Yerushalmi Ketubot 1:10 ירושלמי כתובות א׳:י׳

MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose said: It happened that, when a girl was raped while she went to draw water from the spring, Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: If most people of the town can marry into the priesthood then she can marry into the priesthood²⁶¹He confirms the principle explained in Note 239, that without proof to the contrary one may assume that an unidentified member of a group belongs to the majority in that group. Therefore, the girl was raped by a man whom she could have married without detriment to her status; the rape does not diminish her status..

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose said: It happened,” etc. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: That happened at the source²⁶²Greek κρήνη “well, source” (in the Hebrew transliteration, read י for ו.) The translator of the LXX books of Kings uses the word for בְּרֵיכָה “pond”.
In the Babli, 14b/15a, the statement is used in an argument that R. Joshua will agree with R. Yose only in this case when the rape happened at a place where not only the inhabitants of the city but all travelers congregate and it was known that at that point in time only qualified people travelled there. One cannot read the Babli’s interpretation into the Yerushalmi text. of Sepphoris.

Both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim²⁶³The Babli, 15a, disagrees and holds that R. Yose speaks of a very special case, that the rape occured on a market day when many קְרָנוֹת, carriages, came to Sepphoris and it was ascertained that both the majority of inhabitants of Sepphoris and the majority of foreign traders there were acceptable to marry into the priesthood, implying that R. Joshua agrees that no special proof is needed only in case (a) there are two groups and the majority of both is acceptable and (2) the woman was a victim, not a willing partner.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Yose who said in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act in a practical case? He said to him, following Rebbi Yose who spoke in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.

Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris²⁶⁴The scene described by the Babli (Note 263) is rejected; it is purely the question of the people of the place.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there²⁶⁵This is based on a statement attributed in the Babli (15a) to R. Ze‘ira: Everything fixed in its place is judged as 50/50. Since the population of the town has fixed residences, if a person was seen coming from one of the houses, he cannot be considered to be from the qualified majority but one considers it only a 50% chance that he be qualified. In this case, R. Joḥanan ben Nuri will agree that the rape victim cannot marry a Cohen.. What about a thoroughfare²⁶⁶Greek πλατεῖα, cf. Berakhot 5:1, Note 56. The thoroughfare is government property even in the town.? Rebbi²⁶⁷This must be “Rav”. He is the early Amora Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, presenting a tradition of R. Yose the Tanna. He might be one of the editors of R. Yose’s Seder ‘Olam; cf. the author’s Introduction (pp. x–xi) to hisedition of Seder ‘Olam (Northvale 1998). Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi²⁶⁷This must be “Rav”. He is the early Amora Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, presenting a tradition of R. Yose the Tanna. He might be one of the editors of R. Yose’s Seder ‘Olam; cf. the author’s Introduction (pp. x–xi) to hisedition of Seder ‘Olam (Northvale 1998). Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there²⁶⁸On the Sabbath, because for saving a life one violates all prohibitions of the Torah (except murder, incest and adultery, and idolatry). because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority²⁶⁹One searches for victims only if the majority of the users are Jewish or at least known not to be idolators.. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi²⁶⁷This must be “Rav”. He is the early Amora Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, presenting a tradition of R. Yose the Tanna. He might be one of the editors of R. Yose’s Seder ‘Olam; cf. the author’s Introduction (pp. x–xi) to hisedition of Seder ‘Olam (Northvale 1998). Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house²⁶⁵This is based on a statement attributed in the Babli (15a) to R. Ze‘ira: Everything fixed in its place is judged as 50/50. Since the population of the town has fixed residences, if a person was seen coming from one of the houses, he cannot be considered to be from the qualified majority but one considers it only a 50% chance that he be qualified. In this case, R. Joḥanan ben Nuri will agree that the rape victim cannot marry a Cohen.. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare²⁷⁰Since the thoroughfare is a Roman military road, it may be assumed that the majority of users are not qualified to marry Cohanim.. If Sepphoris was locked²⁷¹If the rape happened in the night, when the gates of Sepphoris are locked, by the argument of Note 265 there is no majority of qualified people and the rapist would have to be identified in order to permit his victim to marry into the priesthood.. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here²⁷²In the Mishnah., Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: ²⁷³The following sentences are from Demay 3:4, Notes 93–96; the variant readings are noted ד. The problem is that a person who is careful about the laws of tithing brings his grain to a mill that also serves the ‘am haäreṢ, the person who can be presumed to have given heave but not tithes from his grain. If the miller switches batches, the observant is in trouble. Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose)²⁷⁴The words in brackets are from Demay, those in parentheses from Ketubot. The text from Demay seems preferable. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread)²⁷⁴The words in brackets are from Demay, those in parentheses from Ketubot. The text from Demay seems preferable. was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry²⁷⁵He has to tithe a second time under the rules of demay.; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies²⁷⁶If the travelling Arabs buy once from unobservant Jews, one has to assume that they always do, and that the grain they sell is not exempt Gentile produce., then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves²⁷⁷Since they are itinerant sellers they have to buy provisions all the time. But the farmer mills once for his entire season.. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day.²⁷⁸End of the quote from Demay. The quote establishes that there is a presumption that things go wrong, in our case that the rapist was from a family disqualified for the priesthood. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there²⁷⁹This conclusion differs from the position of the Babli (Note 263) but not by much: One can qualify the rape victim only if the gates of the city were not locked and the perpetrator was not seen coming from a fixed place; that the group from which he came was not composed of locals only (Note 265)..

