Ketubot

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,