Talmud sur Ketoubot 1:11

MISHNAH: What is a silenced one? Anyone who knows his mother but not his father. But a foundling is one collected from the public domain who knows neither his father nor his mother. Abba Shaul called the silenced one “investigated one”.

It was stated⁷⁹Tosephta 6:2, quoted in Babli 37a.: “The first son could be High Priest, any second son possibly is a bastard⁸⁰If the first child is the son of the first husband, he certainly is in order. If he is the son of the levir, the first husband died childless and the levirate was legitimate. But any second child is the issue of a union which possibly is incestuous and punishable by divine extirpation.. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, there is no such thing as a possible bastard.⁸¹He is considered a bastard, permitted to marry a bastard partner, since he cannot marry a legitimate Israel partner; cf. Qiddushin 4:3.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees in cases of doubt of Samaritans and desecrated persons⁸²As noted before, Samaritans have different interpretations of incest and marriage laws; a child of a marriage with a Samaritan is not automatically excluded but subject to inquiry. The text speaks of Samaritans since in talmudic times they were the only remnants of Sadducee traditions. {Today, of the other tribes of Sadducee traditions, Ethiopians have accepted rabbinic rules and Karaites are legitimate marriage partners if they accept rabbinic rules.}
“Desecrated” children are children of the marriage of a Cohen with a divorcee or a prostitute; such a marriage is not incestuous and stringent exclusionary rules do not apply.. This refers to what we have stated there: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia.⁸³Mishnah Qiddushin 4:1: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia, Cohanim, Levites, Israel, desecrated, proselytes, freed slaves, bastards, Gibeonites, people of unknown paternity, and foundlings. Cohanim, Levites, Israel may marry one another. Levites, Israel, desecrated, proselytes, and freed slaves, may marry one another. Proselytes, freed slaves, bastards, Gibeonites, people of unknown paternity, and foundlings, may marry one another.”
For R. Eliezer ben Jacob, bastards, people of unknown paternity, and foundlings, all form one group.
In Mishnah Ketubot 1:8, Rabban Gamliel and R. Eliezer hold that the unmarried mother of a child of unknown paternity is believed if she asserts that the father was one of the first six categories (or a Gentile). For them, the special category of “child of unknown paternity” does not exist since the child inherits the status of his mother.” In the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, eight. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, nine. In the opinion of the rabbis, ten.

⁷⁰In rabbinic institutions it is of the essence that the originators can settle the order of precedence.“If there are males they enable to eat, females do not enable to eat.” ⁷¹The following text does not make much sense. The discussion in the Babli, 67a/b, is too hypothetical to be of much help here. If there are males, they enable to eat since there is one doubt, whether he is male or female⁷²As Rashi (Ketubot 67a) points out, there are two doubts, whether the pregnancy leads to a live birth or not and if there is a live birth whether it will be a male or a female. If there is no live birth, the males are the heirs and the slaves may eat because of them. If the baby is female, again the existing males are the heirs. The Yerushalmi probably holds that the miscarriages and female births just about equal the male births so that there are equal probabilities that the existing males are all heirs and the slaves may or may not eat because of them.. A doubt in biblical matters forces restriction^73,A generally accepted principle, Babli Beṣah 3a.⁷⁴If heave were a biblical precept, the slaves could not eat if there was a male heir; if heave is rabbinic, they are enabled by him.. Females⁷⁵The deceased had only daughters, no son. do not enable to eat since there are two doubts⁷⁶There is only one doubt but it has two sides, both of which support the position of R. Simeon., whether he is male or female, (after she was betrothed or maybe before she was betrothed.)⁷⁷The text in parentheses makes no sense here; it belongs to another category of doubts, discussed at length in Tractate Ketubot, cf., e.g., Mishnah Ketubot 1:6–7. A doubt regarding their words forces leniency⁷³A generally accepted principle, Babli Beṣah 3a.. However you take it, if he is male, everything is his⁷⁸Then the slaves are disabled since before the birth they have no master who might enable them.. Female, she takes her part with them⁷⁹This parallels the case of boys. In this case there is a doubt concerning the applicability of biblical law which requires restrictive interpretation..

“One does not recite benedictions for mourners or bridegrooms.” ¹⁰⁰An incomplete copy of this text is in Ketubot 1:1, Notes 78–83. It was stated, the marriage benedictions are said all seven days⁹⁶The seven benedictions required at a definitive wedding and following Grace in the wedding week.. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that one re-enacts the marriage all seven days. Rebbi Yose said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, the benedictions for mourners are said all seven days? Can you say that one buries the dead all seven days? How is that? Since here he enjoys with him, so there he consoles with him. As here one remembers, so there one remembers¹⁰¹The topic of conversation in a house of mourning is the deceased; the topic of conversation with the newlyweds is the marriage ceremony..

