Kiddushin 78
– זוֹנָה מְשַׁוֵּי לַהּ, חֲלָלָה לָא מְשַׁוֵּי לַהּ. חָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ – עֲשָׂאָהּ חֲלָלָה.
renders her a zona, as he was forbidden to her, but he does not render her a ḥalala, since her status as a zona does not result from a prohibition specific to the priesthood, but due to the prohibition of a forbidden relative. If her brother, or any other priest, again engaged in intercourse with her, he thereby makes her a ḥalala, in accordance with the halakha pertaining to a priest who engages in intercourse with a zona.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם, אַחַת מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יִקָּח״, וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל״. וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״! בְּשֶׁלֹּא גָּמַר בִּיאָתוֹ.
§ Rav Yehuda says: A High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow is flogged two sets of lashes, one set due to transgressing the prohibition of: “A widow, or one divorced, or a ḥalala, or a zona, these shall he not take” (Leviticus 21:14), and one set due to transgressing the prohibition of: “And he shall not profane” (Leviticus 21:15), since he profanes the woman with whom he engages in intercourse. The Gemara asks: And let him also be flogged with a third set of lashes due to the complete phrase: “He shall not profane his offspring,” because the offspring resulting from that act of intercourse is a ḥalal. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a situation where he did not complete his act of sexual intercourse. Since this act does not lead to pregnancy, he is not flogged for profaning his offspring.
מֵתִיב רָבָא: אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת, מַאי לָאו שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת וְתוּ לָא?
Rava raises an objection against Rav Yehuda’s statement from a mishna (Makkot 13a): A High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow who was previously a divorcée is flogged due to two labels of prohibitions. What, is it not stating that he is flogged due to two labels and no more? This indicates that he receives only one flogging for each prohibition, and not two as Rav Yehuda taught.
לָא, שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת עַל זֶה וּשְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת עַל זֶה.
The Gemara rejects this: No; it means due to two labels for this, i.e., he is flogged two sets of lashes for engaging in intercourse with a widow, one for transgressing: “Shall he not take,” and one for transgressing: “He shall not profane,” and two labels for that, i.e., engaging in intercourse with a divorcée.
אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא: גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל אַחַת! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל אַחַת, וּלְעוֹלָם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת.
The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of that same mishna: If a priest engages in sexual intercourse with a divorcée who was also a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza], he is liable to receive lashes due to only one transgression, since a ḥalutza is not forbidden to a priest by Torah law. This is contrary to the opinion of Rav Yehuda, that he should receive two sets of lashes for engaging in intercourse with a divorcée. The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: He is liable to receive lashes due to only one act, that of engaging in intercourse with a divorcée, but actually he is liable to receive two sets of lashes for his act of intercourse with a divorcée, since she is forbidden due to two labels. He does not receive an additional set of lashes on account of her being a ḥalutza, as this prohibition is by rabbinic law.
וַחֲלוּצָה דְּרַבָּנַן? וְהָתַנְיָא: גְּרוּשָׁה – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא גְּרוּשָׁה, חֲלוּצָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִשָּׁה״! מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara asks: And is a ḥalutza forbidden to a priest only by rabbinic law? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: It states in the Torah that a priest may not marry a divorcée. I have derived only a divorcée; from where do I derive that a ḥalutza is also forbidden? The verse states: “And a woman divorced” (Leviticus 21:7), with the additional conjunction of “and” serving to include a ḥalutza, that she is also considered to be a type of divorced woman. The Gemara rejects this: Even so, this prohibition is only by rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support, but it is not the true source of the halakha.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: קִידֵּשׁ – לוֹקֶה, בָּעַל – לוֹקֶה. קִידֵּשׁ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יִקָּח״. בָּעַל לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל״. רָבָא אָמַר: בָּעַל – לוֹקֶה, לֹא בָּעַל – אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יִקַּח… וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל״ מָה טַעַם ״לֹא יִקַּח״? מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל״.
Abaye says: A priest who betrothed a woman forbidden to him is flogged; if he engaged in sexual intercourse with her he is flogged additional lashes. The Gemara clarifies this: If he betrothed, he is flogged due to transgressing the prohibition of: “Shall he not take.” If he also engaged in intercourse, he is flogged due to transgressing the prohibition of: “He shall not profane.” Rava says: If he engaged in intercourse he is flogged; if he did not engage in intercourse, he is not flogged at all, because it is written: “Shall he not take…and he shall not profane,” which Rava understands to mean: For what reason is he commanded not to take? It is so that he not profane. Rava holds that he is not liable for taking, i.e., betrothing, the woman, but only for engaging in intercourse with her, as this leads to profanation.
