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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 24, 2016 | 讟状讝 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 74

Various people are mentioned who are believed in particular situations to identify who is who – for ex. who is the first born, who bought the item from the store owner and who won a court case. 聽In all these cases there is a time frame given for the identifier (midwife and mother in firstborn case, store owner and judge in the other 2 cases) Why did Abba Shaul call a shtuki beduki聽A mishna which seems somewhat like the previous mishna is brought regarding people who are forbidden to marry within but are allowed to marry without. 聽The gemara raises many questions on the mishna and several interpretations are brought which are then analyzed.

讜谞讬讞讝讬 讝讜讝讬 诪诪讗谉 谞拽讟 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞拽讟 诪转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专 讞讚 诪讚注转讗讬 讜讞讚 讘注诇 讻讜专讞讬 讜诇讗 讬讚讬注 讛讬 诪讚注转讜 讜讛讬 诇讗 诪讚注转讜

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鈥檚 possession, he is not deemed credible to testify to whom he sold it.

谞讗诪谉 讚讬讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讝讛 讝讻讬转讬 讜诇讝讛 讞讬讬讘转讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讜谞讬讞讝讬 讝讻讜转讗 诪讗谉 谞拽讬讟

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?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽专讬注 讝讻讜转讬讬讛讜 讜谞讬讛讚专 讜谞讬讚讬讬谞讬谞讛讜 讘砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬

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鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛讘讻讜专 讗诇讜 讛谉 讞讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讞讬讛 诇讗诇转专 讗诪讜 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗讘讬讜 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讬专 讬讻讬专谞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara continues to discuss the credibility of various people with regard to a firstborn. Rav Na岣an 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: 鈥淏ut he shall acknowledge the firstborn鈥 (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.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 讜讻砖诐 砖谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 讻讱 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讝讛 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

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 岣lutza. 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.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 诇砖转讜拽讬 讘讚讜拽讬 诪讗讬 讘讚讜拽讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讗讜诪专转 诇讻砖专 谞讘注诇转讬 谞讗诪谞转 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 讛讬转讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 讝讛 讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 诪讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 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鈥檛 live from, i.e., we don鈥檛 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?

讞讚讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讛 讜讞讚讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 驻讜住诇 讘讘转讛

The Gemara answers: Abba Shaul鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉

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?

讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 注讚讬驻讗 诪讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讚专讜讘 讻砖专讬谉 讗爪诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗爪诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇

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鈥檚 halakha was necessary in order to include that case. Rava says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Abba Shaul.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 诪讜转专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专

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鈥檚 families. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits them from marrying anyone other than those who share their specific flaw.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜讚讗谉 讘讜讚讗谉 诪讜转专 讜讚讗谉 讘住驻讬拽谉 讜住驻讬拽谉 讘讜讚讗谉 讜住驻讬拽谉 讘住驻讬拽谉 讗住讜专 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛住驻讬拽讜转 砖转讜拽讬 讗住讜驻讬 讜讻讜转讬

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诪讝讬专讬 讜谞转讬谞讬 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 诪诪讝讬专讬 讜谞转讬谞讬 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬 诪讜转专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 families?

讜转讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讜讚讗谉 讘住驻讬拽谉 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜讚讗谉 讘讜讚讗谉 诪讜转专 讜讚讗谉 讘住驻讬拽谉 讜住驻讬拽谉 讘住驻讬拽谉 讗住讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讗讙专 讘诪诪讝专转 诪讬讚讬 讙专 讘诪诪讝专转 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 拽转谞讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Yehuda says:

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬诐 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讻讛讜谞讛 诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讙讬讜专转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讜讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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 Yo岣i, 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.

讜谞讜拽诪讛 讘讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪爪讬讚讛 转讘专讛

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 Yo岣i鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚诪讜转专转 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讻讛讜谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讘讜讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讛专讬 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚诪讜转专转 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讻讛讜谞讛 讜诪讜转专讜转 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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 Yo岣i, 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 Yo岣i.

讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬诐 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讻讛讜谞讛 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讛专讬 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇诇讛 讜讝讜谞讛 讚讗住讜专讬诐 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讻讛讜谞讛 讜讗住讜专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜转讜 讛讗 诪讜转专 讗住讜专 讜讛专讬 讙专 砖诪讜转专 讘讻讛谞转 讜诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转

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 divorc茅e, and a woman disqualified from marrying a priest [岣lala], 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讻讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讬砖讗 讗转 讘转讜 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讙专 砖谞砖讗 讙讬讜专转 讜讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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鈥檃kov, 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 鈥渃ongregation.鈥

讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讻诇 砖讻讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讬砖讗 讗转 讘转讜 诪讜转专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讛专讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讻讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讬砖讗 讘转讜 讜讗住讜专讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛

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 [岣lal] who married a Jewish woman, as a priest may not marry his daughter, since she is a 岣lala. 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 岣lal and a Jewish woman may marry a priest.

讜讛专讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讞诇诇讛 讜讻讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讬砖讗 讘转讜 讜讗住讜专 谞诪讬 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜转讜 讛讗 诪讜转专 讗住讜专 讜讛专讬 讙专 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讛谉 诪讜转专 诇讬砖讗 讘转讜 讜诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of a 岣lal who married a 岣lala, as a priest may not marry his daughter, since she is a 岣lala. 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讻讗 诪诪讝专 诪讗讞讜转讜 讜诪诪讝专 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rather, Rav Na岣an 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.

转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪讝专 诪讗讞讜转讜 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专 诪讗讞讜转讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬讝讛讜 诪诪讝专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 讬讘讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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: 鈥淗e shall not enter鈥 (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.

砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

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 Na岣an鈥檚 explanation of this mishna must be rejected.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬诐 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讙专 讘诪诪讝专转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙专 讚专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讗讘诇 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讚讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 诇讗

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 诪爪专讬 讜讗讚讜诪讬 讻讜转讬 讜谞转讬谉 讞诇诇 讜诪诪讝专 砖讘讗讜 注诇 讛讻讛谞转 讜注诇 讛诇讜讬讛 讜注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 [驻住诇讜讛] 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专

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 岣lal, 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:

  • 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 74

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 74

讜谞讬讞讝讬 讝讜讝讬 诪诪讗谉 谞拽讟 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞拽讟 诪转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专 讞讚 诪讚注转讗讬 讜讞讚 讘注诇 讻讜专讞讬 讜诇讗 讬讚讬注 讛讬 诪讚注转讜 讜讛讬 诇讗 诪讚注转讜

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鈥檚 possession, he is not deemed credible to testify to whom he sold it.

谞讗诪谉 讚讬讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讝讛 讝讻讬转讬 讜诇讝讛 讞讬讬讘转讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讜谞讬讞讝讬 讝讻讜转讗 诪讗谉 谞拽讬讟

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?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽专讬注 讝讻讜转讬讬讛讜 讜谞讬讛讚专 讜谞讬讚讬讬谞讬谞讛讜 讘砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬

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鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛讘讻讜专 讗诇讜 讛谉 讞讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讞讬讛 诇讗诇转专 讗诪讜 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗讘讬讜 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讬专 讬讻讬专谞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara continues to discuss the credibility of various people with regard to a firstborn. Rav Na岣an 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: 鈥淏ut he shall acknowledge the firstborn鈥 (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.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 讜讻砖诐 砖谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 讻讱 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讝讛 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

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 岣lutza. 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.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 诇砖转讜拽讬 讘讚讜拽讬 诪讗讬 讘讚讜拽讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讗讜诪专转 诇讻砖专 谞讘注诇转讬 谞讗诪谞转 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 讛讬转讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 讝讛 讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 诪讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 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鈥檛 live from, i.e., we don鈥檛 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?

讞讚讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讛 讜讞讚讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 驻讜住诇 讘讘转讛

The Gemara answers: Abba Shaul鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讻砖讬专 讘讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘转讛 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉

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?

讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 注讚讬驻讗 诪讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讚专讜讘 讻砖专讬谉 讗爪诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗爪诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇

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鈥檚 halakha was necessary in order to include that case. Rava says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Abba Shaul.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 诪讜转专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专

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鈥檚 families. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits them from marrying anyone other than those who share their specific flaw.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜讚讗谉 讘讜讚讗谉 诪讜转专 讜讚讗谉 讘住驻讬拽谉 讜住驻讬拽谉 讘讜讚讗谉 讜住驻讬拽谉 讘住驻讬拽谉 讗住讜专 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛住驻讬拽讜转 砖转讜拽讬 讗住讜驻讬 讜讻讜转讬

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诪讝讬专讬 讜谞转讬谞讬 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 诪诪讝讬专讬 讜谞转讬谞讬 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬 诪讜转专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 families?

讜转讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讜讚讗谉 讘住驻讬拽谉 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜讚讗谉 讘讜讚讗谉 诪讜转专 讜讚讗谉 讘住驻讬拽谉 讜住驻讬拽谉 讘住驻讬拽谉 讗住讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讗讙专 讘诪诪讝专转 诪讬讚讬 讙专 讘诪诪讝专转 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 拽转谞讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Yehuda says:

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬诐 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讻讛讜谞讛 诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讙讬讜专转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讜讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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 Yo岣i, 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.

讜谞讜拽诪讛 讘讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪爪讬讚讛 转讘专讛

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 Yo岣i鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚诪讜转专转 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讻讛讜谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讘讜讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讛专讬 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚诪讜转专转 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讻讛讜谞讛 讜诪讜转专讜转 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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 Yo岣i, 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 Yo岣i.

讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬诐 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讻讛讜谞讛 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讛专讬 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇诇讛 讜讝讜谞讛 讚讗住讜专讬诐 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讻讛讜谞讛 讜讗住讜专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜转讜 讛讗 诪讜转专 讗住讜专 讜讛专讬 讙专 砖诪讜转专 讘讻讛谞转 讜诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转

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 divorc茅e, and a woman disqualified from marrying a priest [岣lala], 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讻讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讬砖讗 讗转 讘转讜 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讙专 砖谞砖讗 讙讬讜专转 讜讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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鈥檃kov, 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 鈥渃ongregation.鈥

讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讻诇 砖讻讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讬砖讗 讗转 讘转讜 诪讜转专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讛专讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讻讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讬砖讗 讘转讜 讜讗住讜专讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛

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 [岣lal] who married a Jewish woman, as a priest may not marry his daughter, since she is a 岣lala. 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 岣lal and a Jewish woman may marry a priest.

讜讛专讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讞诇诇讛 讜讻讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讬砖讗 讘转讜 讜讗住讜专 谞诪讬 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜转讜 讛讗 诪讜转专 讗住讜专 讜讛专讬 讙专 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讛谉 诪讜转专 诇讬砖讗 讘转讜 讜诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of a 岣lal who married a 岣lala, as a priest may not marry his daughter, since she is a 岣lala. 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讻讗 诪诪讝专 诪讗讞讜转讜 讜诪诪讝专 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rather, Rav Na岣an 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.

转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪讝专 诪讗讞讜转讜 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专 诪讗讞讜转讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬讝讛讜 诪诪讝专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 讬讘讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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: 鈥淗e shall not enter鈥 (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.

砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

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 Na岣an鈥檚 explanation of this mishna must be rejected.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬诐 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讙专 讘诪诪讝专转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙专 讚专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讗讘诇 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讚讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 诇讗

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 诪爪专讬 讜讗讚讜诪讬 讻讜转讬 讜谞转讬谉 讞诇诇 讜诪诪讝专 砖讘讗讜 注诇 讛讻讛谞转 讜注诇 讛诇讜讬讛 讜注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 [驻住诇讜讛] 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专

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 岣lal, 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:

Scroll To Top