Abortion - הפלה
1 א

... לפיכך נברא אדם יחידי ללמדך. שכל המאבד נפש אחת מישראל. מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו איבד עולם מלא. וכל המקיים נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קיים עולם מלא ...

... It was for this reason that man was first created as one person [Adam], to teach you that anyone who destroys a life is considered by Scripture to have destroyed an entire world; and anyone who saves a life is as if he saved an entire world ...

2 ב

לֹא תִּרְצָח

You shall not murder

3 ג

מַאן דְּקָטִיל בְּנוֹי, הַהוּא עוֹבָּרָא דְּמִתְעַבְּרָא אִתְּתֵיהּ, וְגָרִים לְקַטָלָא לֵיהּ בִּמְעָהָא, דְּסָתִיר בִּנְיָינָא דְּקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא וְאוּמָנוּתָא דִּילֵיהּ.

He who kills his sons. It is told about and embryo that was killed in its mother's womb that is as destructing the building of Hashem and his Omanut (art, creation or faith)

4 ד

וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם מוֹת יוּמָת׃

If anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death.

5 ה

(מכה איש שומעני להוציא את הקטן. תלמוד לומר ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם, להביא את הקטן. שומע אני אף בן שמונה במשמע- תלמוד לומר מכה איש מגיד שאינו חייב עד שיהרוג בן קיימא). מכה איש אף הקטן במשמע, תלמוד לומר איש כי יכה כל נפש אדם, להוציא את הקטן. שומעני אף בן שמונה במשמע- תלמוד לומר מכה איש, מגיד שאינו חייב עד שיהרוג בן קיימא.

"And if a man strikes any soul of a man": I might think that an eight-month birth, (who is destined to die,) is also included. It is, therefore, written "If one strikes a man" — whereby we are apprised that he is not liable unless he kills one who is destined to live.

6 ו
וְכִי־יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִים׃
When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning.
7 ז

בעי רבי ירמיה עובר במעי אשה הוי גלגלים או לא כיון דאמר מר עובר ירך אמו הלכך גופה הוא ולא הוי גלגלין או דלמא כיון דסופו לצאת מיפרש פריש מינה

Rabbi Yirmeya raised yet another dilemma: Does a dead fetus in its dead mother’s womb form a mixture with regard to her, so that the bodies are considered like two corpses buried together, or not? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do we say that since the Master said that a fetus is considered as the thigh of its mother, it is therefore like her body and it does not form a mixture with it? Or perhaps one should maintain: Since in most cases a fetus will ultimately emerge from the womb at birth, it is already considered separated from her, and it is like any other corpse buried with the woman.

8 ח

שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֶת־הָאָדָם׃

Whoever sheds the blood of man, By man shall his blood be shed; For in His image Did God make man.
9 ט
(ו) באדם דמו ישפך אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים הֲמִיתוּהוּ אַתֶּם, לָמָּה? כִּי בְצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים וגו’:
(6) באדם דמו ישפך BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED — If there are witnesses you kill him. Why? Because in the image of God [made He man] and he has destroyed the Divine image (Genesis Rabbah 34:14)
10 י

באדם דמו ישפך בב''ד של מטה:

באדם דמו ישפך, a reference to a human tribunal.

11 יא

אשכח ר' יעקב בר אחא דהוה כתיב בספר אגדתא דבי רב בן נח נהרג בדיין א' ובעד אחד שלא בהתראה מפי איש ולא מפי אשה ואפילו קרוב משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף על העוברין מנהני מילי אמר רב יהודה דאמר קרא (בראשית ט, ה) אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש אפילו בדיין אחד (בראשית ט, ה) מיד כל חיה אפילו שלא בהתראה (בראשית ט, ה) אדרשנו ומיד האדם אפילו בעד אחד (בראשית ט, ה) מיד איש ולא מיד אשה אחיו אפילו קרוב משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף על העוברין מאי טעמיה דרבי ישמעאל דכתיב (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך איזהו אדם שהוא באדם הוי אומר זה עובר שבמעי אמו

R. Yaakov bar Acha found it written in the scholars' Book of Aggada A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not of a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation. On the authority of R. Yishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. Whence do we know all this? — Rav Yehuda answered: The Torah saith, And surely your blood of your lives will I require this shows that even one judge [may try a heathen]. At the hand of every living thing will I require it: even without an admonition having been given; And at the hand of man: even on the testimony of one witness; at the hand of man: but not at the hand [i.e., on the testimony] of a woman; his brother: teaching that even a relation may testify. On the authority of R. Yishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. What is R. Yishmael's reason? Because it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man within [another] man, shall his blood be shed. What is a man within another man? — An embryo in his mother's womb.

