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

Daf Yomi

October 26, 2023 | ื™ืดื ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื“

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Kiddushin 74

Today’s daf is dedicated to all the families in Israel who are going through immeasurable suffering over the last few weeks.

Is a seller trusted to testify to identify the buyer when two people claim to have bought the item from him? On what does it depend? Is a judge trusted to testify who won a case in his court? Who is trusted to testify regarding a firstborn son? Why did Abba Shaul call a shtuki by the name ‘beduki’? Abba Shaul’s statement is explained – the mother is trusted to testify that the fatherโ€™s lineage is unflawed. The Mishna explains that people who are forbidden to marry within the community are allowed to marry those with flawed lineage. The Gemara raises difficulties on this Mishna and four sages suggest four different interpretations which are each analyzed. Difficulties are presented against three of them.

ื•ื ื™ื—ื–ื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืžืžืืŸ ื ืงื˜ ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื ืงื˜ ืžืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืืžืจ ื—ื“ ืžื“ืขืชืื™ ื•ื—ื“ ื‘ืขืœ ื›ื•ืจื—ื™ ื•ืœื ื™ื“ื™ืข ื”ื™ ืžื“ืขืชื• ื•ื”ื™ ืœื ืžื“ืขืชื•


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 sellerโ€™s possession, he is not deemed credible to testify to whom he sold it.


ื ืืžืŸ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื–ื” ื–ื›ื™ืชื™ ื•ืœื–ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืชื™ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืขืœื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื ืขื•ืžื“ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื ืขื•ืžื“ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื™ื ื• ื ืืžืŸ ื•ื ื™ื—ื–ื™ ื–ื›ื•ืชื ืžืืŸ ื ืงื™ื˜


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?


ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืงืจื™ืข ื–ื›ื•ืชื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื ื™ื”ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ืฉื•ื“ื ื“ื“ื™ื™ื ื™


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 judgesโ€™ 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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื—ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ื—ื™ื” ืœืืœืชืจ ืืžื• ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืื‘ื™ื• ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื™ืจ ื™ื›ื™ืจื ื• ืœืื—ืจื™ื


The Gemara continues to discuss the credibility of various people with regard to a firstborn. Rav Naแธฅman 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: โ€œBut he shall acknowledge the firstbornโ€ (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.


ืžื›ืืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืืžืŸ ืื“ื ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ื” ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ื›ืฉื ืฉื ืืžืŸ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ื” ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื›ืš ื ืืžืŸ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ื” ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื–ื” ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื ืืžืŸ


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 แธฅalutza. 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.


ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื”ื™ื” ืงื•ืจื ืœืฉืชื•ืงื™ ื‘ื“ื•ืงื™ ืžืื™ ื‘ื“ื•ืงื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืฉื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืืช ืืžื• ื•ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื›ืฉืจ ื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื ืืžื ืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืชื ื™ื ื ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ื‘ืจืช ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื” ืžื” ื˜ื™ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื–ื” ืืžืจื” ืœื”ื ืžืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื ืืžื ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืžืคื™ื” ืื ื• ื—ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ


ยง 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 donโ€™t live from, i.e., we donโ€™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?


ื—ื“ื ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื•ื—ื“ื ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ื‘ืชื” ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ื” ืคื•ืกืœ ื‘ื‘ืชื”


The Gemara answers: Abba Shaulโ€™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.


ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ื” ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ื‘ืชื” ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืžืื™ ืืชื ืœืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ


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?


ื“ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืขื“ื™ืคื ืžื“ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื“ืื™ ืžื”ืชื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืชื ื“ืจื•ื‘ ื›ืฉืจื™ืŸ ืืฆืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืจื•ื‘ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืืฆืœื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ


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


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ


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 otherโ€™s families. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits them from marrying anyone other than those who share their specific flaw.


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื“ืืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ื“ืืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื•ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืืŸ ื•ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื”ืกืคื™ืงื•ืช ืฉืชื•ืงื™ ืืกื•ืคื™ ื•ื›ื•ืชื™


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.


ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืžื–ื™ืจื™ ื•ื ืชื™ื ื™ ืฉืชื•ืงื™ ื•ืืกื•ืคื™ ื”ื ืชื ื ืœื™ื” ืจื™ืฉื ืžืžื–ื™ืจื™ ื•ื ืชื™ื ื™ ืฉืชื•ืงื™ ื•ืืกื•ืคื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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, wasnโ€™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 otherโ€™s families?


ื•ืชื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ืื”ื™ื™ื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืื•ื“ืืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื“ืืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ื“ืืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื•ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”


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.


ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ืื’ืจ ื‘ืžืžื–ืจืช ืžื™ื“ื™ ื’ืจ ื‘ืžืžื–ืจืช ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืงืชื ื™


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”


Rav Yehuda says:


ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžืื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื•ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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 Yoแธฅai, 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.


ื•ื ื•ืงืžื” ื‘ื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื“ื” ืชื‘ืจื”


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 Yoแธฅaiโ€™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.


ืืœื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื”ื ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื“ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ื•ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื”ืจื™ ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ื“ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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 Yoแธฅai, 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 Yoแธฅai.