וּמוֹדֶה אַבָּיֵי בְּמַחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ, שֶׁאִם קִידֵּשׁ וְלֹא בָּעַל – שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. ״לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לֵיכָּא.
The Gemara notes: And although Abaye holds that the act of betrothal itself is forbidden, he concedes in the case of an Israelite who remarries his divorcée after she had been married to someone else in the interim, that if he betrothed her without engaging in intercourse, he is not flogged. Why not? It is as the Merciful One states in the Torah with regard to this prohibition: “Take her again to be his wife” (Deuteronomy 24:4), which indicates that the act of betrothal is forbidden only if it leads to the intimacy of marriage, and there is no such intimacy here since he has not engaged in intercourse with her.
וּמוֹדֶה רָבָא בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה, שֶׁאִם בָּעַל וְלֹא קִידֵּשׁ – שֶׁלּוֹקֶה. ״וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וַהֲרֵי הוּא חִילֵּל. וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים בְּמַחְזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ, שֶׁאִם בָּעַל וְלֹא קִידֵּשׁ – שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, דֶּרֶךְ לִיקּוּחִין אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.
And conversely, Rava concedes in the case of a High Priest with a widow, that if he engaged in sexual intercourse without betrothing her, he is flogged for the act of intercourse, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And he shall not profane his offspring among his people” (Leviticus 21:15), and he has profaned her with his act of intercourse. And they both concede in the case of the prohibition with regard to one who remarries his divorcée that if he engaged in intercourse with her without betrothing her he is not flogged, because the Torah forbade them to reestablish their union only through the manner of taking, i.e., betrothal, but it did not prohibit the act of intercourse on its own.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּת גֵּר זָכָר כְּבַת חָלָל. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּת גֵּר זָכָר כְּבַת חָלָל זָכָר. וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: מָה חָלָל, שֶׁבָּא מִטִּפָּה כְּשֵׁרָה – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה, גֵּר, שֶׁבָּא מִטִּפָּה פְּסוּלָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁבִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה?
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male ḥalal, and is prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male ḥalal, and is prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. And logic dictates that this is so: Just as in the case of a ḥalal, who comes from a fit drop of semen, as both his parents are Jewish, his daughter is nevertheless unfit to marry into the priesthood, in the case of a convert, who comes from an unfit drop, as he was born a gentile, is it not logical that his daughter should be unfit to marry into the priesthood?
מָה לְחָלָל, שֶׁכֵּן יְצִירָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵין יְצִירָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה, בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
The Gemara counters this derivation: What is notable about a ḥalal? He is notable in that he is formed through a transgression, whereas the gentile parents of a convert were permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with each other. Therefore, the halakha of the daughter of a ḥalal might be more stringent than the halakha of the daughter of a convert. The Gemara responds: The case of a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow shall prove that this aspect is not germane to the fitness of the offspring, since the formation of the High Priest was not through a transgression, and yet his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood, indicating that being formed through a transgression does not play a role in this matter.
מָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה, שֶׁכֵּן בִּיאָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה! חָלָל יוֹכִיחַ.
The Gemara counters again: What is notable about a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow? He is notable in that his act of intercourse is a transgression. This aspect is what leads to the stringent halakha that his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara responds: The case of a ḥalal will prove that this aspect is not germane to the fitness of the offspring, as his daughter is unfit despite the fact that his act of intercourse does not involve a transgression.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁאֵינָן בְּרוֹב הַקָּהָל, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּרוֹב הַקָּהָל וּבִתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this person, a ḥalal, is not like the aspect of that person, a High Priest, as with regard to each of them there is a unique reason for the halakha to be stringent. Despite this, their common denominator is that they are unlike most of the congregation, in that they both differ from Jews of unflawed lineage, either because their formation or their act of sexual intercourse involved a transgression, and their daughters are therefore unfit to marry into the priesthood. I will also bring the case of the convert, who is unlike most of the congregation, and therefore his daughter is also unfit to marry into the priesthood.
מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶם צַד עֲבֵירָה!
This is rejected: What is notable about their common denominator is that the reason they are not like most of the congregation includes an aspect of a transgression, either with regard to their formation or to their act of intercourse. Therefore, the halakha of the daughter of a convert cannot be derived from them.
לָא תֵּימָא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה יוֹכִיחַ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מִצְרִי רִאשׁוֹן יוֹכִיחַ.
The Gemara modifies the proof: Do not say that a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow will prove it; rather, say that a first-generation male Egyptian convert who married a first-generation female Egyptian convert will prove it. Although their intercourse does not involve a transgression, their offspring are nevertheless unfit to marry into the priesthood, as Egyptians may enter into the congregation only after three generations.
מָה לְמִצְרִי רִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל. חָלָל יוֹכִיחַ.
This proof is also rejected: What is notable about a first-generation Egyptian? He is notable in that he is not fit to enter into the congregation at all, and that is why his offspring may not marry into the priesthood. The Gemara responds that a ḥalal will prove that this aspect is not germane to the fitness of the offspring, since his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood although his offspring may enter into the congregation.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין. לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁאֵינָן בְּרוֹב קָהָל, וּבִתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּרוֹב קָהָל וּבִתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
And the derivation has reverted to its starting point, as the halakha of the daughter of a convert cannot be derived from the case of the Egyptian alone or from the case of the ḥalal alone. The aspect of this person, an Egyptian convert, is not like the aspect of that person, a ḥalal, as with regard to each of them there is a unique reason for the halakha to be stringent. Despite this, their common denominator is that they are unlike most of the congregation, in that they both differ from Jews of unflawed lineage and their daughters are consequently unfit to marry into the priesthood. I will also bring the case of the convert, who is unlike most of the congregation, and therefore his daughter is also unfit to marry into the priesthood.
מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן פּוֹסְלִים בְּבִיאָתָם. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: גֵּר נָמֵי פּוֹסֵל בְּבִיאָתוֹ, וּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ בַּמָּה הַצַּד מֵהַאי דִּינָא.
The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about their common denominator is that they disqualify the daughter of a priest from marrying a priest through their act of intercourse, which is not the case with a convert. The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Yehuda holds that a convert also disqualifies the daughter of a priest from marrying a priest through his act of intercourse, and he derives the halakha that the daughter of a convert is unfit to marry into the priesthood by means of an analogy derived from the common factor of two sources, i.e., from this halakha of a ḥalal and of an Egyptian.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר גֵּר. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: גִּיּוֹרֶת פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד – כְּשֵׁרָה לַכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכֹל הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים… הַחֲיוּ לָכֶם״, וַהֲלֹא פִּינְחָס הָיָה עִמָּהֶם! וְרַבָּנַן? ״הַחֲיוּ לָכֶם״ – לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת.
§ The mishna states that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says that the daughter of a convert and a Jewish woman is fit to marry into the priesthood. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A female who converts at less than three years and one day old is fit to marry into the priesthood, as it is stated after the war with Midian: “But all the female children who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:18), i.e., you may marry them. But wasn’t Pinehas the priest with them, and yet the Torah permitted these women to all of them, which indicates that girls who are not of age when they convert are permitted even to priests. And how do the Rabbis, who hold that even a girl who converts at less than three years and one day old is unfit to marry into the priesthood, interpret this verse? In their opinion, “keep alive for yourselves” means as slaves and as maidservants, but not for marriage.
וְכוּלָּן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה לֹא יִקְחוּ לָהֶם לְנָשִׁים כִּי אִם בְּתוּלֹת מִזֶּרַע בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל״, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: עַד דְּאִית כׇּל זֶרַע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: ״מִזֶּרַע״, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת זֶרַע.
The Gemara comments: And all of the tanna’im who have a dispute with regard to the fitness of the daughter of a convert for marrying into the priesthood expounded a single verse. It states with regard to priests: “Neither shall they take as their wives a widow, nor her that divorced; but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel” (Ezekiel 44:22). Rabbi Yehuda holds: A priest may marry a woman only if the entire seed is from those born to the Jewish people, but not if one of the parents is a convert. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds: “Of the seed of the house of Israel” indicates that not all of the seed must come from the house of Israel, and even if part of the seed is from the house of Israel, that is sufficient to allow her to marry a priest.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: מִי שֶׁנִּזְרְעוּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי סָבַר: מִי שֶׁנִּזְרְעוּ בְּתוּלֶיהָ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
Rabbi Yosei, who holds that even the daughter of two converts is permitted to marry into the priesthood, holds that “of the seed of the house of Israel” means one who was seeded, i.e., conceived, in Israel, and the children of converts were conceived by Jewish parents. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who permits a female who converted at less than three years and one day old to marry into the priesthood, holds that the phrase “virgins of the seed of the house of Israel” is referring to one whose hymen was formed as a Jew, i.e., a woman who was already Jewish when her hymen completed its formation, which occurs at the age of three.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרָבָא:
Rav Naḥman said to Rava:
הַאי קְרָא, רֵישָׁא בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְסֵיפָא בְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.
Concerning this verse from Ezekiel, the first clause addresses a case with a High Priest, as it states that he may not marry a widow, and the latter clause addresses a case with a common priest, as it states that he may marry a widow. Is that a reasonable manner in which to interpret a verse? Rava said to him: Yes, that is the correct interpretation of the verse.
וּכְתַב קְרָא הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנֵר אֱלֹהִים טֶרֶם יִכְבֶּה וּשְׁמוּאֵל שֹׁכֵב בְּהֵיכַל ה׳״ – וַהֲלֹא אֵין יְשִׁיבָה בַּעֲזָרָה אֶלָּא לְמַלְכֵי בֵית דָּוִד בִּלְבַד! אֶלָּא: ״נֵר אֱלֹהִים טֶרֶם יִכְבֶּה״ – בְּהֵיכַל ה׳, ״וּשְׁמוּאֵל שֹׁכֵב״ – בִּמְקוֹמוֹ.
Rav Naḥman proceeded to ask: But can a verse be written in this way, addressing two different subjects without any demarcation? Rava said to him: Yes, and there is a similar case, as it is written: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was laid down to sleep in the Temple of the Lord” (I Samuel 3:3). If read literally, this verse is puzzling. It apparently states that Samuel was lying in the Sanctuary, but there is a right to sit in the courtyard of the Temple only for the kings of the house of David alone. How then could Samuel be laid down to sleep in the Temple? Rather, the verse should be understood as follows: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out” in the Temple of the Lord, “and Samuel was laid down” in his place outside the Temple.
״וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ״ – ״מִכֹּהֵן״ – אִין, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לָא?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ״ – מִשְּׁאָר כֹּהֲנִים יִקָּחוּ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ״ – מִשְּׁאָר כֹּהֲנִים יִקָּחוּ.
Since the Gemara quoted the verse in Ezekiel, it proceeds to discuss it further. The continuation of that verse states: “And a widow who is the widow of a priest, they may take” (Ezekiel 44:22). Does this mean that a priest may marry the widow of a priest, yes, but the widow of an Israelite he may not marry? This is counter to the halakha that allows a priest to marry any widow. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: “And a widow who is the widow of a priest they may take,” meaning that of the rest of the priests, they may take. In other words, it is permitted for all other priests, i.e., common priests, to marry widows, and only the High Priest may not marry them. That is also taught in a baraita: “Of a priest they may take” means of the rest of the priests, they may take.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִן הַמַּשִּׂיאִים לַכְּהוּנָּה יִקָּחוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: בַּת גֵּר זָכָר כְּבַת חָלָל זָכָר, כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ – אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ – אִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ.
Rabbi Yehuda states a different explanation of the verse: A widow who is the widow of one whose daughters are fit to marry into the priesthood, they may take. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning above, as he says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male ḥalal, and he ruled that anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may likewise marry his widow; anyone whose daughter you may not marry, e.g., a male convert, you may not marry his widow either. The verse therefore states that a priest may marry the widow only of one whose daughter is permitted to marry into the priesthood.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת. אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּמִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ נָהֲגוּ כֹּהֲנִים סִילְסוּל בְּעַצְמָן כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: Even if there was a male convert who married a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood. Rav Hamnuna says in the name of Ulla: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and similarly, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And from the day the Temple was destroyed, the priests were accustomed to act with a higher standard for themselves, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, and they would marry the daughter of a convert only if one parent was born Jewish.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר לִי הוּנָא: בָּא לִימָּלֵךְ – מוֹרִים לוֹ כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, נָשָׂא – אֵין מוֹצִיאִים אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ, כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
Rav Naḥman says: Rav Huna said to me: If a priest comes to consult with us as to whether or not he should marry the daughter of two converts, we instruct him not to, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. But if he married her, we do not remove her from him, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as the halakha follows his opinion, as stated above.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר ״בְּנִי זֶה מַמְזֵר״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים עַל הָעוּבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ מַמְזֵר הוּא – אֵינָם נֶאֱמָנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמָנִים.
MISHNA: One who says: This son of mine is a mamzer, e.g., if he claims that the son was born to one forbidden to him by a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet, he is not deemed credible to render him a mamzer. And even if both of them, the father and the mother, admit that a fetus in her womb is a mamzer, they are not deemed credible. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are deemed credible.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם״? לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא אִיהוּ, דְּלָא קִים לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ אִיהִי דְּקִים לַהּ – לָא מְהֵימְנָא. וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא הֵיכָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חֲזָקָה דְכַשְׁרוּת, דְּלָא מְהֵימְנִי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ עוּבָּר נָמֵי, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ חֲזָקָה דְכַשְׁרוּת לָא מְהֵימְנִי.
GEMARA: What is the added novelty indicated by the phrase: And even if both of them? What is taught there that is not stated in the clause that taught that a father is not deemed credible to state that his son is a mamzer? The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state this halakha with regard to his claim, when it is not clear to him, i.e., a father can never be sure that a child is his. Rather, the halakha is the same even with regard to her, when it is clear to her who the father is, and yet she is nevertheless not deemed credible. And additionally, it is not necessary to state when the child has a presumption of unflawed lineage, as he was assumed to be of unflawed lineage before his parents came to testify, that they are not deemed credible. Rather, even in the case of a fetus, who does not have a presumption of unflawed lineage, as he has no status with regard to lineage until he is born, the parents are likewise not deemed credible.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר נֶאֱמָנִים. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״יַכִּיר״ – יַכִּירֶנּוּ לַאֲחֵרִים. מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״, כָּךְ נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר ״זֶה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה״ וְ״זֶה בֶּן חֲלוּצָה״. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.
The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: They are deemed credible. This is as it is taught in a baraita: Expounding the verse: “He shall acknowledge the firstborn” (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Sages said: He, the father, shall acknowledge him to others. In other words, he is deemed credible to tell others that this is his firstborn. From here, Rabbi Yehuda said that a person is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son. And just as a person is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, so too, a person is deemed credible to say about his son: This is a son of a divorced woman, or: This is a son of a ḥalutza. And the Rabbis say: As far as these latter claims are concerned, he is not deemed credible. He is deemed credible only to state which son is his firstborn.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״יַכִּיר״, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, ״יַכִּיר״ לְמָה לִי?
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, this is the meaning of that which is written: “He shall acknowledge,” as he derives from these words that a father is deemed credible to attest to the identity of his sons. But according to the Rabbis in the mishna, why do I need the phrase “he shall acknowledge”?
בִּצְרִיךְ הֶכֵּירָא. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם? פְּשִׁיטָא, לְמָה לִי קְרָא? מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי מִיתְּבַהּ לֵיהּ מַתָּנָה, מִי לָא יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ?
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for a case when he requires identification, if the identity of the firstborn is unknown. In such a situation the verse teaches that the father is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this relevant? Does it refer to the requirement: “By giving him a double portion” (Deuteronomy 21:17), i.e., that the firstborn receives a double share of the inheritance? Isn’t it obvious that he is deemed credible with regard to this halakha? Why do I need a verse to teach this? His claim is supported by the fact that he could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo]: If he desired to give him a double portion as a gift while he was alive, would the court not give it to him? Since the father could have given a double portion to the firstborn without having to testify that he is his firstborn, it cannot be that the verse is teaching us that he is deemed credible with regard to the halakha that a firstborn receives a double portion of inheritance.
בִּנְכָסִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְאַחַר מִיכֵּן.
The Gemara answers: The verse is referring to property that came into his possession at a later point, which he was unable to give to his son at the time that he came to testify. The verse teaches that the son whom the father states is the firstborn will receive a double portion even of that property.
וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם, ״יַכִּיר״ לְמָה לִי? שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹסֵס.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, who says that a person can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world, which would mean that a person can give away his property even before it enters his possession, why do I need the verse: “He shall acknowledge”? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where property came into the father’s possession when he was moribund, at which point he cannot transfer ownership of any of his property to others. It is with regard to such property that the verse states: “He shall acknowledge,” to teach that the son whom the father states is the firstborn will receive a double portion even of that property.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁנָּתַן רְשׁוּת לִשְׁלוּחוֹ לְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְהָלַךְ הוּא וְקִדְּשָׁהּ, אִם שֶׁלּוֹ קָדְמוּ – קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין, וְאִם שֶׁל שְׁלוּחוֹ קָדְמוּ – קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין, וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ
MISHNA: In a case of one who authorized his agent to betroth his daughter to a man that the agent would deem fit, and the father went and betrothed her to someone else, if his betrothal preceded that of the agent, his betrothal is a valid betrothal; and if the betrothal of his agent preceded his own, the betrothal of the agent is a valid betrothal. And if it is not known whose betrothal came first,
