Who will guard the guardians? TB Ketubot 13

The second Mishna on our daf TB Ketubot 13 isn’t a case of he said/she said. Nevertheless it is similar to the previous mishnayot because she makes a claim that can’t be proved conclusively. Back in Talmudic days, women especially single women didn’t fraternize at all with men. Our case in the Mishna deals with a woman “speaking” to an unknown man. Rabban Gamliel holds that she is believed when she says that he is a kosher Jew and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that she isn’t.

“If people saw a woman speaking to one man, but they did not recognize him, and they said to her: What is the nature [tivo] of this man? And she said to them: He is a man called so-and-so and he is a priest (although the text uses the word kohein/priest, she means that he is a kosher Jew and still eligible to marry a kohein-gg); Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, men of flawed lineage who disqualify her from marrying a priest, until she brings proof supporting her statement.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What does exactly does “speaking” mean? “Ze’eiri said: It means that she secluded herself with a man and it is unknown whether she engaged in intercourse. Rav Asi said: It means that she engaged in intercourse.” (Sefaria.org translation)

“The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (1:6): This, i.e., that she engaged in intercourse with a man of impeccable lineage, is testimony that a woman is fit to testify. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua said to the Sages: Do you not agree in the case of a woman who was taken captive, and she has witnesses testifying that she was taken captive, and she says: I am pure, i.e., I was not violated by my captors, that she is not deemed credible? The assumption in that case is that most captive women are violated by their captors.

“The Sages said to him: But there is a difference between the cases. And what difference is there between this case of a captive, where the woman is not accorded credibility, and that case of a woman who secluded herself with a man? For this captive, there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and due to the prevalent immorality in that situation, she loses the presumptive status of virtue and is considered to have certainly engaged in intercourse. But for this woman who secluded herself with a man, she does not have witnesses that she engaged in intercourse. Since she could have claimed that she did not engage in intercourse and instead admitted that she engaged in intercourse and claimed that it was with a man of impeccable lineage, she should be accorded credibility.

“Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Even for that woman, the one who secluded herself, there are witnesses, because her belly is between her teeth, i.e., her pregnancy is conspicuous and therefore she does not have the option of claiming that she did not engage in intercourse. The Sages said to him: There remains a difference between the cases, as most pagans are steeped in sexual immorality. Therefore, presumably, they engaged in pagans with the captive woman. However, in the case of the woman in seclusion there is no presumption that she engaged in intercourse specifically with a man with flawed lineage. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality (אֵין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַעֲרָיוֹת), and therefore, everyone is suspect in that regard. Therefore, this woman, since she engaged in intercourse, lost her presumptive status of virtue, and there is no basis to trust her that it was with a person of impeccable lineage.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 What is the meaning of the phrase “There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality (אֵין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַעֲרָיוֹת)”? Rashi explains the meaning that you cannot be her stewards or guardians and say that she did not have sexual relations.” Dr. Shaul Lieberman in his Tosefta Kifshuta[1] writes that Rashi only makes sense if you understand the meaning of “speaking” to be “engaging in sexual intercourse.” The Talmud Yerushalmi understands “There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality (אֵין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַעֲרָיוֹת)”differently. “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..- אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה. אֲפִילוּ כְשֵׁירִין מְזַנִּין. דְּתַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ חָסִיד שֶׁבַּחֲסִידִים אֵין מְמַנִּין אוֹתוֹ אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל עֲרָיוֹת. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

 In footnote 40 Dr. Lieberman cites TB Nidah 30b. There the meaning of our phrase to be “The guardian himself will have sexual relations with a woman.” Dr. Lieberman writes that Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis[2] (Sat, chapter 6, 347) mocks the advice that one should lock the door with a bolt for who is going to guard the guardians? (quis custodiet ipso custodies)

 

---

[1] Tosefta Kifshuta, Yevamot-Ketubot, page 197

[2]  c. 60 - 130 AD) was a Roman satirical poet . He composed the collection of satirical songs known as " Satires " ( Ann )- https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A1 )