אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר?

The Gemara asks: Granted, Rabbi Elazar did not state his explanation of the mishna in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan because he preferred to establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, according to which the halakha is ruled, and not the opinion of Rabbi Meir. However, what is the reason that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not state his explanation of the mishna in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Elazar?

קָסָבַר: כְּנָסָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת בְּתוּלָה וְנִמְצֵאת בְּעוּלָה — יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה מָנֶה. הָכָא, הוּא קָאָמַר מָנֶה, וְהִיא קָאָמְרָה מָנֶה, מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין טַעֲנָה דִידֵיהּ לְטַעֲנָה דִידַהּ?

The Gemara answers: The reason that Rabbi Yoḥanan explained the mishna in that manner is that he holds: If the groom married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin, and she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars. Therefore, here, according to the explanation of Rabbi Elazar, who explains the mishna according to the opinion of the Rabbis, he is saying that she engaged in intercourse and is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars; and she is saying that her hymen was ruptured by wood and she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. What difference is there between his claim and her claim? Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan explains the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the dispute between the bride and the groom is whether she is entitled to a marriage contract of two hundred dinars or a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר — הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי: חֲדָא לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא,

Again we question: Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who explains that the dispute between the bride and the groom is with regard to whether she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars because her hymen was ruptured by wood, or whether she is entitled to nothing because she engaged in intercourse, that is why the tanna teaches two similar disputes, in this mishna and in the previous one. One dispute, in this mishna, comes to exclude the opinion of Rami bar Ḥama, who said: If he was not aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood, everyone agrees that she receives no marriage contract at all, as the marriage was a mistaken transaction. From this mishna it is clear that according to her claim that her hymen was ruptured by wood, she is entitled to one hundred dinars.

וַחֲדָא לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי?

And one dispute, in the previous mishna, is brought in order to exclude that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Sheshet said: If the groom married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin and she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars. In the previous mishna he claims: Before I betrothed you, you were raped and my transaction was a mistaken transaction, indicating that she is entitled to nothing. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, why do I need the tanna to teach two similar disputes? In his opinion, the previous mishna could not have been taught to exclude that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Sheshet said. It has already been established that Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees with the opinion that if she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives payment of her marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

חֲדָא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וַחֲדָא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. קַמַּיְיתָא — לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִיגּוֹ — לָא מְהֵימְנָא. בָּתְרָיְיתָא — לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִיגּוֹ, מְהֵימְנָא.

The Gemara answers: The two similar disputes were necessary. One is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and the extent of the credibility that he accords to her claim; and one is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and the extent to which he does not accord credibility to her claim. The Gemara elaborates: The first mishna, where she admits she was raped but claims that it was after betrothal, conveys to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua: That even though there is room to say that her claim is bolstered by a miggo, she is not deemed credible. The second mishna, where she claims that her hymen was ruptured by wood and he claims that she engaged in intercourse, conveys to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabban Gamliel: That even though there is no room to say that her claim is bolstered by a miggo, in his opinion she is deemed credible.

מַתְנִי׳ רָאוּהָ מְדַבֶּרֶת עִם אֶחָד, וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ: מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ זֶה? אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וְכֹהֵן הוּא. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין, אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת בְּעוּלָה לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר, עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ.

MISHNA: If people saw a woman speaking to one man, but they did not recognize him, and they said to her: What is the nature [tivo] of this man? And she said to them: He is a man called so-and-so and he is a priest; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, men of flawed lineage who disqualify her from marrying a priest, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

הָיְתָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ: מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל עוּבָּר זֶה? מֵאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וְכֹהֵן הוּא. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין, אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת מְעוּבֶּרֶת לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר, עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ.