12 יב
נשמה מאימתי ניתנה באדם משעת פקידה או משעת יצירה

At what point is the soul given to a human? Is it from the moment of decree [that such a child will exist], or from the moment of formation?

13 יג

משעת יצירה - שנקרם כולו בבשר וגידין ועצמות:

פקידה - משעה שהמלאך פוקד הטיפה ומביאה לפני המקום מה תהא עליה כדאמרינן בפרק כל היד במסכת נדה (דף טז:) מיד נזרקה בו נשמה וחיות

The moment of decree - when his flesh, tendons and bones come together

The moment of formation -when the angel comes to the drop and brings is before Hashem to see what will happen to it, as we say in (Daf 16 B) immediately a soul and life is thrown into it

14 יד
אמר רב חסדא טובלת ואוכלת עד ארבעים דאי לא מיעברא הא לא מיעברא ואי מיעברא עד ארבעים מיא בעלמא היא
Rav Ḥisda said: She immerses and partakes of teruma only until forty days after her husband’s death, when there is still no reason for concern, as if she is not pregnant then she is not pregnant. And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being, and therefore it does not disqualify its mother from partaking of teruma.
15 טו

דדריש ר' חנינא בר פפא אותו מלאך הממונה על ההריון לילה שמו ונוטל טפה ומעמידה לפני הקב"ה ואומר לפניו רבש"ע טפה זו מה תהא עליה גבור או חלש חכם או טיפש עשיר או עני ואילו רשע או צדיק לא קאמר כדר' חנינא דא"ר חנינא הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים שנאמר (דברים י, יב) ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלהיך שואל מעמך כי אם ליראה וגו'

For R. Chanina b. Papa made the following exposition: The name of the angel who is in charge of conception is 'Night', and he takes up a drop and places it in the presence of Hashem saying, 'Sovereign of the universe, what shall be the fate of this drop? Shall it produce a strong man or a weak man, a wise man or a fool, a rich man or a poor man?' Whereas 'wicked man' or 'righteous one' he does not mention, in agreement with the view of R. Chanina. For R. Chanina stated: Everything is in the hands of heaven except the fear of G-d, as it is said, And now, Israel, what doth does Hashem require of thee, but to fear etc.

16 טז

דרש רב שמלאי למה הולד דומה במעי אמו לפנקס שמקופל ומונח ידיו על שתי צדעיו שתי אציליו על ב' ארכובותיו וב' עקביו על ב' עגבותיו וראשו מונח לו בין ברכיו ופיו סתום וטבורו פתוח ואוכל ממה שאמו אוכלת ושותה ממה שאמו שותה ואינו מוציא רעי שמא יהרוג את אמו וכיון שיצא לאויר העולם נפתח הסתום ונסתם הפתוח שאלמלא כן אינו יכול לחיות אפילו שעה אחת ונר דלוק לו על ראשו וצופה ומביט מסוף העולם ועד סופו שנאמר (איוב כט, ג) בהלו נרו עלי ראשי לאורו אלך חשך ואל תתמה שהרי אדם ישן כאן ורואה חלום באספמיא ואין לך ימים שאדם שרוי בטובה יותר מאותן הימים שנאמר (איוב כט, ב) מי יתנני כירחי קדם כימי אלוה ישמרני ואיזהו ימים שיש בהם ירחים ואין בהם שנים הוי אומר אלו ירחי לידה ומלמדין אותו כל התורה כולה שנאמר (משלי ד ד) ויורני ויאמר לי יתמך דברי לבך שמור מצותי וחיה ואומר (איוב כט, ד) בסוד אלוה עלי אהלי מאי ואומר וכי תימא נביא הוא דקאמר ת"ש בסוד אלוה עלי אהלי וכיון שבא לאויר העולם בא מלאך וסטרו על פיו ומשכחו כל התורה כולה שנאמר (בראשית ד, ז) לפתח חטאת רובץ ואינו יוצא משם עד שמשביעין אותו שנאמר (ישעיהו מה, כג) כי לי תכרע כל ברך תשבע כל לשון כי לי תכרע כל ברך זה יום המיתה שנאמר (תהלים כב, ל) לפניו יכרעו כל יורדי עפר תשבע כל לשון זה יום הלידה שנאמר (תהלים כד, ד) נקי כפים ובר לבב אשר לא נשא לשוא נפשו ולא נשבע למרמה ומה היא השבועה שמשביעין אותו תהי צדיק ואל תהי רשע ואפילו כל העולם כולו אומרים לך צדיק אתה היה בעיניך כרשע והוי יודע שהקב"ה טהור ומשרתיו טהורים ונשמה שנתן בך טהורה היא אם אתה משמרה בטהרה מוטב ואם לאו הריני נוטלה ממך

