Talmud - Ketubot 13b כתובות י״ג ב׳

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Ketuvot 13b examines a woman's credibility about seclusion with a man, weighing lineage claims against rabbinic doubts over possible forbidden relations.