Similarly, if a single woman was pregnant, and people said to her: What is the nature of this fetus? And she says to them: It is from a man called so-and-so and he is a priest; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who conceived from a Gibeonite or a mamzer, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי מְדַבֶּרֶת? זְעֵירִי אָמַר: נִסְתְּרָה, רַב אַסִּי אָמַר: נִבְעֲלָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לִזְעֵירִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי מְדַבֶּרֶת. אֶלָּא לְרַב אַסִּי, מַאי מְדַבֶּרֶת? לִישָּׁנָא מְעַלְּיָא, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״אָכְלָה וּמָחֲתָה פִיהָ וְאָמְרָה לֹא פָעַלְתִּי אָוֶן״.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of speaking mentioned in the mishna? Ze’eiri said: It means that she secluded herself with a man and it is unknown whether she engaged in intercourse. Rav Asi said: It means that she engaged in intercourse. Granted, according to Ze’eiri, that is why the mishna teaches the case employing the term speaking, as it is certain only that they were in seclusion. Perhaps all they did was speak. However, according to Rav Asi, what is the reason the mishna employed the term speaking if the reference is to intercourse? The Gemara answers: The mishna employed a euphemism, as it is written with regard to licentious women: “She eats and wipes her mouth and says: I have done no wickedness” (Proverbs 30:20). The verse euphemistically ascribes the act of intercourse to the mouth instead of to the appropriate body part.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לִזְעֵירִי — הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי: ״מְדַבֶּרֶת״, וּ״מְעוּבֶּרֶת״. אֶלָּא לְרַב אַסִּי — תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Ze’eiri, who said that speaking means that she secluded herself with him, that is the reason that the tanna teaches two cases in the mishna: A woman speaking to a man and a woman who is pregnant. However, according to Rav Asi, if speaking means that she engaged in intercourse, why do I need two cases addressing the same issue?

חֲדָא, לְהַכְשִׁיר בָּהּ. וַחֲדָא, לְהַכְשִׁיר בְּבִתָּהּ.

The Gemara answers: The tanna teaches one case, the case of speaking to a man, to deem her fit to marry a priest, because although she engaged in intercourse, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel rule that she is deemed credible and is not considered to have engaged in intercourse with a man of flawed lineage. And the tanna teaches one case, the case of the single woman who is pregnant, in order to deem her daughter born from that pregnancy fit to marry a priest, as Rabbi Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel rule the mother is deemed credible.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר בָּהּ — מַכְשִׁיר בְּבִתָּהּ. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר בָּהּ — פּוֹסֵל בְּבִתָּהּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? רַב אַסִּי סָבַר כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר בָּהּ — מַכְשִׁיר בְּבִתָּהּ.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: With regard to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he deems her daughter fit to do so as well. However, according to the one who says: With regard to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he nevertheless deems her daughter unfit, what is there to say? Why did the mishna cite two cases addressing the same issue? The Gemara answers: Rav Asi holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who said: With regard to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he deems her daughter fit to do so as well.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: לִזְעֵירִי דְּאָמַר מַאי ״מְדַבֶּרֶת״ — נִסְתְּרָה, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לָא מְהֵימְנָא, הָאָמַר רַב: מַלְקִין עַל הַיִּחוּד — וְאֵין אוֹסְרִין עַל הַיִּחוּד!

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Ze’eiri, who said: What is the meaning of the term speaking? It means that she secluded herself, and Rabbi Yehoshua said that she is not deemed credible to say that she engaged in intercourse with a man of proper lineage, but the assumption is that she engaged in intercourse with a man of flawed lineage. Didn’t Rav say: One flogs a man and a woman for entering into seclusion, for violating rabbinic law, but one does not render a woman forbidden to her husband for entering into seclusion? Only if it is established as a certainty that she engaged in intercourse with a man other than her husband, is she forbidden to her husband.

לֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בְּיוּחֲסִין.

Let us say that this statement of Rav is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as Rabbi Yehoshua rules that she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, and she is forbidden to marry a priest even for entering into seclusion. The Gemara rejects that conclusion. Even if you say that Rav’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to matters of lineage. Although she is not forbidden to her husband for entering into seclusion, she is deemed unfit to marry a priest.

מֵיתִיבִי: רָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה עִם אֶחָד לְסֵתֶר,

The Gemara raises an objection: If people saw that a woman entered with one man into seclusion,

אוֹ לְחוּרְבָּה — וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ: מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ זֶה? כֹּהֵן הוּא, וּבֶן אֲחִי אַבָּא הוּא. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין, אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת בְּעוּלָה לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר, עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ.

or into a ruin, which is typically located outside the city, and if a man and woman meet there it is presumably in order to engage in sexual relations, and people said to her: What is the nature of this man with whom you secluded? She said to them: He is a priest, and he is the son of my father’s brother, a respectable person of impeccable lineage. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives; rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, men of flawed lineage who disqualify her from marrying a priest, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לִזְעֵירִי — הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי: לְסֵתֶר אוֹ לְחוּרְבָּה. אֶלָּא לְרַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר נִבְעֲלָה, תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? חֲדָא קָתָנֵי: לְסֵתֶר דְּחוּרְבָּה.

