Yerushalmi Ketubot 1:8 ירושלמי כתובות א׳:ח׳

MISHNAH: If she was seen speaking²³¹An unmarried woman was seen having an affair with an unknown person. to a man and one asked her, what kind of man is this? He is Mr. X, a Cohen; Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer say, she is believed²³²A single person engaging in sexual activity with a man whom she could marry is still permitted to marry a Cohen.. Rebbi Joshua said, we do not live off her mouth but there is a presumption that she was lying with a Gibeonite and a bastard unless she provides proof of her statement²³³Bastards (children of adultery or incest punishable by death by the court or Heaven) are forbidden to marry into the congregation by biblical decree (cf. Yebamot 1:1, Note 29) and Gibeonites by tradition (cf. Yebamot 2:4, Note 72). Therefore, a woman sleeping with such a man is a זוָנָה and forbidden to marry a Cohen (Yebamot 6:5, Note 100)..

HALAKHAH: “If she was seen speaking to a man,” etc. What is “speaking”? She had sexual relations²³⁴In the Babli, 13a, this is the opinion of Rav Assi. His (Babylonian) contemporary Ze‘iri explains that R. Joshua already disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood if she had a rendez-vous with an unidentified person.. Why did we state “speaking”? An expression for the knowing; Rebbi says, of purity.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer since two form a majority against one²³⁵Since R. Joshua is a higher authority than either Rabban Gamliel or R. Eliezer, the formulation of the Mishnah as a vote of 2 against 1 is to be read as endorsing the majority opinion.. Rebbi Yose asked: If it is practice, why two? And if two, why practice²³⁶“Practice” usually means “prior practice”, going back for generations. In that case, the formulation of the Mishnah invites scrutiny whether it really supports a decision. In the Babli, 14a, the situation is resolved by the ruling that “practice follows Rabban Gamliel but one should act only if most people around that woman are qualified”, see Note 239.? Would that mean if Rebbi Joḥanan would hold with Rebbi Joshua that practice would not follow Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer but Rebbi Joshua²³⁷If the decision in the Mishnah is problematic a leading Amora, whose opinion would count for nothing against an anonymous Mishnah, could lend his weight to the opposite opinion.? What about it? It is a testimony for which a woman in empowered²³⁸In general, women can testify in court for matters of fact but not in law. But for the personal status of women, the testimony of women is accepted as it is from qualified men (Yebamot Chapter 15). The Babli concurs, 13b.. They wanted to say, when does Rebbi Joshua disagree with these rabbis? At a place where most are disabling, but at a place where most are qualified, even Rebbi Joshua will agree²³⁹We have a principle that “it may be assumed prima facie that anybody who comes from a group belongs to the majority in that group” (Babli, 15a). In a town where most inhabitants are Gentile, or otherwise disqualified from marrying Jewish women, one would assume that the unidentified man sleeping with that woman was disqualified (siding with R. Joshua), but in a town where she could legally marry most of the men, he would be qualified (siding with Rabban Gamliel and R. Eliezer).. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is disagreement even at a place where most are qualified. Does Rebbi Joshua think that immorality runs after the disabling²⁴⁰If only the disqualified engage in extramarital sex, the unidentified man does not come from the large group of city dwellers, most of whom are qualified, but from the small group of whorers, most of whom are disqualified. Then R. Joshua would be consistent and should be followed.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita stated that even qualified people whore, as it was stated: Even the most pious man cannot be appointed guardian for illicit sex²⁴¹The formulation in the Babli (13b) and the Tosephta (1:6) is: “There does not exist a guardian against illicit sex.” In Babli and Tosephta this belongs to R. Joshua’s argument. For Greek ἐπίτροπος “guardian, administrator”, cf. Bikkurim 1:5, N. 82..