R. Simlai delivered the following discourse: What does an embryo resemble when it is in the bowels of its mother? Folded writing tablets. Its hands rest on its two temples respectively, its two elbows on its two legs and its two heels against its buttocks. Its head lies between its knees, its mouth is closed and its navel is open, and it eats what its mother eats and drinks what its mother drinks, but produces no excrements because otherwise it might kill its mother. As soon, however, as it sees the light the closed organ opens and the open one closes, for if that had not happened the embryo could not live even one single hour. A light burns above its head and it looks and sees from one end of the world to the other, as it is said, then his lamp shined above my head, and by His light I walked through darkness. And do not be astonished at this, for a person sleeping here might see a dream in Spain. And there is no time in which a man enjoys greater happiness than in those days, for it is said, O that I were as the months of old, as in the days when God watched over me; now which are the days' that make up 'months' and do not make up years? The months of pregnancy of course. It is also taught all the Torah from beginning to end, for it is said, And he taught me, and said unto me: 'Let thy heart hold fast my words, keep my commandments and live', and it is also said, When the converse of G-d was upon my tent. Why the addition of 'and it is also said'? — In case you might say that it was only the prophet who said that, come and hear 'when the converse of God was upon my tent. As soon as it, sees the light an angel approaches, slaps it on its mouth and causes it to forget all the Torah completely, as it is said, Sin coucheth at the door. It does not emerge from there before it is made to take an oath, as it is said, That unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear; 'That unto Me every knee shall bow' refers to the day of dying of which it is said All they that go down to the dust shall kneel before Him; 'Every tongue shall swear' refers to the day of birth of which it is said, He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart, who hath not taken My name in vain, and hath not sworn deceitfully. What is the nature of the oath that it is made to take? Be righteous, and be never wicked; and even if all the world tells you, You are righteous', consider yourself wicked. Always bear in mind that the Holy One, blessed be He, is pure, that his ministers are pure and that the soul which He gave you is pure; if you preserve it in purity, well and good, but if not, I will take it away from you.

17 יז

וכמה הכרת העובר סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר שלשה חדשים

At what stage is the embryo discernible? Symmachus citing R. Meir replied: Three months after conception

18 יח

האשה שהיא מקשה לילד. מחתכין את הולד במעיה. ומוציאין אותו אברים אברים. מפני שחייה קודמין לחייו. יצא רובו. אין נוגעין בו. שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש:

A woman who was having trouble giving birth, they cut up the fetus inside her and take it out limb by limb, because her life comes before its life. If most of it had come out already they do not touch it because we do not push off one life for another.

Yevamot 69b:10יבמות ס״ט ב:י
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Yevamot 69b:10"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
69bס״ט ב
1 א

עיברה לא תאכל בתרומה נחתך העובר במעיה תאכל היה כהן שבא על בת ישראל לא תאכל בתרומה עיברה לא תאכל ילדה תאכל נמצא כחו של בן גדול משל אב

If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma, as she is carrying an Israelite fetus. If the fetus was cut in her womb, i.e., she miscarried, she may partake of teruma. If the man was a priest who engaged in intercourse with an Israelite woman, she may not partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she still may not partake of teruma, as a fetus does not enable its mother to partake. If she gave birth she may partake due to her child, a priest. It is therefore found in this case that the power of the son is greater than that of the father, as the father of this child does not enable the woman to partake of teruma, but the son does.

2 ב

העבד פוסל משום ביאה ואינו פוסל משום זרע כיצד בת ישראל לכהן בת כהן לישראל וילדה הימנו בן והלך הבן ונכבש על השפחה וילדה הימנו בן הרי זה עבד היתה אם אביו בת ישראל לכהן לא תאכל בתרומה בת כהן לישראל תאכל בתרומה

A slave disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma due to his engaging in intercourse with her, and he does not disqualify a woman because he is her offspring. How so? In what case would a slave theoretically disqualify a woman because he is her offspring? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite; and she a bore him a son; and the son went and pressed himself onto a maidservant, an epithet for intercourse used in this context due to the shame involved in having intercourse with a maidservant; and she bore him a son, then this son is a slave. If the latter’s father’s mother was an Israelite who was married to a priest, and her husband died, she may not partake of teruma due to her grandson, as he is not a priest but a slave. On the other hand, if she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and he died, leaving only this grandson, she may partake of teruma, as the grandson is not considered his father’s offspring.

