Kiddushin 74

וניחזי זוזי ממאן נקט לא צריכא דנקט מתרוייהו ואמר חד מדעתאי וחד בעל כורחי ולא ידיע הי מדעתו והי לא מדעתו

The Gemara asks: And let us see from whom he took the money, as it will be obvious that he is the one who bought it. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the seller took money from both of them, and he then said: One payment I accepted willingly, and one payment was given to me against my will, and it is not known which person gave him money in accordance with his will and which did so against his will. In that case, if the item is no longer in the seller’s possession, he is not deemed credible to testify to whom he sold it.

נאמן דיין לומר לזה זכיתי ולזה חייבתי במה דברים אמורים שבעלי דינים עומדים לפניו אבל אין בעלי דינים עומדים לפניו אינו נאמן וניחזי זכותא מאן נקיט

The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: Similarly, a judge is deemed credible to say: I found this person victorious in a civil case, and I found this one obligated to pay. In what case is this statement said? When the litigants are still standing before him. But if the litigants are not standing before him but have left, he is not deemed credible. The Gemara asks: And let us see who holds the writ of a favorable verdict. Why is there a need to rely on the statement of the judge?

לא צריכא דקריע זכותייהו וניהדר ונידיינינהו בשודא דדייני

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where their writs of a favorable verdict have been torn up and cannot be examined. The Gemara asks: If so, then let him return and judge them again, and presumably the same verdict will be issued. The Gemara answers: It was a case of the judges’ discretion [shuda dedayyanei]. In certain cases, the verdict depends on the decision of the judges based solely on their sense of which litigant deserves to win. There is no guarantee that they will make the same decision the second time around.

אמר רב נחמן שלשה נאמנין על הבכור אלו הן חיה אביו ואמו חיה לאלתר אמו כל שבעה אביו לעולם כדתניא יכיר יכירנו לאחרים

The Gemara continues to discuss the credibility of various people with regard to a firstborn. Rav Naḥman says: Three are deemed credible with regard to stating that a child is a firstborn, and they are: A midwife, his father, and his mother. A midwife is deemed credible only immediately; his mother is deemed credible all of the first seven days after his birth; his father is deemed credible forever. As it is taught in a baraita: Expounding the verse: “But he shall acknowledge the firstborn” (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Sages said: The father shall acknowledge him to others. In other words, he is deemed credible to tell others that this is his firstborn.

מכאן אמר רבי יהודה נאמן אדם לומר זה בני בכור וכשם שנאמן לומר זה בני בכור כך נאמן לומר זה בן גרושה וזה בן חלוצה וחכמים אומרים אינו נאמן

From here, Rabbi Yehuda said: A person is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son. And just as he is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, so too, if he is a priest he is deemed credible to say about his son: This is a son of a divorced woman, or: This is a son of a ḥalutza. And the Rabbis say: As far as these latter claims are concerned, he is not deemed credible. He is deemed credible to state only which son is his firstborn.

אבא שאול היה קורא לשתוקי בדוקי מאי בדוקי אילימא שבודקין את אמו ואומרת לכשר נבעלתי נאמנת כמאן כרבן גמליאל תנינא חדא זימנא דתנן היתה מעוברת ואמרו לה מה טיבו של עובר זה אמרה להם מאיש פלוני וכהן הוא רבן גמליאל ורבי אליעזר אומרים נאמנת ורבי יהושע אומר לא מפיה אנו חיין ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבן גמליאל

§ The mishna teaches that Abba Shaul would call a shetuki by the label of beduki. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of beduki? If we say that they examine [bodekin] his mother, and if she says: I engaged in sexual intercourse with a man of unflawed lineage, in which case she is deemed credible, then with whose opinion does this halakha accord? With that of Rabban Gamliel. But we already learned this on another occasion, as we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 13a): If an unmarried woman was pregnant, and they said to her: What is the status of this fetus, and she said to them: It is from so-and-so, and he is a priest, then Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: We don’t live from, i.e., we don’t rely on, the words of her mouth, and she is not trusted. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. What, then, did Abba Shaul add beyond what was taught in that mishna?

