Study Ketubot folio 14A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אין, מינאי. אמר רב יוסף: למאי ניחוש לה? חדא, דהא קא מודה. ועוד, הא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: הלכה כרבן גמליאל.
Yes, she conceived from sex with me. Rav Yosef said: The ruling here is clear, as with regard to what suspicion need we be concerned? First, he concedes that he is the father. And furthermore, didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, and even if he didn’t admit that the child was his, the woman’s claim is accorded credibility?
אמר ליה אביי: ובהא, כי לא מודה מכשר רבן גמליאל? והאמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה: שיננא, הלכה כרבן גמליאל, ואת לא תעביד עובדא עד דאיכא רוב כשרין אצלה. והכא — רוב פסולין אצלה!
Abaye said to him: And in this case, based on the fact that you cited two reasons to deem the child fit, is that to say when he does not admit that he is the father Rabban Gamliel deems the child fit? But didn’t Shmuel say to Rav Yehuda: Big-toothed one, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, i.e., that she is accorded credibility, but you should not perform an action based on this ruling unless the majority of the men in her proximity are honorable and of impeccable lineage, corroborating her claim. And here, since she is betrothed, the majority of the men in her proximity are unfit, as a child fathered by any man other than her betrothed is a mamzer. Shmuel should not have ruled that the halakha was in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel.
וליטעמיך תקשי לך היא גופה: הלכה, ואת לא תעביד עובדא?! אלא מאי אית לך למימר: הא — לכתחלה, הא — דיעבד. והא נמי, כדיעבד דמי.
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: And according to your reasoning, the halakha itself should pose a difficulty for you, as on the one hand Shmuel rules that it is the halakha and on the other hand he adds: But you should not perform an action based on this ruling. Rather, what have you to say to explain this contradiction? This statement that one relies on the woman’s claim only if a majority of men in her proximity are of unflawed lineage is ab initio. That statement that one may rely on the woman’s claim regardless of the status of the men in her proximity is after the fact. And this case of the betrothed woman, too, is like a case after the fact, as failure to rely on her claim will render her child a mamzer. Therefore, in this case, Shmuel would rule that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel.