Halakhah for Ketubot 1:9

הָיְתָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת, וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מַה טִּיבוֹ שֶׁל עֻבָּר זֶה. מֵאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכֹהֵן הוּא. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים, נֶאֱמֶנֶת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין, אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְחֶזְקַת מְעֻבֶּרֶת לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר, עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ:

If she were pregnant and she were asked: What is the "nature" of this fetus? (If she replied:) It is by this and this man, and he is a Cohein, she is believed [and both she and her daughter are permitted to the priesthood. But as to inheritance, R. Gamliel does not say that this fetus inherits him (the one she says is the father). And the halachah is in accordance with R. Gamliel in all these cases of our Mishnah. But even so, ab initio, she does not marry into the priesthood (neither the "speaking" one [(1:8)] nor the pregnant one) unless most of the men of the city were pedigreed and one of them, who had "separated" from the city, had lived with her (for we say: "All who separate separate from the majority." And in that instance, she may marry into the priesthood even ab initio, both she and her daughter.] R. Yehoshua says: We do not live by her mouth, but she is assumed to be pregnant by a Nathin or a mamzer unless she brings proof for her words.

Explore halakhah for Ketubot 1:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.