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

Daf Yomi

October 30, 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 78

Today’s daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima to Naaran ben Rachel Perla who was injured yesterday and to all those injured over the past few weeks.ย 

Rav Yehuda rules that a kohen gadol who betroths a widow (or a regular kohen with a woman who is forbidden to him) gets two sets of lashes – one for “do not take her” and one for “do not desecrate your seed” which is understood to be referring to making the woman a chalala. A few questions are raised against Rav Yehuda’s statement. Abaye and Rava disagree about whether lashes are given even if one betrothed a woman without having relations with her or only if they also had relations. In what situations are there clear exceptions to the rules? What is the logical argument to support Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that the daughter of a male convert cannot marry a kohen? Rabbi Yehuda and those who disagree with him derive their positions from a verse in Ezekiel 44:22 – as each understands the verse differently. How is the continuation of that verse meant to be understood? There is a debate about whether a father is believed to say his son is a mamzer or if both parents say the child is a mamzer. Both opinions derive their opinions from the laws of ‘yakir‘ the right of the father to declare which son is the firstborn – can we say this is true for disqualifying the child as well or not?

ื–ื•ื ื” ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื” ื—ืœืœื” ืœื ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื” ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ืขืฉืื” ื—ืœืœื”


renders her a zona, as he was forbidden to her, but he does not render her a แธฅalala, 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 แธฅalala, in accordance with the halakha pertaining to a priest who engages in intercourse with a zona.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืœื•ืงื” ืฉืชื™ื ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ืงื— ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ ื•ืœื™ืœืงื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ ื–ืจืขื• ื‘ืฉืœื ื’ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืืชื•


ยง 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: โ€œA widow, or one divorced, or a แธฅalala, or a zona, these shall he not takeโ€ (Leviticus 21:14), and one set due to transgressing the prohibition of: โ€œAnd he shall not profaneโ€ (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: โ€œHe shall not profane his offspring,โ€ because the offspring resulting from that act of intercourse is a แธฅalal. 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.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ืืœืžื ื” ื•ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืœื•ืงื” ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืฉื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ื•ืชื• ืœื


Rava raises an objection against Rav Yehudaโ€™s statement from a mishna (Makkot 13a): A High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow who was previously a divorcรฉe 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.


ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ืขืœ ื–ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ืขืœ ื–ื”


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: โ€œShall he not take,โ€ and one for transgressing: โ€œHe shall not profane,โ€ and two labels for that, i.e., engaging in intercourse with a divorcรฉe.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืœืขื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืช


The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of that same mishna: If a priest engages in sexual intercourse with a divorcรฉe who was also a yevama who performed แธฅalitza [แธฅalutza], he is liable to receive lashes due to only one transgression, since a แธฅalutza 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 divorcรฉe. 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 divorcรฉe, but actually he is liable to receive two sets of lashes for his act of intercourse with a divorcรฉe, since she is forbidden due to two labels. He does not receive an additional set of lashes on account of her being a แธฅalutza, as this prohibition is by rabbinic law.


ื•ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืืฉื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืงืจื ืืกืžื›ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื


The Gemara asks: And is a แธฅalutza forbidden to a priest only by rabbinic law? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: It states in the Torah that a priest may not marry a divorcรฉe. I have derived only a divorcรฉe; from where do I derive that a แธฅalutza is also forbidden? The verse states: โ€œAnd a woman divorcedโ€ (Leviticus 21:7), with the additional conjunction of โ€œandโ€ serving to include a แธฅalutza, 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.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืงื™ื“ืฉ ืœื•ืงื” ื‘ืขืœ ืœื•ืงื” ืงื™ื“ืฉ ืœื•ืงื” ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืœื•ืงื” ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ืœื•ืงื” ืœื ื‘ืขืœ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ืงื— ื•ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืœื ื™ืงื— ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ


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: โ€œShall he not take.โ€ If he also engaged in intercourse, he is flogged due to transgressing the prohibition of: โ€œHe shall not profane.โ€ 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: โ€œShall he not takeโ€ฆand he shall not profane,โ€ 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.


ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื’ืจื•ืฉืชื• ืฉืื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื•ืœื ื‘ืขืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ืœืงื—ืชื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืœื• ืœืืฉื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื ืœื™ื›ื


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 divorcรฉe 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: โ€œTake her again to be his wifeโ€ (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.


ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืฉืื ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ืฉืœื•ืงื” ื•ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ ื–ืจืขื• ื‘ืขืžื™ื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื—ื™ืœืœ ื•ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื‘ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื’ืจื•ืฉืชื• ืฉืื ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ื“ืจืš ืœื™ืงื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื”


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: โ€œAnd he shall not profane his offspring among his peopleโ€ (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 divorcรฉe 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.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ื–ื›ืจ ื›ื‘ืช ื—ืœืœ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ื–ื›ืจ ื›ื‘ืช ื—ืœืœ ื–ื›ืจ ื•ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืžื” ื—ืœืœ ืฉื‘ื ืžื˜ืคื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื’ืจ ืฉื‘ื ืžื˜ืคื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”


ยง The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male แธฅalal, 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 แธฅalal, and is prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. And logic dictates that this is so: Just as in the case of a แธฅalal, 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?


ืžื” ืœื—ืœืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฆื™ืจืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉืื™ืŸ ื™ืฆื™ืจืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”


The Gemara counters this derivation: What is notable about a แธฅalal? 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 แธฅalal 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.


ืžื” ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ื™ืืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื—ืœืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—


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 แธฅalal 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.


ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืงื”ืœ ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืืช ื”ื’ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืงื”ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”


And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this person, a แธฅalal, 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.


ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ื ืฆื“ ืขื‘ื™ืจื”


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.


ืœื ืชื™ืžื ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืžืฆืจื™ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—


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.


ืžื” ืœืžืฆืจื™ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื—ืœืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—


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 แธฅalal 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.


ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืงื”ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืืช ื”ื’ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืงื”ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”


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 แธฅalal alone. The aspect of this person, an Egyptian convert, is not like the aspect of that person, a แธฅalal, 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.


ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืืชื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื’ืจ ื ืžื™ ืคื•ืกืœ ื‘ื‘ื™ืืชื• ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ื‘ืžื” ื”ืฆื“ ืžื”ืื™ ื“ื™ื ื


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 แธฅalal and of an Egyptian.


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ืจ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื›ืฉืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื˜ืฃ ื‘ื ืฉื™ื ื”ื—ื™ื• ืœื›ื ื•ื”ืœื ืคื™ื ื—ืก ื”ื™ื” ืขืžื”ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื• ืœื›ื ืœืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ืœืฉืคื—ื•ืช


ยง The mishna states that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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 Yoแธฅai 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: โ€œBut all the female children who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselvesโ€ (Numbers 31:18), i.e., you may marry them. But wasnโ€™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, โ€œkeep alive for yourselvesโ€ means as slaves and as maidservants, but not for marriage.


ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืžืงืจื ืื—ื“ ื“ืจืฉื• ืืœืžื ื” ื•ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ืœื”ื ืœื ืฉื™ื ื›ื™ ืื ื‘ืชื•ืœืช ืžื–ืจืข ื‘ื™ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืขื“ ื“ืื™ืช ื›ืœ ื–ืจืข ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื–ืจืข ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืงืฆืช ื–ืจืข


The Gemara comments: And all of the tannaโ€™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: โ€œNeither shall they take as their wives a widow, nor her that divorced; but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israelโ€ (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 Yaโ€™akov holds: โ€œOf the seed of the house of Israelโ€ 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.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ ืฉื ื–ืจืขื• ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ ืฉื ื–ืจืขื• ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ


Rabbi Yosei, who holds that even the daughter of two converts is permitted to marry into the priesthood, holds that โ€œof the seed of the house of Israelโ€ means one who was seeded, i.e., conceived, in Israel, and the children of converts were conceived by Jewish parents. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai, who permits a female who converted at less than three years and one day old to marry into the priesthood, holds that the phrase โ€œvirgins of the seed of the house of Israelโ€ 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœืจื‘ื


Rav Naแธฅman said to Rava:


ื”ืื™ ืงืจื ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ


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.