3 ג

ממזר פוסל ומאכיל כיצד בת ישראל לכהן ובת כהן לישראל וילדה הימנו בת והלכה הבת ונישאת לעבד או לעובד כוכבים וילדה הימנו בן הרי זה ממזר היתה אם אמו בת ישראל לכהן תאכל בתרומה בת כהן לישראל לא תאכל בתרומה

A mamzer disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he also enables a woman to partake of teruma. How so? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a slave or a gentile and bore him a son, this son is a mamzer. If his mother’s mother was an Israelite woman married to a priest, even if her husband died, she may partake of teruma, as she has surviving offspring from a priest. Conversely, if she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma, even after her Israelite husband’s death, as she has offspring from him.

4 ד

כהן גדול פעמים שהוא פוסל כיצד בת כהן לישראל וילדה הימנו בת והלכה הבת וניסת לכהן וילדה הימנו בן ה"ז ראוי להיות כהן גדול עומד ומשמש על גבי המזבח מאכיל את אמו ופוסל אם אמו זאת אומרת לא כבני כ"ג שהוא פוסלני מן התרומה:

Even with regard to a High Priest, sometimes he disqualifies his grandmother from partaking of teruma. How so? If the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a priest and bore him a son, this son is fit to be a High Priest, who stands and serves on the altar. This son enables his mother to partake of teruma, as he is a priest. And yet, he disqualifies his mother’s mother from partaking of teruma, as he is her offspring from her Israelite husband. This grandmother can say in disapproval: Let there not be many like my daughter’s son, the High Priest, as he disqualifies me from partaking of teruma.

5 ה

גמ׳ תנינא להא דת"ר שוטה וקטן שנשאו נשים ומתו נשותיהן פטורות מן החליצה ומן הייבום

GEMARA: We already learned that the marriage of an imbecile is invalid, as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecile and a minor boy who married women and died, their wives are exempt from ḥalitza and from levirate marriage.

6 ו

כיצד היה ישראל שבא על בת כהן תאכל בתרומה עיברה לא תאכל כיון דעיברה לא תאכל ליחוש שמא עיברה מי לא תנן מפרישין אותן ג' חדשים שמא מעוברות הן

§ It is stated in the mishna: How so? If an Israelite engaged in extramarital intercourse with the daughter of a priest, she may partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma. The Gemara asks: Since if he impregnated her she may not partake, let us be concerned in any case of intercourse between an Israelite and the daughter of a priest lest he impregnated her, thereby rendering it prohibited for her to partake of teruma. Didn’t we learn in a mishna that if two men betrothed two women, and then at the time that they entered the wedding canopy, they accidently switched wives, and engaged in relations with each other’s wives that night, in this case, after the accident is discovered, the court removes the wives from their husbands for three months, lest they are pregnant from the men they presumed to be their husbands and the fetus is therefore a mamzer, although they engaged in intercourse only once (33b)?

7 ז

אמר רבה בר רב הונא ליוחסין חששו לתרומה לא חששו ולתרומה לא חששו והתניא הרי זה גיטיך שעה אחת קודם למיתתי אסורה לאכול בתרומה מיד

The Gemara answers that Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About lineage the Sages were concerned, and they therefore decreed a three-month separation of the husbands and wives, to prevent the possibility of a child being of uncertain lineage. However, about the prohibition against a non-priest eating teruma they were not concerned. The Gemara asks: And for teruma were they not concerned? Isn’t it taught in a baraita that if a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce one hour before my death, if she is an Israelite woman married to a priest it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma immediately, as the Sages were concerned that her husband might die within the hour?

8 ח

אלא אמר רבה בר רב הונא בנישואין חששו בזנות לא חששו

Rather, Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About impregnation through an act of marriage they were concerned, but about impregnation through licentious intercourse they were not concerned, as the woman generally takes precautions to ensure that she will not become pregnant.

9 ט

ובנישואין מי חששו והתניא בת כהן שנישאת לישראל ומת טובלת ואוכלת בתרומה לערב

The Gemara asks: And about marriage were they concerned? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and her husband died on that same day, she immerses to purify herself, as she is ritually impure due to their intercourse, and she may partake of teruma that same evening? Evidently, the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant from the initial act of intercourse, even that of marriage.

