{"id":11069,"date":"2007-09-20T22:09:01","date_gmt":"2007-09-20T22:09:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_ketubot_1319\/"},"modified":"2015-10-27T10:25:03","modified_gmt":"2015-10-27T15:25:03","slug":"masechet_ketubot_1319","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_ketubot_1319\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Ketubot 13a-19b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

This month\u2019s Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Alan Harris, The Lewy Family Foundation, and Marilyn and Edward Kaplan<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Ketubot 13a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

How much credibility does a woman have to testify about the identity of her lover?<\/p>\n

The Mishnah<\/a> on our daf<\/em> teaches that if an unmarried woman who is pregnant identifies the father as a specific person, who is a kohen<\/em><\/a>, Rabban Gamliel<\/a> and Rabbi Eliezer<\/a> rule that we accept her word, while Rabbi Yehoshua<\/a> says that we cannot trust her, and must assume that the father has a problematic family lineage, unless she brings proof of her claim.<\/p>\n

It is clear from the rishonim<\/em><\/a> that even according to Rabban Gamliel, we do not fully accept her testimony, and we are not convinced that the specific person who she points to is the father. Thus, even though she claims that the father was a kohen<\/em>, we will not allow her child to eat terumah<\/em><\/a> (which is permitted only to kohanim<\/em>), nor will we allow the child to perform the sacrificial service in the Temple<\/a>. The point of her statement as described in the Mishnah is that if we believe her, it is because she is able to point to a specific individual with whom she had sexual relations. If she merely said that she is certain that the person she slept with was “kosher” (i.e. he was Jewish and not a mamzer<\/em><\/a>) we would not believe her, even according to Rabban Gamliel.<\/p>\n

The Talmud Yerushalmi<\/em><\/a> explains that the argument between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel is based on the particular concern that Rabbi Yehoshua has with people who engage in sexual relations outside the framework of marriage. It is specifically in such a case that Rabbi Yehoshua is concerned that the father might have a problematic family history, because such people are more likely to be engaging in zenut <\/em>\u2013 sexual relationships outside of marriage. Rabban Gamliel’s argument is that when dealing with issues of sexuality, we can never be sure what went on, and the suspicion is the same for everyone. Therefore, if we accept her word, it is good enough.<\/p>\n

\n

Ketubot 14a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Yesterday’s daf<\/em> discussed the case of an unmarried pregnant woman who claims that a specific man is the father of her unborn child. We saw that although Rabbi Yehoshua<\/a> disagrees, Rabban Gamliel<\/a> rules that we accept her testimony. Our Gemara<\/a> discusses a case where a couple who had had kiddushin<\/em> (betrothal) but not nisu\u2019in<\/em> (marriage) came before Rav Yosef. The woman – who was pregnant – stated that her betrothed was the father, a claim corroborated by the man. Rav Yosef ruled that they were to be believed \u2013 after all, the father admitted that he was the father, and in any case we accept the position of Rabban Gamliel that her testimony is accepted.<\/p>\n

This discussion in our Gemara is connected with a parallel discussion in a Gemara in Yevamot<\/a> where we find the possibility raised that a betrothed, pregnant woman may be suspected of having committed adultery. Two possibilities are offered by the Gemara there. According to one, this suspicion is raised only if there were rumors that the woman had been sleeping with other men; according to the second, this is a matter of concern even if such rumors did not exist. The Ramban<\/a> and the Rashba<\/a> argue that our Gemara accepts the first suggestion of the Gemara in Yevamot, and that as long as there were no rumors circulating about her behavior, it is not a matter of concern and we accept her claim \u2013 supported by her betrothed \u2013 with regard to the identity of the father.<\/p>\n

Tosafot<\/a> suggest that in our case we are not dealing with a situation where the couple admits to having relations just once, rather they have been living together as husband and wife. In such a situation we can assume that the pregnancy was the product of their relationship, and do not need to be concerned with the possibility that she committed adultery. Other rishonim<\/em><\/a> \u2013 the Ritva<\/a>, for example \u2013 suggest that our case is when the husband can say with certainty that it is his child, e.g. where they never left each other’s sight until she became pregnant.<\/p>\n

\n

Ketubot 15a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our Gemara<\/a> quotes a Mishnah<\/a> that teaches that if an abandoned child is found, the halacha<\/em><\/a> treats him differently depending on the population of the city:<\/p>\n