Parallel
כתובות 13
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
for if it were [not] so, there would be a difficulty between one law and another law, for it is established for us [that] in civil matters the law is according to R. Nahman, whereas in this [case] R. Judah [said] that Samuel said [that] the halachah is according to Rabban Gamaliel, Is it not then to be concluded from this [that it is] as we have answered? Conclude [so] from this. MISHNAH. [IF] SHE SAYS, 'I WAS INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD', AND HE SAYS, 'NO, THOU HAST HAD INTERCOURSE WITH A MAN — RABBAN GAMALIEL AND R. ELIEZER SAY: SHE IS BELIEVED, AND R. JOSHUA SAYS: WE DO NOT LIVE FROM HER MONTH, BUT SHE IS IN THE PRESUMPTION OF HAVING HAD INTERCOURSE WITH A MAN, UNTIL SHE BRINGS PROOF FOR HER STATEMENT. GEMARA. With regard to what are their claims? — R. Johanan Says: With regard to two hundred [zuz] and a maneh. R. Eleazar says: with regard to a maneh and nothing. R. Johanan says: With regard to two hundred [zuz] and a maneh, [because] he shares the opinion of R. Meir who says [that] whether he knew of her or did not know of her [she gets as her kethubah] two hundred [zuz]. And R. Eleazar says: With regard to a maneh or nothing, [because] he shares the view of the Rabbis who say [that] whether he knew of her or did not know of her, [she gets as her kethubah] a maneh. It is quite right that R. Eleazar does not say as R. Johanan [says]. because he establishes it according to the Rabbis. But why does not R. Johanan say as R. Eleazar [says]? — He holds [that when] he married her in the presumption of [her being] a virgin and she is found to have had intercourse, she has a kethubah of a maneh. [According to this view] here he would say. 'a maneh,' and she would say. 'a maneh,' [and] what difference would there be between his claim and her claim? [Now] it is quite right according to R. Eleazar that we have stated two cases, one it to exclude the opinion of Rami b. Hama, and one to exclude the opinion of R. Hiyya b. Abin in the name of R. Shesheth. But according to R. Johanan why are two cases necessary? — One to show you the strength of Rabban Gamaliel, and one to show you the strength of R. Joshua. The first case to show you the strength of R. Joshua, that, although one could say [there] miggo, she is not believed. The second case to show you the strength of Rabban Gamaliel, that, although one cannot say [there] Miggo, she is believed. MISHNAH. [IF] THEY SAW HER TALKING WITH SOMEONE, AND THEY SAID TO HER, 'WHAT SORT OF A MAN IS HE? [AND SHE ANSWERED, 'HE IS] THE MAN SO-AND-SO AND HE IS A PRIEST — RABBAN GAMALIEL AND R. ELIEZER SAY: SHE IS BELIEVED, AND R. JOSHUA SAYS: WE DO NOT LIVE FROM HER MOUTH, BUT SHE IS IN THE PRESUMPTION OF HAVING HAD INTERCOURSE WITH A NATHIN OR A MAMZER,-42 — UNTIL SHE BRINGS PROOF FOR HER STATEMENT. [IF] SHE WAS PREGNANT AND THEY SAID UNTO HER, 'WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THIS FOETUS.' [AND SHE ANSWERED, 'IT IS] FROM THE MAN SO-AND-SO AND HE IS A PRIEST — RABBAN GAMALIEL AND R. ELIEZER SAY: SHE IS BELIEVED, AND R. JOSHUA SAYS: WE DO NOT LIVE FROM HER MOUTH, BUT SHE IS IN THE PRESUMPTION OF BEING PREGNANT FROM A NATHIN OR A MAMZER, UNTIL SHE BRINGS EVIDENCE FOR HER STATEMENT. GEMARA. What is the meaning of 'TALKING'? Ze'iri said: She was hidden. R. Assi said: She had intercourse. It is quite right according to Ze'iri that it Says 'TALKING', But according to R. Assi why [does it say] 'TALKING?' — [It is] a more appropriate expression, as it is written: 'She eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, 'I have done no wickedness.' It is quite right according to Ze'iri that he teaches [in the Mishnah] two [cases]: 'TALKING' and 'PREGNANT, But according to R. Assi, why [does the Mishnah teach] two [cases]? — One case to declare her fit and one case to declare her daughter fit. That is quite right according to him who says [that] he who declares her fit declares [also] her daughter fit. But according to him who says [that] he who declares her fit declares her daughter unfit, what is there to say? — R. Assi holds the view of him who says [that] he who declares her fit declares [also] her daughter fit. R. Pappa said to Abaye: According to Ze'iri who said: What Is TALKING?' She was hidden, and R. Joshua said [that] she is not believed — did not Rab say: We punish with lashes for the privacy but we do not prohibit on account of the privacy? Is it to say that it is not according to R. Joshua? — You may even say [that it is according to] R. Joshua. [for] they set a higher standard in matters of priestly descent. An objection was raised: [If] they saw her go in with someone Into a secret [place]
—