ื•ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื•ื”ืจื™ ืืœืžื ื” ื•ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื—ืœืœื” ื•ื–ื•ื ื” ื“ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื•ืชื• ื”ื ืžื•ืชืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื”ืจื™ ื’ืจ ืฉืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื›ื”ื ืช ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืžืžื–ืจืช


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 divorcรฉe, and a woman disqualified from marrying a priest [แธฅalala], 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.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื›ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ืฉื ืืช ื‘ืชื• ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ื’ืจ ืฉื ืฉื ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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 Yaโ€™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 โ€œcongregation.โ€


ื•ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืœ ืฉื›ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ืฉื ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื”ืจื™ ื—ืœืœ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ืฉื ื‘ืชื• ื•ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื“ื•ืกืชืื™ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”


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 [แธฅalal] who married a Jewish woman, as a priest may not marry his daughter, since she is a แธฅalala. 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 แธฅalal and a Jewish woman may marry a priest.


ื•ื”ืจื™ ื—ืœืœ ืฉื ืฉื ื—ืœืœื” ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ืฉื ื‘ืชื• ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื ืžื™ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื•ืชื• ื”ื ืžื•ืชืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื”ืจื™ ื’ืจ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื™ืฉื ื‘ืชื• ื•ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื”ื›ื ืžืžื–ืจ ืžืื—ื•ืชื• ื•ืžืžื–ืจ ืžืืฉืช ืื™ืฉ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•


Rather, Rav Naแธฅman 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.


ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืžื–ืจ ืžืื—ื•ืชื• ื ืžื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžืืฉืช ืื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ ืžืื—ื•ืชื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ


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.


ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืžืžื–ืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื‘ืœื ื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื


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: โ€œHe shall not enterโ€ (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.


ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืชื™ืžื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื›ืจืช ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ื ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืžื™ืชืช ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ


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 Naแธฅmanโ€™s explanation of this mishna must be rejected.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ื’ืจ ื‘ืžืžื–ืจืช ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื’ืจ ื“ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืื‘ืœ ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืจืื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืœื


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.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืชืฉืข ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ืžืฆืจื™ ื•ืื“ื•ืžื™ ื›ื•ืชื™ ื•ื ืชื™ืŸ ื—ืœืœ ื•ืžืžื–ืจ ืฉื‘ืื• ืขืœ ื”ื›ื”ื ืช ื•ืขืœ ื”ืœื•ื™ื” ื•ืขืœ ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ [ืคืกืœื•ื”] ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื–ืจืขื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืคื•ืกืœ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื–ืจืขื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืื™ื ื• ืคื•ืกืœ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ


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 แธฅalal, 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:


  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddushin: 74 – 82 + Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

In this final lesson, we will continue to discuss who is able to marry a Cohen. We will also learn...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 74: Marrying In

A new mishnah, with more on who's allowed to marry whom. The people who are prohibited from marrying others can...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 72: The Sun Rises, the Sun Sets

Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi tasks Levi with characterizing several different segments of society. Plus, more comments from R. Yehudah HaNasi, on...

Kiddushin 74

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 74

ื•ื ื™ื—ื–ื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืžืžืืŸ ื ืงื˜ ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื ืงื˜ ืžืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืืžืจ ื—ื“ ืžื“ืขืชืื™ ื•ื—ื“ ื‘ืขืœ ื›ื•ืจื—ื™ ื•ืœื ื™ื“ื™ืข ื”ื™ ืžื“ืขืชื• ื•ื”ื™ ืœื ืžื“ืขืชื•


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 sellerโ€™s possession, he is not deemed credible to testify to whom he sold it.


ื ืืžืŸ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื–ื” ื–ื›ื™ืชื™ ื•ืœื–ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืชื™ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืขืœื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื ืขื•ืžื“ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื ืขื•ืžื“ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื™ื ื• ื ืืžืŸ ื•ื ื™ื—ื–ื™ ื–ื›ื•ืชื ืžืืŸ ื ืงื™ื˜


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?


ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืงืจื™ืข ื–ื›ื•ืชื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื ื™ื”ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ืฉื•ื“ื ื“ื“ื™ื™ื ื™


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 judgesโ€™ 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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื—ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ื—ื™ื” ืœืืœืชืจ ืืžื• ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืื‘ื™ื• ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื™ืจ ื™ื›ื™ืจื ื• ืœืื—ืจื™ื


The Gemara continues to discuss the credibility of various people with regard to a firstborn. Rav Naแธฅman 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: โ€œBut he shall acknowledge the firstbornโ€ (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.


ืžื›ืืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืืžืŸ ืื“ื ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ื” ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ื›ืฉื ืฉื ืืžืŸ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ื” ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื›ืš ื ืืžืŸ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ื” ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื–ื” ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื ืืžืŸ


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 แธฅalutza. 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.


ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื”ื™ื” ืงื•ืจื ืœืฉืชื•ืงื™ ื‘ื“ื•ืงื™ ืžืื™ ื‘ื“ื•ืงื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืฉื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืืช ืืžื• ื•ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื›ืฉืจ ื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื ืืžื ืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืชื ื™ื ื ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ื‘ืจืช ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื” ืžื” ื˜ื™ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื–ื” ืืžืจื” ืœื”ื ืžืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื ืืžื ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืžืคื™ื” ืื ื• ื—ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ


ยง 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 donโ€™t live from, i.e., we donโ€™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?


ื—ื“ื ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื•ื—ื“ื ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ื‘ืชื” ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ื” ืคื•ืกืœ ื‘ื‘ืชื”


The Gemara answers: Abba Shaulโ€™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.


ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ื” ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ื‘ืชื” ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืžืื™ ืืชื ืœืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ


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?


ื“ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืขื“ื™ืคื ืžื“ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื“ืื™ ืžื”ืชื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืชื ื“ืจื•ื‘ ื›ืฉืจื™ืŸ ืืฆืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืจื•ื‘ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืืฆืœื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ


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


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ


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 otherโ€™s families. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits them from marrying anyone other than those who share their specific flaw.


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื“ืืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ื“ืืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื•ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืืŸ ื•ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื”ืกืคื™ืงื•ืช ืฉืชื•ืงื™ ืืกื•ืคื™ ื•ื›ื•ืชื™


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.


ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืžื–ื™ืจื™ ื•ื ืชื™ื ื™ ืฉืชื•ืงื™ ื•ืืกื•ืคื™ ื”ื ืชื ื ืœื™ื” ืจื™ืฉื ืžืžื–ื™ืจื™ ื•ื ืชื™ื ื™ ืฉืชื•ืงื™ ื•ืืกื•ืคื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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, wasnโ€™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 otherโ€™s families?


ื•ืชื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ืื”ื™ื™ื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืื•ื“ืืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื“ืืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ื“ืืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื•ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”


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.


ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ืื’ืจ ื‘ืžืžื–ืจืช ืžื™ื“ื™ ื’ืจ ื‘ืžืžื–ืจืช ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืงืชื ื™


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”


Rav Yehuda says:


ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžืื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื•ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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 Yoแธฅai, 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.


ื•ื ื•ืงืžื” ื‘ื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื“ื” ืชื‘ืจื”


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 Yoแธฅaiโ€™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.


ืืœื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื”ื ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื“ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ื•ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื”ืจื™ ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ื“ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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 Yoแธฅai, 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 Yoแธฅai.


ื•ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื•ื”ืจื™ ืืœืžื ื” ื•ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื—ืœืœื” ื•ื–ื•ื ื” ื“ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื•ืชื• ื”ื ืžื•ืชืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื”ืจื™ ื’ืจ ืฉืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื›ื”ื ืช ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืžืžื–ืจืช


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 divorcรฉe, and a woman disqualified from marrying a priest [แธฅalala], 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.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื›ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ืฉื ืืช ื‘ืชื• ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ื’ืจ ืฉื ืฉื ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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 Yaโ€™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 โ€œcongregation.โ€


ื•ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืœ ืฉื›ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ืฉื ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื”ืจื™ ื—ืœืœ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ืฉื ื‘ืชื• ื•ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื“ื•ืกืชืื™ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”


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 [แธฅalal] who married a Jewish woman, as a priest may not marry his daughter, since she is a แธฅalala. 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 แธฅalal and a Jewish woman may marry a priest.


ื•ื”ืจื™ ื—ืœืœ ืฉื ืฉื ื—ืœืœื” ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ืฉื ื‘ืชื• ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื ืžื™ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื•ืชื• ื”ื ืžื•ืชืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื”ืจื™ ื’ืจ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื™ืฉื ื‘ืชื• ื•ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื”ื›ื ืžืžื–ืจ ืžืื—ื•ืชื• ื•ืžืžื–ืจ ืžืืฉืช ืื™ืฉ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•


Rather, Rav Naแธฅman 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.


ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืžื–ืจ ืžืื—ื•ืชื• ื ืžื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžืืฉืช ืื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ ืžืื—ื•ืชื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ


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.


ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืžืžื–ืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื‘ืœื ื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื


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: โ€œHe shall not enterโ€ (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.


ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืชื™ืžื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื›ืจืช ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ื ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืžื™ืชืช ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ


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 Naแธฅmanโ€™s explanation of this mishna must be rejected.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื”


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.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ื’ืจ ื‘ืžืžื–ืจืช ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื’ืจ ื“ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืื‘ืœ ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืจืื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืœื


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.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืชืฉืข ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ืžืฆืจื™ ื•ืื“ื•ืžื™ ื›ื•ืชื™ ื•ื ืชื™ืŸ ื—ืœืœ ื•ืžืžื–ืจ ืฉื‘ืื• ืขืœ ื”ื›ื”ื ืช ื•ืขืœ ื”ืœื•ื™ื” ื•ืขืœ ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ [ืคืกืœื•ื”] ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื–ืจืขื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืคื•ืกืœ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื–ืจืขื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืื™ื ื• ืคื•ืกืœ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ


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 แธฅalal, 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