“And everything found is judged by a majority.”²⁸⁰This sentence does not really belong here but is an intrusion from the Tosephta quoted in the sequel. It is also quoted in the Babli, 15a, in the same context. What is meant here is that a find is pure if most things in town are pure, otherwise it is impure. In principle, this can also be applied to permitted or prohibited things: If 9 stores in town sell kosher meat and 1 non-kosher, then any meat found on the street can be considered as kosher (Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel disagrees, Tosephta Tahorot 6:1). In difficult cases the rabbis compare this²⁸¹The status of the rape victim. to crawling things²⁸²Lev. 11:29–30 contains a list of “crawling things”, mostly reptiles, whose cadaver is a source of impurity. The only cadavers that produce impurity are those of crawling things and mammals., as it was stated²⁸³A shorter version of this baraita is in the Babli 15a, Niddah 18a and Tosephta Tahorot 6:2.: “Nine frogs and one crawling thing²⁸⁴They are all dead; the dead frogs do not carry impurity. in a private domain²⁸⁵Questions of doubt in matters of ritual impurity must be resolved by a presumption of impurity in private domains and a presumption of purity in public domains; cf. Soṭah 1:2, Note 88., if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is impure. If he transferred to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. If he returned to the private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. And for what is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands²⁸⁶This is not rational, since the place where the object was found should be of importance.. Rebbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them²⁸⁷The Sages. A similar expression in the heading of the baraita of Abot. and their words; do not compare this²⁸⁸The case of the raped girl whose disqualification would be a case of impurity. to a private domain but to the public domain! As it was stated: “Nine crawling things and one frog between them in the public domain, if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is pure²⁸⁹Even against all probabilities.. If he transferred to a private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. If he returned to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. And for what is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands. Rebbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them and their words; is the spring of Sepphoris not public domain? Rebbi Yose said, since the two could be alone together it is treated as private domain²⁹⁰The difference between public and private domains is not in the ownership but in accessibility. A cave in the public domain has the status of private domain. Rav Ḥisda is justified; this kind of argument is not relevant to explain the relation of Mishnah 10 to Mishnaiot 8,9..

It happened that a baby girl was noticed who had been thrown on a garbage heap. The case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, who said, she should be adjoined to dough^248,As a dough is a mixture of several ingredients, so the dough widow is a mixture; she is a woman qualified for priesthood who was married to a husband with a questionable family background (one whose females are permitted to marry Israels but not Cohanim). The problem is that there is the knowledge that something was wrong in the marriages of that family but the exact nature of the defect is not known.²⁹¹She should be adopted by a family of questionable status.. Rebbi Jeremiah thought to say, to qualified dough, would Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose disagree with his father²⁹²He said that in a town of mostly qualified families, the children are automatically qualified.? Rebbi Yose said, even if you say to disqualified dough, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose would not disagree with his father. Why? While the qualified whore, only the disqualified throw away²⁹³Therefore, that baby is from a group of mostly unqualified children..