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall collapsed in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew¹⁴⁵Also quoted in Ketubot 1:10, Note 269.. How far¹⁴⁶Since in the Mishnah it is stated that a live person has to be dug out completely, the question is how much of a person has to be uncovered in order to determine his death.? Two Amoraim. One said, up to his nose; the other said, up to his navel. He who said, up to his nose, about one who was healthy; he who said up to his navel, about one who was intoxicated¹⁴⁷Reading רוי for רבי..

⁵³The same text is found in Ketubot 1:1 (Notes 43–46,כ) and Besah 5:2 (64 l. 59,ב ). Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge [criminal matters] on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for action^53a“Practice” means “code of practice”, “action” means actual procedure. The parallel sources read: “one is for practice, the other for words of Torah”, meaning that in theory one may judge but in practice one does not..

HALAKHAH: “There was no law of siqariqon in Judea” etc. ¹⁷⁹This sentence and part of the next is also in Ketubot 1:5 (Notes 196–199). Variants are given by כ. In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their forefathers that Jehudah had killed Esaw, as it is written: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them, took their fields and sold them to third parties. The original owners could come and repossess¹⁸⁰After the Jewish court system was reestablished under R. Jehudah.; therefore the land was left absolutely in the hand of the siqariqon since they refrained from buying¹⁸¹As long as the court held that a forced sale was invalid.. “They decreed that the law of siqariqon should not apply in Jehudah¹⁸²Nobody had the right to reclaim from third parties land he had given away to save his life.. When was this said? About war killings before the war¹⁸³In the anarchy between the begin of the revolt and the occupation of the Land by Roman forces.. But about anybody killed in and after the war, the notion of siqariqon does not apply¹⁸⁴In Tosephta 3:10: “But about anybody killed in and after the war, the notion of siqariqon applies.” The Yerushalmi text should not be corrected based on Tosephta or Babli. Since one refers to the war of Bar Kokhba and the Hadrianic decrees in its aftermath, it is clear that the situation during and after the war was worse than before the war. One does not speak of a forced sale but of the rights of the heirs of a person who was killed and his land taken by Roman soldiers or civilians. It is clear that there was no sale. Since the greater part of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed in the war or deported as slaves, it made no sense for the organizers of the survivors to take notice of prior ownership. One has to assume that “Judea” means the Judean hills, to exclude the settlements in the plain centered around Lydda..” But are those killed before the war not like those killed after the war? Explain it that a siqariqon came and robbed and suppressed; there was no time left to write the sales contract before murder engulfed the entire world, that practice should not be partial¹⁸⁵Robberies during the anarchy before the Roman invasion cannot be separated from what happened during the war; in both cases no documentation can be recovered..

HALAKHAH: “If an underage levir,” etc. ¹²³The entire paragraph is from Ketubot Halakhah 1:4. It was stated: A claim of non-virginity may be brought within thirty days, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, immediately¹²⁴In the Babli, 111b, and the Tosephta, Ketubot 1:4: “A claim of non-virginity may be brought within thirty days, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yose says, if they were alone together, immediately; if they were not alone together, within thirty days (Tosephta), indefinitely (Babli).”
The husband goes to court to annul the marriage, without divorce and without payment, claiming that he was lead to believe the bride to be a virgin when he found that she was not.. Where do we hold? If he copulated, immediately. If he did not copulate, even after a longer delay. But we must hold if it was not spelled out. Rebbi Meїr said, it is credible that a man may hold himself back for thirty days. But the Sages say, a man does not hold himself back even for one day¹²⁵In the Babli, 112a, this is declared to be irrelevant for our Mishnah since a man will sleep with his bride immediately after the marriage ceremony but might be reluctant to touch his sister-in-law for some time.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: According to Rebbi Meїr, would a man be believed to assert that he held himself back for thirty days in order to make the child fatherless¹²⁶If his wife becomes pregnant immediately after the marriage ceremony, can he declare in court that the child is not his since he did not sleep with his bride for some time?? Let us hear from the following: “If the sister-in-law claims within thirty days that she was not copulated with, one forces him to perform ḥalîṣah with her. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṣah with her.” (After thirty days.)¹²⁷Missing in Ketubot. And Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meїr’s¹²⁸But the majority will accept the widow’s claim only on the day after she entered the levir’s house.. And Rebbi Eleazar said, that refers only to her, but not to her co-wife¹²⁹If the co-wife married an outside man based on the other’s levirate marriage, she cannot cast aspersion on the validity of her cowidow’s marriage without the testimony of two credible witnesse.
The Babli agrees, 112a, at least in the interpretation of Rashi and Rabbenu Ḥananel.. As you say there¹³⁰“There” is here, Yebamot, “here” is there, Ketubot, cf. Note 122., she is not believed to damage her co-wife, so here, he is not believed to damage his son.