קידושין עג

קידושין עג

חַד – לְכֹהֲנִים, וְחַד – לַלְוִיִּם, וְחַד – לְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים, וְחַד – לְמִישְׁרֵי מַמְזֵר בִּשְׁתוּקִי, וְחַד – לְמִישְׁרֵי שְׁתוּקִי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. קְהַל גֵּרִים לָא אִיקְּרִי קָהָל. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם מֵחַד ״קָהָל״ נָפְקִי, אִיַּיתַּר לֵיהּ לִקְהַל גֵּרִים.

One is referring to priests, to teach that people with flawed lineage may not enter their congregation; and one is referring to Levites; and one to Israelites; and one serves to permit a mamzer to marry a shetuki, since a mamzer is prohibited from entering only the congregation of God, but he may marry someone who is not definitely a member of the congregation, e.g., a shetuki; and one serves to permit a shetuki to marry an Israelite, as only one who is a definite mamzer may not marry an Israelite. As for the congregation of converts, it is not called a congregation at all, and they may marry those prohibited from entering the congregation of Israel. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that priests and Levites are derived from one instance of the word “congregation,” since they are from the same tribe, that of Levi. Consequently, one instance of the word “congregation” remains for him to interpret. He interprets it as referring to the congregation of converts, and deems it prohibited for a mamzer to enter that congregation as well.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי, תְּרֵי קְהָלֵי נִינְהוּ, מַמְזֵר בִּשְׁתוּקִי וּשְׁתוּקִי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחַד ״קָהָל״ נָפְקָא – ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר בִּקְהַל ה׳״ –

And if you wish, say: So too, Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Yosei that Levites and priests are two congregations, since there are special halakhot of marriage that apply only to priests. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the permissibility of the marriage of a mamzer with a shetuki and a shetuki with an Israelite is derived from one instance of the word “congregation,” from the verse: “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3).

מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא מַמְזֵר סָפֵק – יָבֹא, בְּקָהָל וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא בְּקָהָל סָפֵק – יָבֹא.

This is accomplished by inferring the following: It is one who is a definite mamzer who may not enter, but one who is a mamzer as a result of an uncertainty, e.g., a shetuki, may enter. And similarly, it is into the congregation of those with definite unflawed lineage that a mamzer may not enter, but into a congregation of those with uncertain lineage, e.g., a shetuki, he may enter. This verse therefore teaches that both types of marriage are permitted. In any event, Rabbi Yehuda remains with one instance of the word “congregation” to interpret, from which he derives that it is also prohibited for a convert to marry a mamzeret.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָנֵי נָמֵי תְּרֵי קְהָלֵי נִינְהוּ, וְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מֵהָכָא: ״הַקָּהָל חֻקָּה אַחַת לָכֶם וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר״. וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? ״חֻקָּה אַחַת״ – הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.

And if you wish, say: These too, one who is a definite mamzer and one who is a mamzer as the result of an uncertainty, are two congregations, each requiring its own verse, and the reason of Rabbi Yehuda is from here: “As for the congregation, there shall be one statute both for you, and for the stranger that sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:15), which indicates that converts are considered like Israelites with regard to their being included in the category of “congregation.” And according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that a convert may marry a mamzeret, the phrase “one statute” interrupts the matter, and converts are not considered part of the congregation of God.

אֶחָד גֵּר וְאֶחָד עֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר וְחָלָל מוּתָּרִין בְּכֹהֶנֶת. מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ לְרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא הוּזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁירוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִים.

§ The Gemara comments: The statement of the Tosefta that a convert, and an emancipated slave, and a ḥalal are all permitted to marry the daughter of a priest supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Women of unflawed lineage who are daughters of priests were not prohibited from marrying those disqualified from the priesthood due to flawed lineage [ḥalalim], since that prohibition applies only to male priests.

דְּרַשׁ רַבִּי זֵירָא בְּמָחוֹזָא: גֵּר מוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. רַגְמוּהּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בְּאֶתְרוֹגַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר רָבָא: מִי אִיכָּא דְּדָרֵישׁ מִילְּתָא כִּי הַאי בְּדוּכְתָּא דִּשְׁכִיחִי גִּיּוֹרֵי? דְּרַשׁ רָבָא בְּמָחוֹזָא: גֵּר מוּתָּר בְּכֹהֶנֶת. טַעֲנוּהּ בְּשִׁירָאֵי. הֲדַר דְּרַשׁ לְהוּ: גֵּר מוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַפְסֵידְתָּא לְקַמַּיְיתָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: דְּטָבָא לְכוּ עֲבַדִי לְכוּ, אִי בָּעֵי מֵהָכָא נָסֵיב וְאִי בָּעֵי מֵהָכָא נָסֵיב.