חדא להכשיר בה וחדא להכשיר בבתה הניחא למאן דאמר לדברי המכשיר בה פוסל בבתה

The Gemara answers: Abba Shaul’s statement that the woman is deemed credible when she states that the father of the child was of unflawed lineage is nevertheless necessary. One halakha was stated in order to render her fit to marry a priest, and one halakha was stated to render her daughter fit to marry a priest as well. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: According to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he nevertheless deems her daughter unfit, as her credibility does not extend to her daughter, who never had a presumptive status of unflawed lineage. Abba Shaul therefore presents a novel ruling, that if she claims to have engaged in intercourse with a man of unflawed lineage, she is deemed credible even with regard to the status of her daughter.

אלא למאן דאמר לדברי המכשיר בה מכשיר בבתה אבא שאול מאי אתא לאשמועינן

But according to the one who says: According to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he deems her daughter fit to do so as well, what is Abba Shaul coming to teach us?

דאבא שאול עדיפא מדרבן גמליאל דאי מהתם הוה אמינא התם דרוב כשרין אצלה אבל היכא דרוב פסולין אצלה אימא לא צריכא אמר רבא הלכה כאבא שאול

The Gemara answers: The statement of Abba Shaul is preferable and is more far-reaching than that of Rabban Gamliel, as, if the halakha were learned only from there, the case of an unmarried woman, I would say: There it is a case when most are fit with regard to her, as it is permitted for most people to engage in intercourse with a single woman. But in a circumstance where most are unfit with regard to her, e.g., if she was betrothed and claimed that the man betrothed to her was the father, you might say this: She is not deemed credible when she claims to have engaged in intercourse with a man that would result in the child being of unflawed lineage, as only a small minority of people, i.e., her betrothed, would not render the child unfit, while the rest of the people in the world would render him unfit. Therefore, Abba Shaul’s halakha was necessary in order to include that case. Rava says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Abba Shaul.

מתני׳ כל האסורין לבא בקהל מותרים לבא זה בזה רבי יהודה אוסר

MISHNA: All those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation, i.e., to marry a Jew of unflawed lineage, are permitted to marry into each other’s families. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits them from marrying anyone other than those who share their specific flaw.

רבי אליעזר אומר ודאן בודאן מותר ודאן בספיקן וספיקן בודאן וספיקן בספיקן אסור ואלו הן הספיקות שתוקי אסופי וכותי

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is permitted for those with definite flaws to marry with those with definite flaws. For example, it is permitted for mamzerim and Gibeonites to marry each other. By contrast, it is prohibited for those with definite flaws, such as mamzerim, to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, such as a child of unknown paternity [shetuki] and a foundling; and it is prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry with those with definite flaws; and it is prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, such as a shetuki and a female shetuki. And these are the ones whose flaws result from an uncertainty: A shetuki, a foundling, and a Samaritan.

גמ׳ מאי כל האסורין לבא בקהל אילימא ממזירי ונתיני שתוקי ואסופי הא תנא ליה רישא ממזירי ונתיני שתוקי ואסופי מותרים לבא זה בזה

GEMARA: What is the meaning of: All those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation? If we say mamzerim and Gibeonites, shetukim, and foundlings, wasn’t it already taught in the first clause of the first mishna of the chapter that with regard to mamzerim and Gibeonites, shetukim, and foundlings, it is permitted for men and women in these categories to marry into each other’s families?

ותו רבי יהודה אוסר אהייא אילימא אודאן בספיקן הא מדקתני סיפא רבי אליעזר אומר ודאן בודאן מותר ודאן בספיקן וספיקן בספיקן אסור מכלל דרבי יהודה לא סבירא ליה

And furthermore, to which case in the mishna here is it referring when it states: Rabbi Yehuda prohibits them? If we say it is referring to those with definite flaws marrying with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, and it is teaching that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits them from marrying each other, this is difficult. But from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is permitted for those with definite flaws to marry with those with definite flaws; by contrast, it is prohibited for those with definite flaws to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, and it is prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry with those with definite flaws, and it is prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty; then by inference, it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda does not maintain this opinion.

וכי תימא רבי יהודה אוסר אגר בממזרת מידי גר בממזרת קתני כל האסורין לבא בקהל קתני

And if you would say that when Rabbi Yehuda prohibits those with flawed lineage from marrying each other, he is referring to the prohibition against a convert marrying with a mamzeret, does the mishna teach the halakha of a convert marrying with a mamzeret? It teaches: All those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation, which does not include a convert.