or into a ruin, and they said to her, 'What sort of a man is he?' [and she answered]. 'he is a priest and he is the son of the brother of my father' — Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer say: She is believed. R. Joshua says: We do not live from her mouth, but she is in the presumption of having had Intercourse with a Nathin or a Mamzer, until she brings proof for her statement. Now it is quite right according to Ze'iri, that he teaches two [cases]: into a secret [place] or into a ruin. But according to R. Assi who said: She had intercourse, why does it teach two cases? — It teaches [only] one [case]: into the secret [place] of the ruin. But it teaches: into a secret [place] or into a ruin! — [But say] one [expression stands] for a ruin of a town and one [expression stands] for a ruin of a field. And they are [both] necessary. for if it had told us [only] concerning a ruin of a town [one might have said that] in this [case] Rabban Gamaliel declares her fit because most [of the men] of the town are fit with regard to her, but in [the case of] a ruin of a field, when most [of the men] are unfit with regard to her. I might say that he agrees with R. Joshua. And if it had told us [only] this [case] [I might have said that only] in this case did R. Joshua say [that she is not believed], but in that [case] I might say [that] he agrees with Rabban Gamaliel; [therefore] it was necessary [to state both cases]. An objection was raised: This is a testimony with regard to which the woman is fit. But R. Joshua Says: She is not believed. Said R. Joshua to them: Do you not agree that in the case of a woman who was captured, and there are witnesses that she was captured, and she says. 'I am pure.' she is not believed? They said to him, 'Yes: but what a difference there is between this case and that case.' In this case there are witnesses, and in that case there are no witnesses. He said to them: In that case too there are also witnesses, for her stomach reaches up to her teeth. They said to him, 'Most of the idolators are unrestrained in sexual matters.' He said to them: 'There is no guardian against unchastity.' This applies only in the case of the testimony of the woman with regard to herself. but in the case of the testimony of the woman with regard to her daughter. all agree that the child is a shethuki.' — [Now] what did he say unto them and what did they answer him? This they said unto him: 'You have answered us with regard to the pregnant woman, what will you answer us with regard to the woman [whom they saw] talking [to a man]?' — He said to them: The woman [whom they saw] talking [to a man] is the same as the captive woman. They said to him, 'The captive woman is different, for most of the idolators are unrestrained in sexual matters.' He said to them: Here also, since she hid herself, there is no guardian against unchastity. [Now] at all events he teaches two [cases]: The woman [whom they saw] talking [to a man] and the pregnant woman! [This is] a refutation of R. Assi, [This is indeed] a refutation, — But let this difference weigh with him There most of the men are unfit with regard to her, but here most of the men are fit with regard to her! — This supports the opinion of R. Joshua b. Levi, for R. Joshua b. Levi said: He who declares her fit declares her fit even when most of the men are unfit, and he who declares her unfit declares her unfit even when most of the men are fit. R. Johanan said: He who declares her fit declares also her daughter fit, [and] he who declares her unfit declares also her daughter unfit. And R. Eleazar said: [Even] he who declares her fit declares her daughter unfit. Rabba said: What is the reason of R. Eleazar? [This:] It is quite right [with regard to her], she has the presumption of fitness, [but] her daughter has no presumption of fitness. R. Eleazar objected to [the ruling of] R. Johanan: This only applies to the testimony of the woman with regard to herself, but in the case of the testimony of the woman with regard to her daughter, all agree that the child is a shethuki. Does this not [mean] a shethuki and unfit? — No, a shethuki and fit. But is there a shethuki [who is] fit? — Yes, according to Samuel, for Samuel said: [If] ten priests are standing together and one of them goes away and has intercourse [with a woman], the child is a shethuki. Now what [means here] a shethuki? Is it to say that he is 'silenced' from the property of his father? This is evident! Do we know who his father is? — It means one silences him from the rights of priesthood, for it is written: 'And it shall be unto him and to his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood. [that is, only] one whose seed is legitimately descending from him, excluding this one, whose seed is not legitimately descending from him. A bridal couple once came before R. Joseph. She said, 'It is from him'. and he said,
—