Granted, according to Ze’eiri, who said that speaking means that she secluded herself, that is the reason that the tanna teaches two cases where there is merely concern: The case of: Into seclusion, where there is lesser concern that she engaged in intercourse, and the case of: Into a ruin, where there is greater concern. However, according to Rav Asi, who said that speaking means that she had intercourse, and only in that case is she not deemed credible according to Rabbi Yehoshua, why do I need two cases? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Asi, the tanna is teaching one case: If people saw a woman enter with one man into the seclusion of a ruin, where the likelihood is that that they entered to engage in relations.

וְהָא לְסֵתֶר אוֹ לְחוּרְבָּה קָתָנֵי! חֲדָא לְחוּרְבָּה דְמָתָא, וַחֲדָא לְחוּרְבָּה דְּדַבְרָא. וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן חוּרְבָּה דְמָתָא — בְּהָא קָמַכְשַׁר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מִשּׁוּם דְּרוֹב כְּשֵׁרִים אֶצְלָהּ. אֲבָל לְחוּרְבָּה דְּדַבְרָא, דְּרוֹב פְּסוּלִין אֶצְלָהּ — אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t the mishna teaching two different cases: Into seclusion or into a ruin? The Gemara suggests a different explanation. According to Rav Asi, two cases are necessary, one with regard to a ruin in the city and one with regard to a ruin in the field, distant from the city. And both cases are necessary, because if the tanna taught us only the case of a ruin in the city, one might have concluded that in that case Rabban Gamliel deems her fit to marry a priest due to the fact that the majority of the people in its proximity are honorable and of impeccable lineage. However, with regard to a ruin in the field, where the majority of the people in its proximity are unfit and of flawed lineage, as people from all over the world pass the ruin in the field and the majority of the people in the world are of flawed lineage, say that Rabban Gamliel concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua and deems her unfit to marry a priest.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּהָהִיא — בְּהָהִיא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אֲבָל בְּהָא — אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, צְרִיכָא.

And if the tanna taught us only that case of a ruin in the field, one might have concluded that in that case Rabbi Yehoshua said she is not deemed credible, because the majority of the people there are of flawed lineage. However here, in the case of a ruin in the city, where the majority of the people are of impeccable lineage, say that Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabban Gamliel that she is deemed credible. Therefore, both cases were necessary.

מֵיתִיבִי: זוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁרָה לָהּ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בִּשְׁבוּיָה שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית וְיֵשׁ לָהּ עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת?

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta: This, i.e., that she engaged in intercourse with a man of impeccable lineage, is testimony that a woman is fit to testify. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua said to the Sages: Do you not agree in the case of a woman who was taken captive, and she has witnesses testifying that she was taken captive, and she says: I am pure, i.e., I was not violated by my captors, that she is not deemed credible? The assumption in that case is that most captive women are violated by their captors.

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֲבָל. וּמָה הֶפְרֵשׁ יֵשׁ בֵּין זוֹ לָזוֹ? לָזוֹ — יֵשׁ עֵדִים, ולָזוֹ — אֵין לָהּ עֵדִים.

The Sages said to him: But there is a difference between the cases. And what difference is there between this case of a captive, where the woman is not accorded credibility, and that case of a woman who secluded herself with a man? For this captive, there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and due to the prevalent immorality in that situation, she loses the presumptive status of virtue and is considered to have certainly engaged in intercourse. But for this woman who secluded herself with a man, she does not have witnesses that she engaged in intercourse. Since she could have claimed that she did not engage in intercourse and instead admitted that she engaged in intercourse and claimed that it was with a man of impeccable lineage, she should be accorded credibility.