Rabbi Zeira taught in Meḥoza: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. Everyone stoned him with their etrogim, since the many converts present were insulted by his statement, which they understood to mean that converts are not members of God’s congregation. Rava said: Is there a person who teaches such a matter in a place where there are commonly converts? He should have been more circumspect. Rava himself taught this in Meḥoza to ameliorate the situation: It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest. They carried him on silk [beshira’ei] for elevating the honor of converts. He later taught them: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. They said to him: You have forfeited the honor of your first sermon. Rava said to them: I have done for you what is good for you. If a convert wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., from those of pure lineage, and if he wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., a mamzeret.

וְהִילְכְתָא: גֵּר מוּתָּר בְּכֹהֶנֶת וּמוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. מוּתָּר בְּכֹהֶנֶת – לֹא הוּזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁירוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִים, וּמוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת – כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest, and it is permitted for him to marry a mamzeret. It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest, since women of unflawed lineage were not prohibited from marrying those disqualified for the priesthood. And it is permitted for him to marry a mamzeret, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation.

אֵלּוּ הֵן: שְׁתוּקִי – כֹּל שֶׁמַּכִּיר. אָמַר רָבָא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה שְׁתוּקִי כָּשֵׁר. מַאי טַעְמָא – רוֹב כְּשֵׁרִים אֶצְלָהּ, וּמִיעוּט פְּסוּלִין אֶצְלָהּ.

§ The mishna teaches: And these are the last two categories: A shetuki is any person who knows the identity of his mother but does not know the identity of his father. Rava says: By Torah law, a shetuki is fit to enter the congregation. What is the reason for this? Most are fit with regard to her, i.e., most men are fit to engage in intercourse with an unmarried woman, and only a minority are unfit with regard to engaging in intercourse with her. There are few men who are related to a woman in a way that would render the offspring mamzerim.

וְאִי אָזְלִי אִינְהוּ לְגַבַּהּ, כֹּל דְּפָרֵישׁ – מֵרוּבָּא פָּרֵישׁ. מַאי אָמְרַתְּ – דִּילְמָא אָזְלָה אִיהִי לְגַבַּיְיהוּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ קָבוּעַ, וְכֹל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמֵי,

Rava analyzes two possibilities: And if they came to her, i.e., if the father came to the mother’s location when the child was conceived, the following principle with regard to an uncertain prohibition takes effect: Anything that separates from its fixed location is presumed to have separated from the majority of items like it in that location. If the father separated from the population at large and came to the mother, one can assume that he was from the majority, who are of unflawed lineage. What might you say, that perhaps she went to them, and the child was conceived in the place where the father was? In such a case, it is an uncertain prohibition located in its fixed place, and the halakhic principle is: Anything fixed is considered as though it were half and half, i.e., fifty percent, and it remains a case of uncertainty, and it should be prohibited for the shetuki to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.

וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר״ – מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא מַמְזֵר סָפֵק – יָבֹא. בְּקָהָל וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא בְּקָהָל סָפֵק – יָבֹא!

And in any case, this does not suffice to prevent her shetuki child from marrying a Jew with unflawed lineage, since the Torah states: “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3), which indicates: It is a definite mamzer who may not enter, but one who is a mamzer as a result of an uncertainty may enter. Similarly, it is into a congregation of those with definite unflawed lineage that he may not enter, but into a congregation of those with uncertain lineage he may enter. Therefore, even if it is uncertain if one is a mamzer, by Torah law he may marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.

וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ שְׁתוּקִי פָּסוּל? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, שְׁתוּקִי – שְׁתוּקִית לֹא יִשָּׂא, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו!

And for what reason did the Sages nevertheless say that a shetuki is of flawed lineage? Due to a rabbinic decree, lest he marry his sister from his father, since the identity of his father is unknown. The Gemara asks: If that is so, it should not be permitted for a shetuki to marry even a female shetuki, lest he marry his sister from his father.

כֹּל כִּי הָנֵי מְזַנּוּ וְאָזְלִי? בַּת שְׁתוּקִית לֹא יִשָּׂא, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו! אֶלָּא: לָא שְׁכִיחָא, הָכִי נָמֵי לָא שְׁכִיחָא!