10 י

אמר רב חסדא טובלת ואוכלת עד ארבעים דאי לא מיעברא הא לא מיעברא ואי מיעברא עד ארבעים מיא בעלמא היא

Rav Ḥisda said: She immerses and partakes of teruma only until forty days after her husband’s death, when there is still no reason for concern, as if she is not pregnant then she is not pregnant. And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being, and therefore it does not disqualify its mother from partaking of teruma.

11 יא

אמר ליה אביי אי הכי אימא סיפא הוכר עוברה במעיה תהא מקולקלת למפרע מאי מקולקלת עד ארבעים

Abaye said to him: If so, say the latter clause of the baraita: Once her fetus in her womb is noticeable, she is ruined retroactively. Her prior consumption of teruma is retroactively prohibited. Evidently, pregnancy immediately disqualifies her from partaking of teruma. Therefore, the reason that she may partake of teruma immediately after her husband’s death is that the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant. Rav Ḥisda responded: What is the period in which she is retroactively ruined? It is from the moment the fetus is noticeable and back in time until forty days from the beginning of her pregnancy. During the first forty days of the pregnancy, she is not retroactively ruined, as the fetus is not yet considered a living being.

12 יב

איתמר הבא על ארוסתו בבית חמיו רב אמר הולד ממזר ושמואל אמר הולד שתוקי אמר רבא מסתברא מילתיה דרב דדיימא מעלמא אבל לא דיימא מעלמא בתרא דידיה שדינן ליה

It was stated: With regard to a man who engaged in intercourse with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house, i.e., before they got married, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer, as the future husband is not considered his father. And Shmuel said that the offspring is a shetuki, a child of unknown paternity. Rava said: Rav’s statement stands to reason in a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others. However, if she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, we cast the child after him, i.e., we assume that the child is the betrothed’s son.

13 יג

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דקתני ילדה תאכל היכי דמי אילימא דדיימא מעלמא ילדה אמאי תאכל אלא לאו מיניה דיימא ולא דיימא מעלמא

Rava said: From where do I say that? What is the source for my assertion? The source is the mishna, which teaches that if a priest engaged in extramarital intercourse with an Israelite woman and she gave birth, she may partake of teruma due to her child, who is a priest. What are the circumstances? If we say that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, even if she gave birth, why may she partake of teruma? Shouldn’t there be concern that the child’s father is not the priest? Rather, is it not a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him and is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others?

14 יד

ומה התם דלהאי איסורא ולהאי איסורא בתרא דידיה שדינן ליה הכא דלהאי איסורא ולהאי היתירא לא כל שכן

And if there, in the case of the mishna, where for her to engage in intercourse with this priest is a prohibition, and to engage in intercourse with that non-priest, with whom she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse, is a prohibition of the same degree, nevertheless, we cast the child after the priest, then here, where for her to engage in intercourse with that man who is not her betrothed is a Torah prohibition, and to engage in intercourse with this man, her betrothed, is permitted by Torah law, is it not all the more so that her betrothed should be considered the father? Therefore, Rav’s statement stands to reason only if the woman is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others as well.

15 טו

א"ל אביי לעולם אימא לך כל היכא דדיימא מיניה אע"ג דלא דיימא מעלמא אמר רב הולד ממזר מ"ט דאמרינן מדאפקרא נפשה לגבי ארוס אפקרא נפשה לעלמא ומתני' שהיו שניהם חבושים בבית האסורין

Abaye said to him in rejection of his proof: Actually, I could say to you that anywhere that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him, her betrothed, even if she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer. What is the reason? It is that we say that since she exposed herself to her betrothed, although they were not married yet, she apparently exposed herself to others as well. And the mishna that you cited as support for your assertion is referring to a situation where they were both incarcerated alone together in prison. Therefore, there is no concern that she engaged in intercourse with another man. This is one version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

16 טז

איכא דאמרי בבא עליה כ"ע לא פליגי דבתריה דידיה שדינן ליה והכי איתמר ארוסה שעיברה רב אמר הולד ממזר ושמואל אמר הולד שתוקי אמר רבא מסתברא מילתיה דרב דלא דיימא מיניה ודיימא מעלמא

Some say that when the betrothed admits that he engaged in intercourse with her, everyone agrees that we cast the child after him. Rather, their dispute was stated as follows: In the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant, if her betrothed denies that he engaged in intercourse with her, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer, and Shmuel said that the offspring is a child whose father’s identity is not known. Rava said: Rav’s statement stands to reason in a case where the woman is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him and she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others. Therefore, it is assumed that the child is a mamzer.