אָמַר לָהֶם: אַף לָזוֹ יֵשׁ עֵדִים, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּרֵיסָהּ בֵּין שִׁינֶּיהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: רוֹב גּוֹיִם פְּרוּצִים בַּעֲרָיוֹת הֵם. אָמַר לָהֶן: אֵין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַעֲרָיוֹת.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Even for that woman, the one who secluded herself, there are witnesses, because her belly is between her teeth, i.e., her pregnancy is conspicuous and therefore she does not have the option of claiming that she did not engage in intercourse. The Sages said to him: There remains a difference between the cases, as most gentiles are steeped in sexual immorality. Therefore, presumably, they engaged in intercourse with the captive woman. However, in the case of the woman in seclusion there is no presumption that she engaged in intercourse specifically with a man with flawed lineage. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality, and therefore, everyone is suspect in that regard. Therefore, this woman, since she engaged in intercourse, lost her presumptive status of virtue, and there is no basis to trust her that it was with a person of impeccable lineage.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה בְּגוּפָהּ, אֲבָל עֵדוּת אִשָּׁה בְּבִתָּהּ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי.

The baraita continues: In what case are these divergent statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua said? It is in the case of the testimony of a woman with regard to herself, to render her fit to marry a priest. However, in the case of testimony of a woman with regard to the fact that the father of her daughter is a man of unflawed lineage, everyone agrees that her testimony is not deemed credible, and the legal status of the child is that of a shetuki, the identity of whose father is unknown and to whom all the stringencies that apply to a mamzer apply, due the uncertainty of his lineage.

מַאי קָאָמַר לְהוּ וּמַאי קָמַהְדְּרִי לֵיהּ? הָכִי קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: הֲשַׁבְתָּנוּ עַל הַמְעוּבֶּרֶת. מָה תְּשִׁיבֵנוּ עַל הַמְדַבֶּרֶת? אָמַר לָהֶם: מְדַבֶּרֶת הַיְינוּ שְׁבוּיָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שָׁאנֵי שְׁבוּיָה, דְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם פְּרוּצִים בַּעֲרָיוֹת הֵם. אָמַר לָהֶם: הָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיסְתַּתַּר, אֵין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַעֲרָיוֹת.

The Gemara seeks to understand the exchange between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Sages. What did he say to them and what did they reply to him? It appears that they were not discussing the same case. This is what the Sages are saying to him: You answered us concerning the pregnant woman, asserting that there is testimony in the case of the pregnant woman comparable to the testimony in the case of the captive. However, what will you answer us concerning the woman who was seen speaking to a man? In that case, there is no testimony that she had intercourse. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: The case of speaking is the same as the case of the captive, as there is reason to believe that she engaged in intercourse. The Sages said to him: The case of a captive is different, as most gentiles are steeped in sexual immorality, and presumably they engaged in intercourse with the captive woman. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: In this case too, since she secluded herself with a man, based on the principle: There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality, presumably she engaged in intercourse with him.

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת תַּרְתֵּי — מְדַבֶּרֶת וּמְעוּבֶּרֶת. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב אַסִּי תְּיוּבְתָּא.

With regard to the dispute over the meaning of the term: Speaking, the Gemara says: In any event, from this discussion it is clear that the tanna is teaching two different cases, one case of speaking, where there is uncertainty whether she engaged in intercourse, and one case where she is pregnant, and there is no uncertainty in that regard. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Asi, who explained that speaking in the mishna means that she engaged in intercourse. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation of his opinion.

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָתָם רוֹב פְּסוּלִין אֶצְלָהּ, וְהָכָא רוֹב כְּשֵׁרִין אֶצְלָהּ. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר — מַכְשִׁיר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב פְּסוּלִין, לְדִבְרֵי הַפּוֹסֵל — פּוֹסֵל אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב כְּשֵׁרִים.