The Gemara responds: And do people engage in licentiousness to such an extent that one should be concerned that all the children of unknown paternity in one city were fathered by the same man? By the same reasoning, there should also be a decree that a shetuki may not marry the daughter of a female shetuki from a proper marriage, lest he marry his sister from his father, since the man who married the female shetuki might have been his father. Rather, it must be that it is not common for a shetuki to happen to marry his sister, and therefore he may marry the daughter of a female shetuki. So too, it is not common for him to happen to marry his sister, and the Sages would not issue a decree to prevent this from occurring.

אֶלָּא מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בְּיוּחֲסִין.

The question therefore remains, why did they render it prohibited for a shetuki to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers that it is not prohibited for a shetuki to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage due to any halakhic concern. Rather, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to lineage, in that they rendered it prohibited for people from unknown backgrounds to marry those with unflawed lineage.

וְאָמַר רָבָא, דְּבַר תּוֹרָה: אֲסוּפִי – כָּשֵׁר. מַאי טַעְמָא? אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ – בְּבַעְלָהּ תּוֹלָה. מַאי אִיכָּא? מִיעוּט אֲרוּסוֹת וּמִיעוּט שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלֵיהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם,

And Rava says a similar statement: By Torah law, a foundling, a child found in the marketplace whose parents are unknown, is fit, and there is no concern that the child is a mamzer. What is the reason for this? A married woman who becomes pregnant through extramarital intercourse, which results in the child being a mamzer, ascribes the child to her husband. Since everyone assumes that her husband is the father, she has no reason to abandon the child in the marketplace. What case is there where a mother would want to abandon her mamzer child? There is the minority of situations involving betrothed women who committed adultery but cannot claim that her betrothed is the father, as they had not been living together. And there is the minority of women whose husbands have gone overseas and could not have fathered the children.

כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא פְּנוּיָה, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דְּמֵחֲמַת רְעָבוֹן, הָוֵה פַּלְגָא וּפַלְגָא. וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר בְּקָהָל ה׳״ – מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא מַמְזֵר סָפֵק יָבֹא. בְּקָהָל וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא בְּקָהָל סָפֵק יָבֹא.

Since there are many other cases of unmarried women who do abandon their children although those children have unflawed lineage, and there are also children with unflawed lineage who are abandoned by their parents due to hunger, the concern that the child is a mamzer is no more than half and half, i.e., fifty percent. And the Torah states: “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3), which indicates: It is one who is a definite mamzer who may not enter, but one who is a mamzer as a result of an uncertainty may enter. Similarly, it is into a congregation of those with definite unflawed lineage that he may not enter, but into a congregation of those with uncertain lineage he may enter. This child is a mamzer as the result of an uncertainty, and by Torah law may marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.

וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ אֲסוּפִי פָּסוּל – שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה אֲסוּפִי – אֲסוּפִית לֹא יִשָּׂא, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ בֵּין מֵאָבִיו בֵּין מֵאִמּוֹ! כֹּל הָנֵי שָׁדוּ וְאָזְלִי?! בַּת אֲסוּפִי לֹא יִשָּׂא, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ! אֶלָּא לָא שְׁכִיחַ, הָכִי נָמֵי לָא שְׁכִיחַ.

And for what reason did the Sages say that a foundling is unfit? Lest he marry his sister from his father. The Gemara asks: If that is so, it should not be permitted for a foundling to marry even a female foundling, lest he marry his sister from either his father or his mother. The Gemara rejects this: Are they continually throwing away all these children? Is it likely that the same parents abandoned both a son and a daughter? If you accept that suggestion, it should not be permitted for him to marry the daughter of a foundling, lest he marry his sister, as perhaps the father of the one he wishes to marry is his father as well. Rather, it must be that it is not common for a foundling to happen to marry his sister, and therefore he may marry the daughter of a foundling. So too, it is not common for him to happen to marry his sister, and the Sages would not make a decree to prevent this from occurring.

אֶלָּא, מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בְּיוֹחֲסִים.

The question therefore remains: Why did they prohibit a foundling from marrying a Jew with unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers that it is prohibited for a foundling to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage not due to any halakhic concern. Rather, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to lineage, in that they rendered it prohibited for people from unknown backgrounds to marry those with unflawed lineage.

אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא: מְצָאוֹ מָהוּל –

§ Rava bar Rav Huna says: If an abandoned boy was found circumcised,

אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. מְשַׁלְּטִי הַדָּמֵיהּ – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. שַׁיִיף מִשְׁחָא, וּמְלֵא כּוּחְלָא, רְמֵי חוּמְרֵי, תְּלֵי פִּיתְקָא, וּתְלֵי קְמִיעָא – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי.

he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If the baby’s lineage were unfit, his parents would not have gone to the trouble of circumcising him. Likewise, if his limbs are adjusted, indicating that he was cared for after birth, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. Similarly, if he was anointed with oil, or if his eyes were smeared with eye salve, or if he was adorned with rings, or if a note [pitka] was hanging on him, or if an amulet was hanging on him, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

תְּלֵי בְּדִיקְלֵי, אִי מָטְיָא לֵיהּ חַיָּה – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי, אִם לָאו – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי.

Concerning a child found hanging from a palm tree, if he was in such a place that an animal could reach him, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If not, if he was placed on a palm tree in a way that he could not be reached by an animal, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling, since he was cared for enough to be placed in a safe location.

זַרְדְּתָא סְמִיכָא לְמָתָא – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. בֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא סְמִיכְתָּא לְמָתָא וּשְׁכִיחִי בֵּיהּ רַבִּים – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי, וְאִם לָאו – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי.

Similarly, if the child was placed in a thicket near a town, where people are not commonly found, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. But if not, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If the child was discovered in a synagogue near a town, and people are commonly found there, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling, since the parents wanted to give him to others. But if not, if the synagogue was not near a town or if it was not frequented by people, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הַאי פֵּירָא דְסוּפְלֵי – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי, חֲרִיפְתָּא דְנַהֲרָא – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. פִּשְׁרֵי – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. צִידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי.

Ameimar said: With regard to this cistern into which date pits are placed [peira desuflei] as animal fodder, if a child is found there, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was found in the middle of a fast-flowing river with boats passing by, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was placed at the side of the river, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was found at the sides of a public domain, which is not frequented by many people, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. But if the child was discovered in the public domain itself, where he might easily be trampled, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

אָמַר רָבָא: וּבִשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. הָא דְּרָבָא אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – אַיְּידֵי דִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן קָטְלָא לֵיהּ?! וְאֶלָּא אַצִּידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – מַאי אִירְיָא שְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן? אֲפִילּוּ בְּלָא שְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן!

Rava said: And in famine years, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. The Gemara asks: With regard to this statement of Rava, to which specific case is it referring? If we say it is referring to the case where the child was left in the public domain because it is a famine year, would a mother kill him by placing him in a place where he is likely to be trampled? Rather, if Rava’s statement is referring to the case where the child was found at the sides of a public domain, why specifically mention famine years? Even when it is not famine years, the child was placed in a safe location where he was likely to be found.

אֶלָּא כִּי אִתְּמַר דְּרָבָא – אַהָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר זַבְדִּי אָמַר רַב: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק – אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ נֶאֱמָנִים עָלָיו, נֶאֱסַף מִן הַשּׁוּק – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִים עָלָיו.

Rather, it must be that when Rava’s halakha was stated, it was stated with regard to that which Rav Yehuda says that Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi says that Rav says: As long as the abandoned child is still in the marketplace, his father and mother are deemed credible with regard to him when they later claim the child as theirs. But once the child has been collected from the marketplace, they are no longer deemed credible with regard to him.

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רָבָא: הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא עָלָיו שֵׁם אֲסוּפִי. וְאָמַר רָבָא: וּבִשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱסַף מִן הַשּׁוּק אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ נֶאֱמָנִים עָלָיו.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Since the child has already been publicized with the name of being of flawed lineage as a foundling, they cannot change the status of the child. And it is with regard to this halakha that Rava says: And in famine years, although the child has been collected from the marketplace, his father and mother are deemed credible with regard to him, as it is common even for parents of unflawed lineage to abandon their children in famine years, and it is likely that they are speaking the truth.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שְׁלֹשָׁה נֶאֱמָנִים לְאַלְתַּר, אֵלּוּ הֵן: אֲסוּפִי, חַיָּה, וּפוֹטֶרֶת חַבְרוֹתֶיהָ.

§ Rav Ḥisda says: There are three cases where people are deemed credible if they immediately offer testimony with regard to a matter about which they are not ordinarily deemed credible to testify. These are they: A foundling, a midwife, and one who exempts her friends from uncertain impurity.

אֲסוּפִי – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.

How so? The case of a foundling is that which we said, that his parents can testify with regard to his lineage before he is collected from the marketplace.

חַיָּה – דְּתַנְיָא: חַיָּה נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר זֶה יָצָא רִאשׁוֹן וְזֶה יָצָא שֵׁנִי. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁלֹּא יָצְתָה וְחָזְרָה, אֲבָל יָצְתָה וְחָזְרָה – אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הוּחְזְקָה עַל עוֹמְדָּהּ – נֶאֱמֶנֶת, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאַהְדַּר אַפַּהּ.

The case of a midwife is as it is taught in a baraita: A midwife is deemed credible to say that this child emerged first from the womb and that child emerged second from the womb. Her testimony is relied upon to determine which of them is the firstborn. In what case is this statement said? When she has not left the birthing room and returned. But if she left the birthing room and returned, she is not deemed credible, since the babies might have been exchanged in the meantime. Rabbi Eliezer says: If she has stood in her place, she is deemed credible. But if not, she is not deemed credible. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case when the midwife turned her head aside after the birth. According to Rabbi Eliezer she is no longer deemed credible, despite having remained in the room.

פּוֹטֶרֶת חַבְרוֹתֶיהָ מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ יְשֵׁנוֹת בְּמִטָּה אַחַת וְנִמְצָא דָּם תַּחַת אַחַת מֵהֶן – כּוּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. בָּדְקָה אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצֵאת טְמֵאָה – הִיא טְמֵאָה, וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כְּשִׁיעוּר וֶוסֶת.

What is the case of one who exempts her friends? As we learned in a mishna (Nidda 60b): If there were three women who were sleeping in one bed, and blood was found beneath one of them, they are all deemed impure as menstruating women, as it is not known from which of them the blood came. If one of them examined herself and was found to be impure, i.e., she saw that she was menstruating, she is impure and all the rest are pure. With regard to this, Rav Ḥisda said: This applies provided that she examined herself within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, i.e., immediately after the discovery of the blood. But if she did so even a short while later, her discovery is not accepted as proof with regard to the source of the blood.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נֶאֱמֶנֶת חַיָּה לוֹמַר: זֶה כֹּהֵן וְזֶה לֵוִי, זֶה נָתִין וְזֶה מַמְזֵר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁלֹּא קָרָא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם עַרְעָר, אֲבָל קָרָא עָלֶיהָ עַרְעָר – אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת.

The Sages taught: If several women gave birth at the same time, the midwife is deemed credible to say: This baby is a priest and that baby is a Levite; this baby is a Gibeonite and that baby is a mamzer. In other words, she is deemed credible to say which baby was born to which mother. In what case is this statement said? When no objection was registered about it. But if an objection was registered about it, she is not deemed credible.

עַרְעָר דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא עַרְעָר חַד, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין עַרְעָר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם! אֶלָּא עַרְעָר תְּרֵי.

The Gemara clarifies: An objection of what type? If we say it is an objection of one witness claiming that her testimony is not accurate, but doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: There is no objection with less than two witnesses? Rather, the baraita must refer to the objection of two witnesses, but she is deemed credible when contradicted by a single witness.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ עַרְעָר חַד. וְכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵין עַרְעָר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאִיתָא חֲזָקָה דְכַשְׁרוּת, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא חֲזָקָה דְכַשְׁרוּת – חַד נָמֵי מְהֵימַן.

And if you wish, say: Actually, I could say to you that she is not deemed credible even when contradicted by the objection of one witness, and when Rabbi Yoḥanan said that there is no objection with less than two witnesses, that statement applies only in a case where there is a presumption of validity, which can be countered only by the objection of two witnesses. But in a case where there is no presumption of validity, such as in this case, when the baby was just born, one witness is also deemed credible to object.

נֶאֱמָן בַּעַל מִקָּח לוֹמַר: לָזֶה מָכַרְתִּי, וְלָזֶה אֵין מָכַרְתִּי. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקָּחוֹ בְּיָדוֹ, אֲבָל אֵין מִקָּחוֹ בְּיָדוֹ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

Similarly, if the owner of an item being purchased is confronted by two people, each claiming to have purchased the item, he is deemed credible to say: I sold to this one, and I did not sell to that one. In what case is this statement said? When the item being purchased is still in the seller’s possession. But if the item being purchased is not in his possession, he is not deemed credible any more than a single witness is.