אמר רב יהודה

Rav Yehuda says:

הכי קאמר כל האסורים לבא בקהל כהונה מאי נינהו גיורת פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד ודלא כרבי שמעון בן יוחי מותרין לבוא זה בזה

This is what the mishna is saying: All those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation of the priesthood. Rav Yehuda adds parenthetically: And who are they? Even a female who became a convert at less than three years and one day old, and this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who holds that such a girl is permitted to marry a priest. Rav Yehuda resumes his presentation of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: They are permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another.

ונוקמה בבת שלש שנים ויום אחד ואפילו לרבי שמעון בן יוחי אם כן מצידה תברה

The Gemara asks: And let us establish the mishna as referring to a girl who became a convert at three years and one day old or older, and then it will accord even with Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s opinion, as he agrees that this convert may not marry a priest. The Gemara answers: If so, the mishna is broken, i.e., contradicted, from within itself, as if the mishna states that even a female who converted when she was older than three years and a day may marry one with flawed lineage, one would make an incorrect inference, as follows.

אלא טעמא דבת שלש שנים ויום אחד הא פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד דמותרת לבא בקהל כהונה אסורה לבוא זה בזה הרי פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד לרבי שמעון בן יוחי דמותרת לבא בקהל כהונה ומותרות לבא זה בזה

Rather, the reason that she may marry one with flawed lineage is that she converted when she was already three years and one day old. But if she converted when she was less than three years and one day old, as she is permitted to enter into the congregation of the priesthood, is she prohibited from marrying into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another? This cannot be, since according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, there is also the case of a female who converted when she was less than three years and one day old, who is permitted to enter the congregation of the priesthood and is also permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another. Consequently, the mishna cannot be explained to accord with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai.

וכללא הוא דכל האסורים לבא בקהל כהונה מותרין לבא זה בזה והרי אלמנה וגרושה וחללה וזונה דאסורים לבא בקהל כהונה ואסורים לבא זה בזה ותו הא מותר אסור והרי גר שמותר בכהנת ומותר בממזרת

The Gemara continues to ask: But is it an established principle that all those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation of the priesthood are permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another? But a widow, who may not marry a High Priest, and a divorcée, and a woman disqualified from marrying a priest [ḥalala], and a woman who has engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona], are prohibited to enter into the congregation of the priesthood and are also prohibited to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another. And furthermore, can it be inferred: But one who is permitted to enter into the congregation of the priesthood is prohibited from marrying a man of flawed lineage? But there is the convert, who is permitted to marry a daughter of a priest, and is also permitted to marry a mamzeret.

אלא אמר רב נתן בר הושעיא הכי קאמר כל שכהן אסור לישא את בתו ומאי ניהו גר שנשא גיורת וכרבי אליעזר בן יעקב מותרין לבא זה בזה

Rather, Rav Natan bar Hoshaya said: This is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: Any person about whom the halakha is that a priest may not marry his daughter. Rav Natan bar Hoshaya adds parenthetically: And who is that? A convert who married a female convert, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who prohibits the daughter of two converts to marry a priest. Rav Natan bar Hoshaya resumes his presentation of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: People of that status are permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another, since converts are not in the category of “congregation.”

וכללא הוא דכל שכהן אסור לישא את בתו מותרים לבא זה בזה הרי חלל שנשא בת ישראל דכהן אסור לישא בתו ואסורין נמי לבא זה בזה לא קשיא כרבי דוסתאי בן יהודה

The Gemara asks: But is it an established principle that anyone whose daughter a priest may not marry is permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another? But there is the case of a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [ḥalal] who married a Jewish woman, as a priest may not marry his daughter, since she is a ḥalala. And despite this, she is included among those who are prohibited to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, since this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, who holds that the daughter of a ḥalal and a Jewish woman may marry a priest.

והרי חלל שנשא חללה וכהן אסור לישא בתו ואסור נמי לבא זה בזה ותו הא מותר אסור והרי גר שנשא בת ישראל וכהן מותר לישא בתו ומותרין לבא זה בזה

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of a ḥalal who married a ḥalala, as a priest may not marry his daughter, since she is a ḥalala. And despite this, she is included among those who are prohibited to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another. And furthermore, can it be inferred: One with regard to whom it is permitted for a priest to marry his daughter, is he prohibited from marrying Jews of flawed lineage? But there is the case of a convert who married a Jewish woman, and a priest is permitted to marry his daughter. And despite this, people of that status are permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another.