The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita: And let the tanna derive this distinction between a captive woman and a woman who secluded herself with a man from the fact that there, in the case of the captive, the majority of the men in her proximity are unfit and of flawed lineage, but here, where she was secluded, the majority of the men in her proximity are honorable and of impeccable lineage. Since she is unmarried, most men are not unfit for her. The Gemara notes: The fact that the tanna did not derive the distinction from that source supports the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: According to the statement of Rabban Gamliel, the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he deems her fit even in a case where the majority of the men in her proximity are unfit. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, the one who deems her unfit to marry a priest, he deems her unfit even in a case where the majority of the men in her proximity are fit.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר בָּהּ — מַכְשִׁיר בְּבִתָּהּ. לְדִבְרֵי הַפּוֹסֵל בָּהּ — פּוֹסֵל בְּבִתָּהּ. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר בָּהּ — פּוֹסֵל בְּבִתָּהּ.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: According to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest and accepts her claim that she engaged in intercourse with a man of unflawed lineage, he deems her daughter fit as well. According to the statement of the one who deems her unfit, he deems her daughter unfit as well. But Rabbi Elazar says: According to the statement of the one who deems her fit, he deems her daughter unfit.

אָמַר רַבָּה, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בִּשְׁלָמָא אִיהִי אִית לַהּ חֲזָקָה דְכַשְׁרוּת. בִּתָּהּ, לֵית לַהּ חֲזָקָה דְכַשְׁרוּת.

Rabba said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who distinguishes between the effectiveness of the woman’s claim in determining her own status and its effectiveness in determining the status of her daughter? The reason is that granted, her claim is effective with regard to her status because she has the presumptive status of fitness. Therefore, until proven otherwise, she retains that status. Her daughter, the identity of whose father is unknown, does not have the presumptive status of fitness. Therefore, a full-fledged proof is required to establish her fitness.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה בְּגוּפָהּ, אֲבָל עֵדוּת אִשָּׁה בְּבִתָּהּ —דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי. מַאי לָאו שְׁתוּקִי, וּפָסוּל. לָא: שְׁתוּקִי, וְכָשֵׁר.

Rabbi Elazar raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from the baraita: In what case are these disputing statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua said? It is in the case of a woman’s testimony with regard to herself. However, in the case of testimony of a woman with regard to her daughter, everyone agrees that her testimony is not credible, and the legal status of the child is that of a shetuki. What, is it not that contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, the baraita means that the child is a shetuki and unfit until proof can be brought that the lineage of the father is unflawed? The Gemara rejects that objection: No, the baraita means that the child is a shetuki, as her lineage is unclear, but she is nevertheless fit.

וּמִי אִיכָּא שְׁתוּקִי כָּשֵׁר? אִין, כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים עוֹמְדִים, וּפֵירַשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶם וּבָעַל — הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי.

The Gemara asks: And is there a case of a shetuki who is nevertheless fit? The Gemara answers: Yes, as in the statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: If ten priests were standing and one of them left and engaged in intercourse, the child is a shetuki, literally one who is silenced, because the identity of the father is unclear. In that case it is clear that the child is fit, because it is known that the father is a priest of flawless lineage.

מַאי ״שְׁתוּקִי״? אִילֵימָא שֶׁמַּשְׁתִּיקִין אוֹתוֹ מִנִּכְסֵי אָבִיו — פְּשִׁיטָא, וּמִי יָדְעִינַן אֲבוּהּ מַנּוּ? אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּשְׁתִּיקִין אוֹתוֹ מִדִּין כְּהוּנָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם״, מִי שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ מְיוּחָס אַחֲרָיו, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ מְיוּחָס אַחֲרָיו.

The Gemara asks: In what sense is this child a shetuki? If we say that it means that one silences him from a claim to his father’s assets and he does not inherit his estate, that is obvious. Do we know who his father is? It could be any one of the ten. Rather, it means that one silences him from a claim to the status of priesthood. Although there is no doubt that his father is a priest, the son is not a priest, as it is written: “And it shall be for him and for his offspring after him an everlasting covenant of priesthood” (Numbers 25:13). From this it is derived: In the case of a priest whose offspring are attributed to him, his offspring are priests; to the exclusion of this priest, whose offspring are not attributed to him, and whose offspring are not priests. This child, therefore, is a shetuki only in the sense that he may not perform the Temple service as a priest. However, he is permitted to marry a Jewish woman.

הָהוּא אָרוּס וַאֲרוּסָתוֹ דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, הִיא אָמְרָה: מִינֵּיהּ, וְהוּא אָמַר:

Apropos paternity, the Gemara relates: There was a certain betrothed man and his betrothed, who was pregnant, who came before Rav Yosef. She said that she conceived from relations with him, and he said: