Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 23, 2016 | 讟状讜 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Kiddushin 73

There is a debate whether聽a convert can marry a mamzer. 聽Why can a shetuki (unknown father) and asufi (unknown parents – abandoned child)not marry a regular Jew? According to the gemara, by Torah law they can, but the rabbis wanted to institute a higher standard for yochasin, lineage matters. 聽The gemara discusses in the asufi case distinctions between ways the baby/child was abandoned. 聽Not in every situation is it considered an asufi.

讞讚 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讞讚 诇诇讜讬诐 讜讞讚 诇讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讜讞讚 诇诪讬砖专讬 诪诪讝专 讘砖转讜拽讬 讜讞讚 诇诪讬砖专讬 砖转讜拽讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 拽讛诇 讙专讬诐 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 拽讛诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 诪讞讚 拽讛诇 谞驻拽讬 讗讬讬转专 诇讬讛 诇拽讛诇 讙专讬诐

One is referring to priests, to teach that people with flawed lineage may not enter their congregation; and one is referring to Levites; and one to Israelites; and one serves to permit a mamzer to marry a shetuki, since a mamzer is prohibited from entering only the congregation of God, but he may marry someone who is not definitely a member of the congregation, e.g., a shetuki; and one serves to permit a shetuki to marry an Israelite, as only one who is a definite mamzer may not marry an Israelite. As for the congregation of converts, it is not called a congregation at all, and they may marry those prohibited from entering the congregation of Israel. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that priests and Levites are derived from one instance of the word 鈥渃ongregation,鈥 since they are from the same tribe, that of Levi. Consequently, one instance of the word 鈥渃ongregation鈥 remains for him to interpret. He interprets it as referring to the congregation of converts, and deems it prohibited for a mamzer to enter that congregation as well.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 转专讬 拽讛诇讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪诪讝专 讘砖转讜拽讬 讜砖转讜拽讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讞讚 拽讛诇 谞驻拽讗 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 讘拽讛诇 讛壮

And if you wish, say: So too, Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Yosei that Levites and priests are two congregations, since there are special halakhot of marriage that apply only to priests. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the permissibility of the marriage of a mamzer with a shetuki and a shetuki with an Israelite is derived from one instance of the word 鈥渃ongregation,鈥 from the verse: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:3).

诪诪讝专 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 诪诪讝专 住驻拽 讬讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 讘拽讛诇 住驻拽 讬讘讗

This is accomplished by inferring the following: It is one who is a definite mamzer who may not enter, but one who is a mamzer as a result of an uncertainty, e.g., a shetuki, may enter. And similarly, it is into the congregation of those with definite unflawed lineage that a mamzer may not enter, but into a congregation of those with uncertain lineage, e.g., a shetuki, he may enter. This verse therefore teaches that both types of marriage are permitted. In any event, Rabbi Yehuda remains with one instance of the word 鈥渃ongregation鈥 to interpret, from which he derives that it is also prohibited for a convert to marry a mamzeret.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 转专讬 拽讛诇讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讻讗 讛拽讛诇 讞拽讛 讗讞转 诇讻诐 讜诇讙专 讛讙专 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讞拽讛 讗讞转 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

And if you wish, say: These too, one who is a definite mamzer and one who is a mamzer as the result of an uncertainty, are two congregations, each requiring its own verse, and the reason of Rabbi Yehuda is from here: 鈥淎s for the congregation, there shall be one statute both for you, and for the stranger that sojourns with you鈥 (Numbers 15:15), which indicates that converts are considered like Israelites with regard to their being included in the category of 鈥渃ongregation.鈥 And according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that a convert may marry a mamzeret, the phrase 鈥渙ne statute鈥 interrupts the matter, and converts are not considered part of the congregation of God.

讗讞讚 讙专 讜讗讞讚 注讘讚 诪砖讜讞专专 讜讞诇诇 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讻讛谞转 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 讛讜讝讛专讜 讻砖讬专讜转 诇讛谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬诐

搂 The Gemara comments: The statement of the Tosefta that a convert, and an emancipated slave, and a 岣lal are all permitted to marry the daughter of a priest supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Women of unflawed lineage who are daughters of priests were not prohibited from marrying those disqualified from the priesthood due to flawed lineage [岣lalim], since that prohibition applies only to male priests.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讙专 诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 专讙诪讜讛讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讗转专讜讙讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讚专讬砖 诪讬诇转讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讘讚讜讻转讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙讬讜专讬 讚专砖 专讘讗 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讙专 诪讜转专 讘讻讛谞转 讟注谞讜讛讜 讘砖讬专讗讬 讛讚专 讚专砖 诇讛讜 讙专 诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗驻住讬讚转讗 诇拽诪讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讟讘讗 诇讻讜 注讘讚讬 诇讻讜 讗讬 讘注讬 诪讛讻讗 谞住讬讘 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诪讛讻讗 谞住讬讘

Rabbi Zeira taught in Me岣za: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. Everyone stoned him with their etrogim, since the many converts present were insulted by his statement, which they understood to mean that converts are not members of God鈥檚 congregation. Rava said: Is there a person who teaches such a matter in a place where there are commonly converts? He should have been more circumspect. Rava himself taught this in Me岣za to ameliorate the situation: It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest. They carried him on silk [beshira鈥檈i] for elevating the honor of converts. He later taught them: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. They said to him: You have forfeited the honor of your first sermon. Rava said to them: I have done for you what is good for you. If a convert wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., from those of pure lineage, and if he wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., a mamzeret.

讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讙专 诪讜转专 讘讻讛谞转 讜诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 诪讜转专 讘讻讛谞转 诇讗 讛讜讝讛专讜 讻砖讬专讜转 诇讛谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬诐 讜诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest, and it is permitted for him to marry a mamzeret. It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest, since women of unflawed lineage were not prohibited from marrying those disqualified for the priesthood. And it is permitted for him to marry a mamzeret, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation.

讗诇讜 讛谉 砖转讜拽讬 讻诇 砖诪讻讬专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 砖转讜拽讬 讻砖专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讜讘 讻砖专讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讜诪讬注讜讟 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗爪诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And these are the last two categories: A shetuki is any person who knows the identity of his mother but does not know the identity of his father. Rava says: By Torah law, a shetuki is fit to enter the congregation. What is the reason for this? Most are fit with regard to her, i.e., most men are fit to engage in intercourse with an unmarried woman, and only a minority are unfit with regard to engaging in intercourse with her. There are few men who are related to a woman in a way that would render the offspring mamzerim.

讜讗讬 讗讝诇讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诇讙讘讛 讻诇 讚驻专讬砖 诪专讜讘讗 驻专讬砖 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讝诇讛 讗讬讛讬 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽讘讜注 讜讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬

Rava analyzes two possibilities: And if they came to her, i.e., if the father came to the mother鈥檚 location when the child was conceived, the following principle with regard to an uncertain prohibition takes effect: Anything that separates from its fixed location is presumed to have separated from the majority of items like it in that location. If the father separated from the population at large and came to the mother, one can assume that he was from the majority, who are of unflawed lineage. What might you say, that perhaps she went to them, and the child was conceived in the place where the father was? In such a case, it is an uncertain prohibition located in its fixed place, and the halakhic principle is: Anything fixed is considered as though it were half and half, i.e., fifty percent, and it remains a case of uncertainty, and it should be prohibited for the shetuki to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.

讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 诪诪讝专 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 诪诪讝专 住驻拽 讬讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 讘拽讛诇 住驻拽 讬讘讗

And in any case, this does not suffice to prevent her shetuki child from marrying a Jew with unflawed lineage, since the Torah states: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:3), which indicates: It is a definite mamzer who may not enter, but one who is a mamzer as a result of an uncertainty may enter. Similarly, it is into a congregation of those with definite unflawed lineage that he may not enter, but into a congregation of those with uncertain lineage he may enter. Therefore, even if it is uncertain if one is a mamzer, by Torah law he may marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.

讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 砖转讜拽讬 驻住讜诇 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖转讜拽讬 砖转讜拽讬转 诇讗 讬砖讗 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜

And for what reason did the Sages nevertheless say that a shetuki is of flawed lineage? Due to a rabbinic decree, lest he marry his sister from his father, since the identity of his father is unknown. The Gemara asks: If that is so, it should not be permitted for a shetuki to marry even a female shetuki, lest he marry his sister from his father.

讻诇 讻讬 讛谞讬 诪讝谞讜 讜讗讝诇讬 讘转 砖转讜拽讬转 诇讗 讬砖讗 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

The Gemara responds: And do people engage in licentiousness to such an extent that one should be concerned that all the children of unknown paternity in one city were fathered by the same man? By the same reasoning, there should also be a decree that a shetuki may not marry the daughter of a female shetuki from a proper marriage, lest he marry his sister from his father, since the man who married the female shetuki might have been his father. Rather, it must be that it is not common for a shetuki to happen to marry his sister, and therefore he may marry the daughter of a female shetuki. So too, it is not common for him to happen to marry his sister, and the Sages would not issue a decree to prevent this from occurring.

讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讬讜讞住讬谉

The question therefore remains, why did they render it prohibited for a shetuki to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers that it is not prohibited for a shetuki to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage due to any halakhic concern. Rather, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to lineage, in that they rendered it prohibited for people from unknown backgrounds to marry those with unflawed lineage.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗住讜驻讬 讻砖专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讘讘注诇讛 转讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬注讜讟 讗专讜住讜转 讜诪讬注讜讟 砖讛诇讱 讘注诇讬讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

And Rava says a similar statement: By Torah law, a foundling, a child found in the marketplace whose parents are unknown, is fit, and there is no concern that the child is a mamzer. What is the reason for this? A married woman who becomes pregnant through extramarital intercourse, which results in the child being a mamzer, ascribes the child to her husband. Since everyone assumes that her husband is the father, she has no reason to abandon the child in the marketplace. What case is there where a mother would want to abandon her mamzer child? There is the minority of situations involving betrothed women who committed adultery but cannot claim that her betrothed is the father, as they had not been living together. And there is the minority of women whose husbands have gone overseas and could not have fathered the children.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 驻谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪讞诪转 专注讘讜谉 讛讜讛 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 讘拽讛诇 讛壮 诪诪讝专 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 诪诪讝专 住驻拽 讬讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 讘拽讛诇 住驻拽 讬讘讗

Since there are many other cases of unmarried women who do abandon their children although those children have unflawed lineage, and there are also children with unflawed lineage who are abandoned by their parents due to hunger, the concern that the child is a mamzer is no more than half and half, i.e., fifty percent. And the Torah states: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:3), which indicates: It is one who is a definite mamzer who may not enter, but one who is a mamzer as a result of an uncertainty may enter. Similarly, it is into a congregation of those with definite unflawed lineage that he may not enter, but into a congregation of those with uncertain lineage he may enter. This child is a mamzer as the result of an uncertainty, and by Torah law may marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.

讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讗住讜驻讬 驻住讜诇 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗住讜驻讬 讗住讜驻讬转 诇讗 讬砖讗 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 讘讬谉 诪讗讘讬讜 讘讬谉 诪讗诪讜 讻诇 讛谞讬 砖讚讬 讜讗讝诇讬 讘转 讗住讜驻讬 诇讗 讬砖讗 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

And for what reason did the Sages say that a foundling is unfit? Lest he marry his sister from his father. The Gemara asks: If that is so, it should not be permitted for a foundling to marry even a female foundling, lest he marry his sister from either his father or his mother. The Gemara rejects this: Are they continually throwing away all these children? Is it likely that the same parents abandoned both a son and a daughter? If you accept that suggestion, it should not be permitted for him to marry the daughter of a foundling, lest he marry his sister, as perhaps the father of the one he wishes to marry is his father as well. Rather, it must be that it is not common for a foundling to happen to marry his sister, and therefore he may marry the daughter of a foundling. So too, it is not common for him to happen to marry his sister, and the Sages would not make a decree to prevent this from occurring.

讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讬讜讞住讬诐

The question therefore remains: Why did they prohibit a foundling from marrying a Jew with unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers that it is prohibited for a foundling to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage not due to any halakhic concern. Rather, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to lineage, in that they rendered it prohibited for people from unknown backgrounds to marry those with unflawed lineage.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪爪讗讜 诪讛讜诇

Rava bar Rav Huna says: If an abandoned boy was found circumcised,

讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 诪砖诇讟讬 讛讚诪讬讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 砖讬讬祝 诪砖讞讗 讜诪诇讗 讻讜讞诇讗 专诪讬 讞讜诪专讬 转诇讬 驻讬转拽讗 讜转诇讬 拽诪讬注讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬

he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If the baby鈥檚 lineage were unfit, his parents would not have gone to the trouble of circumcising him. Likewise, if his limbs are adjusted, indicating that he was cared for after birth, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. Similarly, if he was anointed with oil, or if his eyes were smeared with eye salve, or if he was adorned with rings, or if a note [pitka] was hanging on him, or if an amulet was hanging on him, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

转诇讬 讘讚讬拽诇讬 讗讬 诪讟讬讗 诇讬讛 讞讬讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬

Concerning a child found hanging from a palm tree, if he was in such a place that an animal could reach him, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If not, if he was placed on a palm tree in a way that he could not be reached by an animal, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling, since he was cared for enough to be placed in a safe location.

讝专讚转讗 住诪讬讻讗 诇诪转讗 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 住诪讬讻转讗 诇诪转讗 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讘讬讛 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬

Similarly, if the child was placed in a thicket near a town, where people are not commonly found, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. But if not, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If the child was discovered in a synagogue near a town, and people are commonly found there, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling, since the parents wanted to give him to others. But if not, if the synagogue was not near a town or if it was not frequented by people, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 驻讬专讗 讚住讜驻诇讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讞专讬驻转讗 讚谞讛专讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 驻砖专讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬

Ameimar said: With regard to this cistern into which date pits are placed [peira desuflei] as animal fodder, if a child is found there, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was found in the middle of a fast-flowing river with boats passing by, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was placed at the side of the river, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was found at the sides of a public domain, which is not frequented by many people, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. But if the child was discovered in the public domain itself, where he might easily be trampled, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘砖谞讬 专注讘讜谉 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讗 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬讬讚讬 讚砖谞讬 专注讘讜谉 拽讟诇讗 诇讬讛 讜讗诇讗 讗爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖谞讬 专注讘讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讗 砖谞讬 专注讘讜谉

Rava said: And in famine years, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. The Gemara asks: With regard to this statement of Rava, to which specific case is it referring? If we say it is referring to the case where the child was left in the public domain because it is a famine year, would a mother kill him by placing him in a place where he is likely to be trampled? Rather, if Rava鈥檚 statement is referring to the case where the child was found at the sides of a public domain, why specifically mention famine years? Even when it is not famine years, the child was placed in a safe location where he was likely to be found.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转诪专 讚专讘讗 讗讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讘砖讜拽 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 谞讗诪谞讬诐 注诇讬讜 谞讗住祝 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬诐 注诇讬讜

Rather, it must be that when Rava鈥檚 halakha was stated, it was stated with regard to that which Rav Yehuda says that Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi says that Rav says: As long as the abandoned child is still in the marketplace, his father and mother are deemed credible with regard to him when they later claim the child as theirs. But once the child has been collected from the marketplace, they are no longer deemed credible with regard to him.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖诐 讗住讜驻讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘砖谞讬 专注讘讜谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讗住祝 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 谞讗诪谞讬诐 注诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Since the child has already been publicized with the name of being of flawed lineage as a foundling, they cannot change the status of the child. And it is with regard to this halakha that Rava says: And in famine years, although the child has been collected from the marketplace, his father and mother are deemed credible with regard to him, as it is common even for parents of unflawed lineage to abandon their children in famine years, and it is likely that they are speaking the truth.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诇砖讛 谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇讗诇转专 讗诇讜 讛谉 讗住讜驻讬 讞讬讛 讜驻讜讟专转 讞讘专讜转讬讛

Rav 岣sda says: There are three cases where people are deemed credible if they immediately offer testimony with regard to a matter about which they are not ordinarily deemed credible to testify. These are they: A foundling, a midwife, and one who exempts her friends from uncertain impurity.

讗住讜驻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

How so? The case of a foundling is that which we said, that his parents can testify with regard to his lineage before he is collected from the marketplace.

讞讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞讬讛 谞讗诪谞转 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讬爪讗 专讗砖讜谉 讜讝讛 讬爪讗 砖谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讬爪转讛 讜讞讝专讛 讗讘诇 讬爪转讛 讜讞讝专讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讞讝拽讛 注诇 注讜诪讚讛 谞讗诪谞转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗讛讚专 讗驻讛

The case of a midwife is as it is taught in a baraita: A midwife is deemed credible to say that this child emerged first from the womb and that child emerged second from the womb. Her testimony is relied upon to determine which of them is the firstborn. In what case is this statement said? When she has not left the birthing room and returned. But if she left the birthing room and returned, she is not deemed credible, since the babies might have been exchanged in the meantime. Rabbi Eliezer says: If she has stood in her place, she is deemed credible. But if not, she is not deemed credible. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case when the midwife turned her head aside after the birth. According to Rabbi Eliezer she is no longer deemed credible, despite having remained in the room.

驻讜讟专转 讞讘专讜转讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讬砖谞讜转 讘诪讟讛 讗讞转 讜谞诪爪讗 讚诐 转讞转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 讘讚拽讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讜讜住转

What is the case of one who exempts her friends? As we learned in a mishna (Nidda 60b): If there were three women who were sleeping in one bed, and blood was found beneath one of them, they are all deemed impure as menstruating women, as it is not known from which of them the blood came. If one of them examined herself and was found to be impure, i.e., she saw that she was menstruating, she is impure and all the rest are pure. With regard to this, Rav 岣sda said: This applies provided that she examined herself within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, i.e., immediately after the discovery of the blood. But if she did so even a short while later, her discovery is not accepted as proof with regard to the source of the blood.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讗诪谞转 讞讬讛 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讻讛谉 讜讝讛 诇讜讬 讝讛 谞转讬谉 讜讝讛 诪诪讝专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 注专注专 讗讘诇 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 注专注专 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转

The Sages taught: If several women gave birth at the same time, the midwife is deemed credible to say: This baby is a priest and that baby is a Levite; this baby is a Gibeonite and that baby is a mamzer. In other words, she is deemed credible to say which baby was born to which mother. In what case is this statement said? When no objection was registered about it. But if an objection was registered about it, she is not deemed credible.

注专注专 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注专注专 讞讚 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 注专注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 讗诇讗 注专注专 转专讬

The Gemara clarifies: An objection of what type? If we say it is an objection of one witness claiming that her testimony is not accurate, but doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: There is no objection with less than two witnesses? Rather, the baraita must refer to the objection of two witnesses, but she is deemed credible when contradicted by a single witness.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 注专注专 讞讚 讜讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 注专注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讗 讞讝拽讛 讚讻砖专讜转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讞讝拽讛 讚讻砖专讜转 讞讚 谞诪讬 诪讛讬诪谉

And if you wish, say: Actually, I could say to you that she is not deemed credible even when contradicted by the objection of one witness, and when Rabbi Yo岣nan said that there is no objection with less than two witnesses, that statement applies only in a case where there is a presumption of validity, which can be countered only by the objection of two witnesses. But in a case where there is no presumption of validity, such as in this case, when the baby was just born, one witness is also deemed credible to object.

谞讗诪谉 讘注诇 诪拽讞 诇讜诪专 诇讝讛 诪讻专转讬 讜诇讝讛 讗讬谉 诪讻专转讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖诪拽讞讜 讘讬讚讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诪拽讞讜 讘讬讚讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

Similarly, if the owner of an item being purchased is confronted by two people, each claiming to have purchased the item, he is deemed credible to say: I sold to this one, and I did not sell to that one. In what case is this statement said? When the item being purchased is still in the seller鈥檚 possession. But if the item being purchased is not in his possession, he is not deemed credible any more than a single witness is.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 73

讞讚 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讞讚 诇诇讜讬诐 讜讞讚 诇讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讜讞讚 诇诪讬砖专讬 诪诪讝专 讘砖转讜拽讬 讜讞讚 诇诪讬砖专讬 砖转讜拽讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 拽讛诇 讙专讬诐 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 拽讛诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 诪讞讚 拽讛诇 谞驻拽讬 讗讬讬转专 诇讬讛 诇拽讛诇 讙专讬诐

One is referring to priests, to teach that people with flawed lineage may not enter their congregation; and one is referring to Levites; and one to Israelites; and one serves to permit a mamzer to marry a shetuki, since a mamzer is prohibited from entering only the congregation of God, but he may marry someone who is not definitely a member of the congregation, e.g., a shetuki; and one serves to permit a shetuki to marry an Israelite, as only one who is a definite mamzer may not marry an Israelite. As for the congregation of converts, it is not called a congregation at all, and they may marry those prohibited from entering the congregation of Israel. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that priests and Levites are derived from one instance of the word 鈥渃ongregation,鈥 since they are from the same tribe, that of Levi. Consequently, one instance of the word 鈥渃ongregation鈥 remains for him to interpret. He interprets it as referring to the congregation of converts, and deems it prohibited for a mamzer to enter that congregation as well.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 转专讬 拽讛诇讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪诪讝专 讘砖转讜拽讬 讜砖转讜拽讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讞讚 拽讛诇 谞驻拽讗 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 讘拽讛诇 讛壮

And if you wish, say: So too, Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Yosei that Levites and priests are two congregations, since there are special halakhot of marriage that apply only to priests. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the permissibility of the marriage of a mamzer with a shetuki and a shetuki with an Israelite is derived from one instance of the word 鈥渃ongregation,鈥 from the verse: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:3).

诪诪讝专 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 诪诪讝专 住驻拽 讬讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 讘拽讛诇 住驻拽 讬讘讗

This is accomplished by inferring the following: It is one who is a definite mamzer who may not enter, but one who is a mamzer as a result of an uncertainty, e.g., a shetuki, may enter. And similarly, it is into the congregation of those with definite unflawed lineage that a mamzer may not enter, but into a congregation of those with uncertain lineage, e.g., a shetuki, he may enter. This verse therefore teaches that both types of marriage are permitted. In any event, Rabbi Yehuda remains with one instance of the word 鈥渃ongregation鈥 to interpret, from which he derives that it is also prohibited for a convert to marry a mamzeret.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 转专讬 拽讛诇讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讻讗 讛拽讛诇 讞拽讛 讗讞转 诇讻诐 讜诇讙专 讛讙专 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讞拽讛 讗讞转 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

And if you wish, say: These too, one who is a definite mamzer and one who is a mamzer as the result of an uncertainty, are two congregations, each requiring its own verse, and the reason of Rabbi Yehuda is from here: 鈥淎s for the congregation, there shall be one statute both for you, and for the stranger that sojourns with you鈥 (Numbers 15:15), which indicates that converts are considered like Israelites with regard to their being included in the category of 鈥渃ongregation.鈥 And according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that a convert may marry a mamzeret, the phrase 鈥渙ne statute鈥 interrupts the matter, and converts are not considered part of the congregation of God.

讗讞讚 讙专 讜讗讞讚 注讘讚 诪砖讜讞专专 讜讞诇诇 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讻讛谞转 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 讛讜讝讛专讜 讻砖讬专讜转 诇讛谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬诐

搂 The Gemara comments: The statement of the Tosefta that a convert, and an emancipated slave, and a 岣lal are all permitted to marry the daughter of a priest supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Women of unflawed lineage who are daughters of priests were not prohibited from marrying those disqualified from the priesthood due to flawed lineage [岣lalim], since that prohibition applies only to male priests.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讙专 诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 专讙诪讜讛讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讗转专讜讙讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讚专讬砖 诪讬诇转讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讘讚讜讻转讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙讬讜专讬 讚专砖 专讘讗 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讙专 诪讜转专 讘讻讛谞转 讟注谞讜讛讜 讘砖讬专讗讬 讛讚专 讚专砖 诇讛讜 讙专 诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗驻住讬讚转讗 诇拽诪讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讟讘讗 诇讻讜 注讘讚讬 诇讻讜 讗讬 讘注讬 诪讛讻讗 谞住讬讘 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诪讛讻讗 谞住讬讘

Rabbi Zeira taught in Me岣za: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. Everyone stoned him with their etrogim, since the many converts present were insulted by his statement, which they understood to mean that converts are not members of God鈥檚 congregation. Rava said: Is there a person who teaches such a matter in a place where there are commonly converts? He should have been more circumspect. Rava himself taught this in Me岣za to ameliorate the situation: It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest. They carried him on silk [beshira鈥檈i] for elevating the honor of converts. He later taught them: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. They said to him: You have forfeited the honor of your first sermon. Rava said to them: I have done for you what is good for you. If a convert wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., from those of pure lineage, and if he wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., a mamzeret.

讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讙专 诪讜转专 讘讻讛谞转 讜诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 诪讜转专 讘讻讛谞转 诇讗 讛讜讝讛专讜 讻砖讬专讜转 诇讛谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬诐 讜诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest, and it is permitted for him to marry a mamzeret. It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest, since women of unflawed lineage were not prohibited from marrying those disqualified for the priesthood. And it is permitted for him to marry a mamzeret, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation.

讗诇讜 讛谉 砖转讜拽讬 讻诇 砖诪讻讬专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 砖转讜拽讬 讻砖专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讜讘 讻砖专讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讜诪讬注讜讟 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗爪诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And these are the last two categories: A shetuki is any person who knows the identity of his mother but does not know the identity of his father. Rava says: By Torah law, a shetuki is fit to enter the congregation. What is the reason for this? Most are fit with regard to her, i.e., most men are fit to engage in intercourse with an unmarried woman, and only a minority are unfit with regard to engaging in intercourse with her. There are few men who are related to a woman in a way that would render the offspring mamzerim.

讜讗讬 讗讝诇讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诇讙讘讛 讻诇 讚驻专讬砖 诪专讜讘讗 驻专讬砖 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讝诇讛 讗讬讛讬 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽讘讜注 讜讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬

Rava analyzes two possibilities: And if they came to her, i.e., if the father came to the mother鈥檚 location when the child was conceived, the following principle with regard to an uncertain prohibition takes effect: Anything that separates from its fixed location is presumed to have separated from the majority of items like it in that location. If the father separated from the population at large and came to the mother, one can assume that he was from the majority, who are of unflawed lineage. What might you say, that perhaps she went to them, and the child was conceived in the place where the father was? In such a case, it is an uncertain prohibition located in its fixed place, and the halakhic principle is: Anything fixed is considered as though it were half and half, i.e., fifty percent, and it remains a case of uncertainty, and it should be prohibited for the shetuki to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.

讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 诪诪讝专 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 诪诪讝专 住驻拽 讬讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 讘拽讛诇 住驻拽 讬讘讗

And in any case, this does not suffice to prevent her shetuki child from marrying a Jew with unflawed lineage, since the Torah states: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:3), which indicates: It is a definite mamzer who may not enter, but one who is a mamzer as a result of an uncertainty may enter. Similarly, it is into a congregation of those with definite unflawed lineage that he may not enter, but into a congregation of those with uncertain lineage he may enter. Therefore, even if it is uncertain if one is a mamzer, by Torah law he may marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.

讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 砖转讜拽讬 驻住讜诇 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖转讜拽讬 砖转讜拽讬转 诇讗 讬砖讗 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜

And for what reason did the Sages nevertheless say that a shetuki is of flawed lineage? Due to a rabbinic decree, lest he marry his sister from his father, since the identity of his father is unknown. The Gemara asks: If that is so, it should not be permitted for a shetuki to marry even a female shetuki, lest he marry his sister from his father.

讻诇 讻讬 讛谞讬 诪讝谞讜 讜讗讝诇讬 讘转 砖转讜拽讬转 诇讗 讬砖讗 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

The Gemara responds: And do people engage in licentiousness to such an extent that one should be concerned that all the children of unknown paternity in one city were fathered by the same man? By the same reasoning, there should also be a decree that a shetuki may not marry the daughter of a female shetuki from a proper marriage, lest he marry his sister from his father, since the man who married the female shetuki might have been his father. Rather, it must be that it is not common for a shetuki to happen to marry his sister, and therefore he may marry the daughter of a female shetuki. So too, it is not common for him to happen to marry his sister, and the Sages would not issue a decree to prevent this from occurring.

讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讬讜讞住讬谉

The question therefore remains, why did they render it prohibited for a shetuki to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers that it is not prohibited for a shetuki to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage due to any halakhic concern. Rather, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to lineage, in that they rendered it prohibited for people from unknown backgrounds to marry those with unflawed lineage.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗住讜驻讬 讻砖专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讘讘注诇讛 转讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬注讜讟 讗专讜住讜转 讜诪讬注讜讟 砖讛诇讱 讘注诇讬讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

And Rava says a similar statement: By Torah law, a foundling, a child found in the marketplace whose parents are unknown, is fit, and there is no concern that the child is a mamzer. What is the reason for this? A married woman who becomes pregnant through extramarital intercourse, which results in the child being a mamzer, ascribes the child to her husband. Since everyone assumes that her husband is the father, she has no reason to abandon the child in the marketplace. What case is there where a mother would want to abandon her mamzer child? There is the minority of situations involving betrothed women who committed adultery but cannot claim that her betrothed is the father, as they had not been living together. And there is the minority of women whose husbands have gone overseas and could not have fathered the children.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 驻谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪讞诪转 专注讘讜谉 讛讜讛 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 讘拽讛诇 讛壮 诪诪讝专 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 诪诪讝专 住驻拽 讬讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讘讗 讛讗 讘拽讛诇 住驻拽 讬讘讗

Since there are many other cases of unmarried women who do abandon their children although those children have unflawed lineage, and there are also children with unflawed lineage who are abandoned by their parents due to hunger, the concern that the child is a mamzer is no more than half and half, i.e., fifty percent. And the Torah states: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:3), which indicates: It is one who is a definite mamzer who may not enter, but one who is a mamzer as a result of an uncertainty may enter. Similarly, it is into a congregation of those with definite unflawed lineage that he may not enter, but into a congregation of those with uncertain lineage he may enter. This child is a mamzer as the result of an uncertainty, and by Torah law may marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.

讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讗住讜驻讬 驻住讜诇 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗住讜驻讬 讗住讜驻讬转 诇讗 讬砖讗 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 讘讬谉 诪讗讘讬讜 讘讬谉 诪讗诪讜 讻诇 讛谞讬 砖讚讬 讜讗讝诇讬 讘转 讗住讜驻讬 诇讗 讬砖讗 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

And for what reason did the Sages say that a foundling is unfit? Lest he marry his sister from his father. The Gemara asks: If that is so, it should not be permitted for a foundling to marry even a female foundling, lest he marry his sister from either his father or his mother. The Gemara rejects this: Are they continually throwing away all these children? Is it likely that the same parents abandoned both a son and a daughter? If you accept that suggestion, it should not be permitted for him to marry the daughter of a foundling, lest he marry his sister, as perhaps the father of the one he wishes to marry is his father as well. Rather, it must be that it is not common for a foundling to happen to marry his sister, and therefore he may marry the daughter of a foundling. So too, it is not common for him to happen to marry his sister, and the Sages would not make a decree to prevent this from occurring.

讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讬讜讞住讬诐

The question therefore remains: Why did they prohibit a foundling from marrying a Jew with unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers that it is prohibited for a foundling to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage not due to any halakhic concern. Rather, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to lineage, in that they rendered it prohibited for people from unknown backgrounds to marry those with unflawed lineage.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪爪讗讜 诪讛讜诇

Rava bar Rav Huna says: If an abandoned boy was found circumcised,

讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 诪砖诇讟讬 讛讚诪讬讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 砖讬讬祝 诪砖讞讗 讜诪诇讗 讻讜讞诇讗 专诪讬 讞讜诪专讬 转诇讬 驻讬转拽讗 讜转诇讬 拽诪讬注讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬

he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If the baby鈥檚 lineage were unfit, his parents would not have gone to the trouble of circumcising him. Likewise, if his limbs are adjusted, indicating that he was cared for after birth, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. Similarly, if he was anointed with oil, or if his eyes were smeared with eye salve, or if he was adorned with rings, or if a note [pitka] was hanging on him, or if an amulet was hanging on him, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

转诇讬 讘讚讬拽诇讬 讗讬 诪讟讬讗 诇讬讛 讞讬讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬

Concerning a child found hanging from a palm tree, if he was in such a place that an animal could reach him, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If not, if he was placed on a palm tree in a way that he could not be reached by an animal, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling, since he was cared for enough to be placed in a safe location.

讝专讚转讗 住诪讬讻讗 诇诪转讗 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 住诪讬讻转讗 诇诪转讗 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讘讬讛 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬

Similarly, if the child was placed in a thicket near a town, where people are not commonly found, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. But if not, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If the child was discovered in a synagogue near a town, and people are commonly found there, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling, since the parents wanted to give him to others. But if not, if the synagogue was not near a town or if it was not frequented by people, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 驻讬专讗 讚住讜驻诇讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讞专讬驻转讗 讚谞讛专讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 驻砖专讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬

Ameimar said: With regard to this cistern into which date pits are placed [peira desuflei] as animal fodder, if a child is found there, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was found in the middle of a fast-flowing river with boats passing by, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was placed at the side of the river, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was found at the sides of a public domain, which is not frequented by many people, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. But if the child was discovered in the public domain itself, where he might easily be trampled, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘砖谞讬 专注讘讜谉 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗住讜驻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讗 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬讬讚讬 讚砖谞讬 专注讘讜谉 拽讟诇讗 诇讬讛 讜讗诇讗 讗爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖谞讬 专注讘讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讗 砖谞讬 专注讘讜谉

Rava said: And in famine years, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. The Gemara asks: With regard to this statement of Rava, to which specific case is it referring? If we say it is referring to the case where the child was left in the public domain because it is a famine year, would a mother kill him by placing him in a place where he is likely to be trampled? Rather, if Rava鈥檚 statement is referring to the case where the child was found at the sides of a public domain, why specifically mention famine years? Even when it is not famine years, the child was placed in a safe location where he was likely to be found.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转诪专 讚专讘讗 讗讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讘砖讜拽 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 谞讗诪谞讬诐 注诇讬讜 谞讗住祝 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬诐 注诇讬讜