ื•ื›ืชื‘ ืงืจื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื˜ืจื ื™ื›ื‘ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉื›ื‘ ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื”ืณ ื•ื”ืœื ืื™ืŸ ื™ืฉื™ื‘ื” ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ืืœื ืœืžืœื›ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื•ื“ ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืืœื ื ืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื˜ืจื ื™ื›ื‘ื” ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื”ืณ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉื›ื‘ ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื•


Rav Naแธฅman 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: โ€œAnd the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was laid down to sleep in the Temple of the Lordโ€ (Iย 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: โ€œAnd the lamp of God was not yet gone outโ€ in the Temple of the Lord, โ€œand Samuel was laid downโ€ in his place outside the Temple.


ื•ื”ืืœืžื ื” ืืฉืจ ืชื”ื™ื” ืืœืžื ื” ืžื›ื”ืŸ ื™ืงื—ื• ืžื›ื”ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืžื›ื”ืŸ ื™ืงื—ื• ืžืฉืืจ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื™ืงื—ื• ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžื›ื”ืŸ ื™ืงื—ื• ืžืฉืืจ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื™ืงื—ื•


Since the Gemara quoted the verse in Ezekiel, it proceeds to discuss it further. The continuation of that verse states: โ€œAnd a widow who is the widow of a priest, they may takeโ€ (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: โ€œAnd a widow who is the widow of a priest they may take,โ€ 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: โ€œOf a priest they may takeโ€ means of the rest of the priests, they may take.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืžืฉื™ืื™ื ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื™ืงื—ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ื–ื›ืจ ื›ื‘ืช ื—ืœืœ ื–ื›ืจ ื›ืœ ืฉืืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ื‘ืชื• ืืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ืืœืžื ืชื• ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ื‘ืชื• ืื™ ืืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ืืœืžื ืชื•


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 แธฅalal, 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.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื’ืจ ืฉื ืฉื ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืขื•ืœื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืžื™ื•ื ืฉื—ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื ื”ื’ื• ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืกื™ืœืกื•ืœ ื‘ืขืฆืžืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘


ยง 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 แธคana 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 Yaโ€™akov, and they would marry the daughter of a convert only if one parent was born Jewish.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ื ืœื™ืžืœืš ืžื•ืจื™ื ืœื• ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื ืฉื ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ื ืื•ืชื” ืžืžื ื• ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™


Rav Naแธฅman 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 Yaโ€™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.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ื™ ื–ื” ืžืžื–ืจ ืื™ื ื• ื ืืžืŸ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืžืขื™ื” ืžืžื–ืจ ื”ื•ื ืื™ื ื ื ืืžื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžื ื™ื


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.


ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืื™ื”ื• ื“ืœื ืงื™ื ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืื™ื”ื™ ื“ืงื™ื ืœื” ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ืงื” ื“ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ื“ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžื ื™ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ืงื” ื“ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžื ื™


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.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžื ื™ื ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื™ืจ ื™ื›ื™ืจื ื• ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื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


The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: They are deemed credible. This is as it is taught in a baraita: Expounding the verse: โ€œHe shall acknowledge the firstbornโ€ (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 แธฅalutza. 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืจื‘ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ื›ื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื™ื›ื™ืจ ืœืžื” ืœื™


Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said to Rava: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, this is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œHe shall acknowledge,โ€ 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 โ€œhe shall acknowledgeโ€?


ื‘ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ื›ื™ืจื ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืชืช ืœื• ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืงืจื ืžื™ื’ื• ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ืชื‘ื ืœื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืžื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ ืœื™ื”


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: โ€œBy giving him a double portionโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:17), i.e., that the firstborn receives a double share of the inheritance? Isnโ€™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.


ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ื›ืŸ


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.


ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืื“ื ืžืงื ื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœื ื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื™ื›ื™ืจ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื• ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ื’ื•ืกืก


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: โ€œHe shall acknowledgeโ€? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where property came into the fatherโ€™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: โ€œHe shall acknowledge,โ€ to teach that the son whom the father states is the firstborn will receive a double portion even of that property.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืœืงื“ืฉ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ื•ื”ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ืื ืฉืœื• ืงื“ืžื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืฉืœ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืงื“ืžื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืื™ื ื• ื™ื“ื•ืข


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,


  • 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 78: What Can I Tell You about My Son?

A kohen whose kiddushin is with a woman who is prohibited to him and who is the intimate with her...

Kiddushin 78

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 78

ื–ื•ื ื” ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื” ื—ืœืœื” ืœื ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื” ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ืขืฉืื” ื—ืœืœื”


renders her a zona, as he was forbidden to her, but he does not render her a แธฅalala, 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 แธฅalala, in accordance with the halakha pertaining to a priest who engages in intercourse with a zona.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืœื•ืงื” ืฉืชื™ื ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ืงื— ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ ื•ืœื™ืœืงื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ ื–ืจืขื• ื‘ืฉืœื ื’ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืืชื•


ยง 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: โ€œA widow, or one divorced, or a แธฅalala, or a zona, these shall he not takeโ€ (Leviticus 21:14), and one set due to transgressing the prohibition of: โ€œAnd he shall not profaneโ€ (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: โ€œHe shall not profane his offspring,โ€ because the offspring resulting from that act of intercourse is a แธฅalal. 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.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ืืœืžื ื” ื•ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืœื•ืงื” ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืฉื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ื•ืชื• ืœื


Rava raises an objection against Rav Yehudaโ€™s statement from a mishna (Makkot 13a): A High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow who was previously a divorcรฉe 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.


ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ืขืœ ื–ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ืขืœ ื–ื”


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: โ€œShall he not take,โ€ and one for transgressing: โ€œHe shall not profane,โ€ and two labels for that, i.e., engaging in intercourse with a divorcรฉe.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืœืขื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืช


The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of that same mishna: If a priest engages in sexual intercourse with a divorcรฉe who was also a yevama who performed แธฅalitza [แธฅalutza], he is liable to receive lashes due to only one transgression, since a แธฅalutza 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 divorcรฉe. 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 divorcรฉe, but actually he is liable to receive two sets of lashes for his act of intercourse with a divorcรฉe, since she is forbidden due to two labels. He does not receive an additional set of lashes on account of her being a แธฅalutza, as this prohibition is by rabbinic law.


ื•ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืืฉื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืงืจื ืืกืžื›ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื


The Gemara asks: And is a แธฅalutza forbidden to a priest only by rabbinic law? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: It states in the Torah that a priest may not marry a divorcรฉe. I have derived only a divorcรฉe; from where do I derive that a แธฅalutza is also forbidden? The verse states: โ€œAnd a woman divorcedโ€ (Leviticus 21:7), with the additional conjunction of โ€œandโ€ serving to include a แธฅalutza, 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.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืงื™ื“ืฉ ืœื•ืงื” ื‘ืขืœ ืœื•ืงื” ืงื™ื“ืฉ ืœื•ืงื” ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืœื•ืงื” ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ืœื•ืงื” ืœื ื‘ืขืœ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ืงื— ื•ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืœื ื™ืงื— ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ


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: โ€œShall he not take.โ€ If he also engaged in intercourse, he is flogged due to transgressing the prohibition of: โ€œHe shall not profane.โ€ 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: โ€œShall he not takeโ€ฆand he shall not profane,โ€ 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.


ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื’ืจื•ืฉืชื• ืฉืื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื•ืœื ื‘ืขืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ืœืงื—ืชื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืœื• ืœืืฉื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื ืœื™ื›ื


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 divorcรฉe 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: โ€œTake her again to be his wifeโ€ (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.


ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืฉืื ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ืฉืœื•ืงื” ื•ืœื ื™ื—ืœืœ ื–ืจืขื• ื‘ืขืžื™ื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื—ื™ืœืœ ื•ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื‘ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื’ืจื•ืฉืชื• ืฉืื ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ื“ืจืš ืœื™ืงื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื”


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: โ€œAnd he shall not profane his offspring among his peopleโ€ (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 divorcรฉe 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.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ื–ื›ืจ ื›ื‘ืช ื—ืœืœ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ื–ื›ืจ ื›ื‘ืช ื—ืœืœ ื–ื›ืจ ื•ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืžื” ื—ืœืœ ืฉื‘ื ืžื˜ืคื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื’ืจ ืฉื‘ื ืžื˜ืคื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”


ยง The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male แธฅalal, 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 แธฅalal, and is prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. And logic dictates that this is so: Just as in the case of a แธฅalal, 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?


ืžื” ืœื—ืœืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฆื™ืจืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉืื™ืŸ ื™ืฆื™ืจืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”


The Gemara counters this derivation: What is notable about a แธฅalal? 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 แธฅalal 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.


ืžื” ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ื™ืืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื—ืœืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—


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 แธฅalal 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.


ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืงื”ืœ ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืืช ื”ื’ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืงื”ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”


And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this person, a แธฅalal, 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.


ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ื ืฆื“ ืขื‘ื™ืจื”


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.


ืœื ืชื™ืžื ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืžืฆืจื™ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—


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.


ืžื” ืœืžืฆืจื™ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื—ืœืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—


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 แธฅalal 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.


ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืงื”ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืืช ื”ื’ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืงื”ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”


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 แธฅalal alone. The aspect of this person, an Egyptian convert, is not like the aspect of that person, a แธฅalal, 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.


ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืืชื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื’ืจ ื ืžื™ ืคื•ืกืœ ื‘ื‘ื™ืืชื• ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ื‘ืžื” ื”ืฆื“ ืžื”ืื™ ื“ื™ื ื


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 แธฅalal and of an Egyptian.


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ืจ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžื‘ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื›ืฉืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื˜ืฃ ื‘ื ืฉื™ื ื”ื—ื™ื• ืœื›ื ื•ื”ืœื ืคื™ื ื—ืก ื”ื™ื” ืขืžื”ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื• ืœื›ื ืœืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ืœืฉืคื—ื•ืช


ยง The mishna states that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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 Yoแธฅai 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: โ€œBut all the female children who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselvesโ€ (Numbers 31:18), i.e., you may marry them. But wasnโ€™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, โ€œkeep alive for yourselvesโ€ means as slaves and as maidservants, but not for marriage.


ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืžืงืจื ืื—ื“ ื“ืจืฉื• ืืœืžื ื” ื•ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ืœื”ื ืœื ืฉื™ื ื›ื™ ืื ื‘ืชื•ืœืช ืžื–ืจืข ื‘ื™ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืขื“ ื“ืื™ืช ื›ืœ ื–ืจืข ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื–ืจืข ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืงืฆืช ื–ืจืข


The Gemara comments: And all of the tannaโ€™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: โ€œNeither shall they take as their wives a widow, nor her that divorced; but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israelโ€ (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 Yaโ€™akov holds: โ€œOf the seed of the house of Israelโ€ 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.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ ืฉื ื–ืจืขื• ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ ืฉื ื–ืจืขื• ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ


Rabbi Yosei, who holds that even the daughter of two converts is permitted to marry into the priesthood, holds that โ€œof the seed of the house of Israelโ€ means one who was seeded, i.e., conceived, in Israel, and the children of converts were conceived by Jewish parents. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai, who permits a female who converted at less than three years and one day old to marry into the priesthood, holds that the phrase โ€œvirgins of the seed of the house of Israelโ€ 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœืจื‘ื


Rav Naแธฅman said to Rava:


ื”ืื™ ืงืจื ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ


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.


ื•ื›ืชื‘ ืงืจื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื˜ืจื ื™ื›ื‘ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉื›ื‘ ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื”ืณ ื•ื”ืœื ืื™ืŸ ื™ืฉื™ื‘ื” ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ืืœื ืœืžืœื›ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื•ื“ ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืืœื ื ืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื˜ืจื ื™ื›ื‘ื” ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื”ืณ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉื›ื‘ ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื•


Rav Naแธฅman 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: โ€œAnd the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was laid down to sleep in the Temple of the Lordโ€ (Iย 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: โ€œAnd the lamp of God was not yet gone outโ€ in the Temple of the Lord, โ€œand Samuel was laid downโ€ in his place outside the Temple.


ื•ื”ืืœืžื ื” ืืฉืจ ืชื”ื™ื” ืืœืžื ื” ืžื›ื”ืŸ ื™ืงื—ื• ืžื›ื”ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืžื›ื”ืŸ ื™ืงื—ื• ืžืฉืืจ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื™ืงื—ื• ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžื›ื”ืŸ ื™ืงื—ื• ืžืฉืืจ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื™ืงื—ื•


Since the Gemara quoted the verse in Ezekiel, it proceeds to discuss it further. The continuation of that verse states: โ€œAnd a widow who is the widow of a priest, they may takeโ€ (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: โ€œAnd a widow who is the widow of a priest they may take,โ€ 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: โ€œOf a priest they may takeโ€ means of the rest of the priests, they may take.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืžืฉื™ืื™ื ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื™ืงื—ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ื–ื›ืจ ื›ื‘ืช ื—ืœืœ ื–ื›ืจ ื›ืœ ืฉืืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ื‘ืชื• ืืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ืืœืžื ืชื• ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ื‘ืชื• ืื™ ืืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ืืœืžื ืชื•


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 แธฅalal, 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.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื’ืจ ืฉื ืฉื ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืขื•ืœื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืžื™ื•ื ืฉื—ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื ื”ื’ื• ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืกื™ืœืกื•ืœ ื‘ืขืฆืžืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘


ยง 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 แธคana 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 Yaโ€™akov, and they would marry the daughter of a convert only if one parent was born Jewish.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ื ืœื™ืžืœืš ืžื•ืจื™ื ืœื• ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื ืฉื ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ื ืื•ืชื” ืžืžื ื• ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™


Rav Naแธฅman 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 Yaโ€™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.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ื™ ื–ื” ืžืžื–ืจ ืื™ื ื• ื ืืžืŸ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืžืขื™ื” ืžืžื–ืจ ื”ื•ื ืื™ื ื ื ืืžื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžื ื™ื


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.


ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืื™ื”ื• ื“ืœื ืงื™ื ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืื™ื”ื™ ื“ืงื™ื ืœื” ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ืงื” ื“ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ื“ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžื ื™ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ืงื” ื“ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžื ื™


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.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžื ื™ื ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื™ืจ ื™ื›ื™ืจื ื• ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื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


The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: They are deemed credible. This is as it is taught in a baraita: Expounding the verse: โ€œHe shall acknowledge the firstbornโ€ (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 แธฅalutza. 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืจื‘ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ื›ื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื™ื›ื™ืจ ืœืžื” ืœื™


Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said to Rava: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, this is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œHe shall acknowledge,โ€ 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 โ€œhe shall acknowledgeโ€?


ื‘ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ื›ื™ืจื ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืชืช ืœื• ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืงืจื ืžื™ื’ื• ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ืชื‘ื ืœื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืžื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ ืœื™ื”


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: โ€œBy giving him a double portionโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:17), i.e., that the firstborn receives a double share of the inheritance? Isnโ€™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.


ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ื›ืŸ


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.


ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืื“ื ืžืงื ื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœื ื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื™ื›ื™ืจ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื• ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ื’ื•ืกืก


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: โ€œHe shall acknowledgeโ€? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where property came into the fatherโ€™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: โ€œHe shall acknowledge,โ€ to teach that the son whom the father states is the firstborn will receive a double portion even of that property.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืœืงื“ืฉ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ื•ื”ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ืื ืฉืœื• ืงื“ืžื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืฉืœ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืงื“ืžื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืื™ื ื• ื™ื“ื•ืข


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,


Scroll To Top