אלא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה הכא ממזר מאחותו וממזר מאשת איש איכא בינייהו

Rather, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said a different explanation of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda: Here, the difference between them concerns a mamzer resulting from intercourse between a man and his sister, and a mamzer resulting from intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband.

תנא קמא סבר אפילו ממזר מאחותו נמי הוי ממזר ורבי יהודה סבר מאשת איש הוי ממזר מאחותו לא הוי ממזר

The first tanna holds: Even a mamzer resulting from intercourse between a man and his sister is also considered a mamzer. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The offspring resulting from intercourse with a married woman is a mamzer, but offspring resulting from intercourse between a man and his sister is not a mamzer. According to this explanation, the dispute is that according to the first tanna, offspring resulting from intercourse between siblings may marry offspring resulting from intercourse with a married woman, while according to Rabbi Yehuda, the offspring resulting from intercourse between siblings is of unflawed lineage and may not marry a mamzer.

מאי קא משמע לן תנינא איזהו ממזר כל שהוא בלא יבא דברי רבי עקיבא

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna teaching us with this? We already learned this in a mishna (Yevamot 49a): Who is a mamzer? Any offspring who is born of a union prohibited by the verse: “He shall not enter” (Deuteronomy 23:2). In other words, if the union was a violation of any kind of prohibition, even that of a prohibition that is not subject to the punishment of karet, the child is a mamzer; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

שמעון התימני אומר כל שחייבין עליו כרת בידי שמים והלכה כדבריו רבי יהושע אומר כל שחייבין עליו מיתת בית דין

The mishna continues: Shimon HaTimni says: Any offspring who is born of a union enjoined by a prohibition for which one is liable to receive karet at the hand of Heaven, and the halakha is in accordance with his statement. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any offspring who is born of a union enjoined by a prohibition for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. This demonstrates that the question of whether mamzer status results from sexual intercourse between siblings, for which one is liable to receive karet rather than capital punishment, has already been addressed in a mishna. Therefore, Rav Naḥman’s explanation of this mishna must be rejected.

אלא אמר רבא גר עמוני ומואבי איכא בינייהו והכי קאמר כל האסורים לבא בקהל ומאי ניהו גר עמוני ומואבי מותרין לבא זה בזה

Rather, Rava said: The difference between them involves the halakha of a male Ammonite and a male Moabite convert, and this is what the tanna is saying: All those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation. Rava adds parenthetically: And who are they? A male Ammonite and a male Moabite convert. Rava resumes his presentation of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: They are permitted to marry one another.

אי הכי מאי רבי יהודה אוסר הכי קאמר אף על פי שרבי יהודה אוסר גר בממזרת הני מילי גר דראוי לבא בקהל אבל גר עמוני ומואבי דאין ראויין לבא בקהל לא

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda for prohibiting these marriages? Rabbi Yehuda should also permit an Ammonite convert to marry a mamzeret, as an Ammonite is not fit to enter the congregation. The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna is saying: Although Rabbi Yehuda generally prohibits a convert from marrying a mamzeret, this matter applies only to a regular convert, who is fit to enter into the congregation. But a male Ammonite convert and a male Moabite convert, who are not fit to enter into the congregation, are not prohibited from marrying a mamzeret, and there is no dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the first tanna.

תנו רבנן בן תשע שנים ויום אחד גר עמוני ומואבי מצרי ואדומי כותי ונתין חלל וממזר שבאו על הכהנת ועל הלויה ועל בת ישראל [פסלוה] רבי יוסי אומר כל שזרעו פסול פוסל וכל שאין זרעו פסול אינו פוסל רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר

The Sages taught (Tosefta, Yevamot 8:1): A boy nine years and one day old, whose sexual intercourse is considered an act of intercourse with regard to sexual transgressions, who was an Ammonite or Moabite convert, or an Egyptian or Edomite convert, or a Samaritan, or a Gibeonite, a ḥalal, or a mamzer, and who engaged in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest, or the daughter of a Levite, or an Israelite woman, has thereby disqualified her from the priesthood. Rabbi Yosei says: Anyone whose offspring is unfit to marry a priest disqualifies a woman with whom he engages in intercourse from marrying a priest; and anyone whose offspring is not unfit does not disqualify her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: