A DISPUTE OVER WHAT REMOVED THE BESULIM
(Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): If she says that she is a Mukas Etz and he says that (perhaps) she had Bi'ah with a man, she is believed;
R. Yehoshua says, she is not believed unless she brings proof.
Question: What are their claims?
Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): She claims that her Kesuvah is 200 and he claims that it is 100;
The Tana holds like R. Meir, that the Kesuvah of a Mukas Etz is 200 even if he did not know that she is a Mukas Etz.
Answer #2 (R. Elazar): She claims that her Kesuvah is 100 and he claims that she has no Kesuvah.
The Tana holds like Chachamim, that the Kesuvah of a Mukas Etz is 100, whether or not he knew that she was a Mukas Etz.
Question: Granted, R. Elazar did not answer like R. Yochanan because it is better to establish the Mishnah to be like Chachamim;
But why didn't R. Yochanan answer like R. Elazar?
Answer: He holds that if a man finds that she is not a virgin, her Kesuvah is 100;
If the Mishnah were like Chachamim, he and she would agree that her Kesuvah is 100!
According to R. Elazar, both our Mishnah and the Reisha (the previous Mishnah) are needed.
The Reisha teaches unlike Rami bar Chama (who says that one found to be a Mukas Etz has no Kesuvah. Rather, it is 100);
Our Mishnah teaches unlike R. Chiya bar Aba (who says that one was found to have had Bi'ah has no Kesuvah. Rather, she gets 100.)
According to R. Yochanan, the Reisha teaches the extremity of R. Yehoshua's opinion. Even when there is a Migo, she is not believed;
Our Mishnah teaches the extremity of R. Gamliel's opinion. She is believed even without a Migo.
WHEN DO WE SUSPECT THAT A WOMAN BECAME DISQUALIFIED TO KEHUNAH?
(Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): If we saw a woman talking with a man and she says that it was Ploni, a Kohen (i.e. one with proper lineage), she is believed;
R. Yehoshua says, we do not rely on her. The Chazakah is that she had Bi'ah with a Nasin or Mamzer (and she is forbidden to Kehunah) unless she brings proof.
R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer say, if a single girl is pregnant and she claims that the father is Ploni, a Kohen, she is believed;
R. Yehoshua says, we do not rely on her. The Chazakah is that she is pregnant from a Nasin or Mamzer, unless she brings proof.
(Gemara - Question): What does 'she was talking' mean?
Answer #1 (Ze'iri): She was secluded with him.
Answer #2 (Rav Asi): She had Bi'ah with him. The Mishnah uses a clean, euphemistic language, like the verse "She ate... and said that I did not sin"
Question: According to Ze'iri, the two clauses of the Mishnah are very different cases. According to Rav Asi, why are both clauses needed?
Answer: In the Reisha, the Tana'im argue about whether or not she is believed about herself. In the Seifa, they argue about whether or not she is believed to say that her daughter (the fetus) is Kosher.
Question: This is like the opinion that R. Gamliel believes her even regarding the daughter. According to the opinion that he believes her only about herself, how can he answer?
Answer: Rav Asi must hold that he believes her even about her child.
Question (Rav Papa): According to Ze'iri, R. Yehoshua forbids her to a Kohen for being secluded. Rav says that we lash for seclusion, but we do not forbid due to seclusion. Is Rav's law unlike R. Yehoshua?
Answer (Abaye): No. R. Yehoshua's law is a stringency regarding lineage (we forbid her to Kohanim. Rav teaches that we do not forbid a woman to her husband.)
Question (Beraisa - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): If a girl was secluded or in a ruin with a man and she says that he has proper lineage, she is believed;
R. Yehoshua says, we do not rely on her. The Chazakah is that she had Bi'ah with a Nasin or Mamzer unless she brings proof.
Question: According to Ze'iri, the two clauses are needed (the case of the ruin teaches about when there was surely Bi'ah). According to Rav Asi, why are both needed (in both cases we must know that there was Bi'ah)!
Answer #1: It is all one case. They were secluded in a ruin.
Objection: It says that they were secluded or in a ruin!
Answer #2: The Beraisa discusses a ruin in the city and a ruin in the Midbar. Both must be taught:
Had it taught only about a ruin in the city, we would have thought that R. Gamliel believes her only because most men in the area have proper lineage;
Had it taught only about a ruin in the Midbar, we would have thought that R. Yehoshua disqualifies her only because the man could come from anywhere, and most men in the world are not Yisraelim and disqualify her to a Kohen.
SOURCE OF THE DISPUTE
(We understand the following Beraisa according to Ze'iri, who says that in the Mishnah 'talking' means seclusion. It is difficult for Rav Asi, who says that it means that she had Bi'ah.)
Question (Beraisa): A woman may give this testimony (to say that the Bo'el was Kosher);
R. Yehoshua argues.
R. Yehoshua (to Chachamim): Don't you agree that if witnesses say that a woman was taken captive, she is not believed to say that she was not defiled?
Chachamim: The cases are different. In our case (she spoke with a man), there are no witnesses.
R. Yehoshua: Her pregnancy is like witnesses!
Chachamim: Most Nochrim are immoral (this will be explained).
R. Yehoshua: There are no guardians regarding Bi'ah.
This applies to the woman herself. All agree that the child is a Shtuki (this will be explained).
Question: How do we understand this dialogue?
Answer: Chachamim accepted R. Yehoshua's opinion when she is pregnant, but challenged his opinion about a girl who was talking;
R. Yehoshua: Talking is like being taken captive.
Chachamim: A captive is different, since most Nochrim are immoral.
R. Yehoshua: It is no different. When a man is secluded with a woman, there is no guardian against Bi'ah.
Summation of question: The Beraisa considers talking and being pregnant to be two different cases (in both cases the subject was the girl, not the child).
Rav Asi is refuted.
Question: (How does R. Yehoshua compare seclusion to a captive?) There, most captors disqualify her, but here (in the city) most do not!
Answer: This supports R. Yehoshua ben Levi (who says that the Tana'im are not concerned for the majority):
(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): R. Gamliel believes her even when most men would disqualify her. R. Yehoshua is stringent even when most men do not disqualify her.
THE STATUS OF THE CHILD
(R. Yochanan): R. Gamliel, who permits her (to Kehunah), also permits her daughter. R. Yehoshua, who forbids her, also forbids her daughter.
(R. Elazar): (Even) R. Gamliel forbids her daughter.
(Rabah): R. Elazar holds that she has a Chazakah of being permitted, but her daughter does not.
Question (R. Elazar - Beraisa): They argue about her, but all agree that the child is a Shtuki (one who does not know his father. His mother tells him Shtok (be quiet) when he sees a man and calls him 'father'.)
Suggestion: The Shtuki is forbidden (to marry a Kosher Yisrael)!
Answer (R. Yochanan): No, the Shtuki is Kosher.
Question: Would we call someone Kosher a Shtuki?!
Answer: Yes! Shmuel does!
(Shmuel): If 10 Kohanim were together, and one separated and had Bi'ah with a woman, the resulting child is a Shtuki (even though he is surely Kosher).
Shmuel would not need to teach that we Mashtik (silence) him from inheriting his father, since we do not know which is his father!
Rather, we silence him from privileges of Kehunah. "An eternal covenant of Kehunah to him and his seed after him" - Kehunah passes to a Kohen's children only if they trace their lineage to him (this child does not).