Rather, it must be that when Rava鈥檚 halakha was stated, it was stated with regard to that which Rav Yehuda says that Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi says that Rav says: As long as the abandoned child is still in the marketplace, his father and mother are deemed credible with regard to him when they later claim the child as theirs. But once the child has been collected from the marketplace, they are no longer deemed credible with regard to him.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖诐 讗住讜驻讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘砖谞讬 专注讘讜谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讗住祝 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 谞讗诪谞讬诐 注诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Since the child has already been publicized with the name of being of flawed lineage as a foundling, they cannot change the status of the child. And it is with regard to this halakha that Rava says: And in famine years, although the child has been collected from the marketplace, his father and mother are deemed credible with regard to him, as it is common even for parents of unflawed lineage to abandon their children in famine years, and it is likely that they are speaking the truth.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诇砖讛 谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇讗诇转专 讗诇讜 讛谉 讗住讜驻讬 讞讬讛 讜驻讜讟专转 讞讘专讜转讬讛

Rav 岣sda says: There are three cases where people are deemed credible if they immediately offer testimony with regard to a matter about which they are not ordinarily deemed credible to testify. These are they: A foundling, a midwife, and one who exempts her friends from uncertain impurity.

讗住讜驻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

How so? The case of a foundling is that which we said, that his parents can testify with regard to his lineage before he is collected from the marketplace.

讞讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞讬讛 谞讗诪谞转 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讬爪讗 专讗砖讜谉 讜讝讛 讬爪讗 砖谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讬爪转讛 讜讞讝专讛 讗讘诇 讬爪转讛 讜讞讝专讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讞讝拽讛 注诇 注讜诪讚讛 谞讗诪谞转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗讛讚专 讗驻讛

The case of a midwife is as it is taught in a baraita: A midwife is deemed credible to say that this child emerged first from the womb and that child emerged second from the womb. Her testimony is relied upon to determine which of them is the firstborn. In what case is this statement said? When she has not left the birthing room and returned. But if she left the birthing room and returned, she is not deemed credible, since the babies might have been exchanged in the meantime. Rabbi Eliezer says: If she has stood in her place, she is deemed credible. But if not, she is not deemed credible. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case when the midwife turned her head aside after the birth. According to Rabbi Eliezer she is no longer deemed credible, despite having remained in the room.

驻讜讟专转 讞讘专讜转讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讬砖谞讜转 讘诪讟讛 讗讞转 讜谞诪爪讗 讚诐 转讞转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 讘讚拽讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讜讜住转

What is the case of one who exempts her friends? As we learned in a mishna (Nidda 60b): If there were three women who were sleeping in one bed, and blood was found beneath one of them, they are all deemed impure as menstruating women, as it is not known from which of them the blood came. If one of them examined herself and was found to be impure, i.e., she saw that she was menstruating, she is impure and all the rest are pure. With regard to this, Rav 岣sda said: This applies provided that she examined herself within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, i.e., immediately after the discovery of the blood. But if she did so even a short while later, her discovery is not accepted as proof with regard to the source of the blood.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讗诪谞转 讞讬讛 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讻讛谉 讜讝讛 诇讜讬 讝讛 谞转讬谉 讜讝讛 诪诪讝专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 注专注专 讗讘诇 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 注专注专 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转

The Sages taught: If several women gave birth at the same time, the midwife is deemed credible to say: This baby is a priest and that baby is a Levite; this baby is a Gibeonite and that baby is a mamzer. In other words, she is deemed credible to say which baby was born to which mother. In what case is this statement said? When no objection was registered about it. But if an objection was registered about it, she is not deemed credible.

注专注专 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注专注专 讞讚 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 注专注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 讗诇讗 注专注专 转专讬

The Gemara clarifies: An objection of what type? If we say it is an objection of one witness claiming that her testimony is not accurate, but doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: There is no objection with less than two witnesses? Rather, the baraita must refer to the objection of two witnesses, but she is deemed credible when contradicted by a single witness.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 注专注专 讞讚 讜讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 注专注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讗 讞讝拽讛 讚讻砖专讜转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讞讝拽讛 讚讻砖专讜转 讞讚 谞诪讬 诪讛讬诪谉

And if you wish, say: Actually, I could say to you that she is not deemed credible even when contradicted by the objection of one witness, and when Rabbi Yo岣nan said that there is no objection with less than two witnesses, that statement applies only in a case where there is a presumption of validity, which can be countered only by the objection of two witnesses. But in a case where there is no presumption of validity, such as in this case, when the baby was just born, one witness is also deemed credible to object.

谞讗诪谉 讘注诇 诪拽讞 诇讜诪专 诇讝讛 诪讻专转讬 讜诇讝讛 讗讬谉 诪讻专转讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖诪拽讞讜 讘讬讚讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诪拽讞讜 讘讬讚讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

Similarly, if the owner of an item being purchased is confronted by two people, each claiming to have purchased the item, he is deemed credible to say: I sold to this one, and I did not sell to that one. In what case is this statement said? When the item being purchased is still in the seller鈥檚 possession. But if the item being purchased is not in his possession, he is not deemed credible any more than a single witness is.

Scroll To Top