Kiddushin 73b — the Talmud in English

Rava bar Rav Huna said:

If

they found

the foundling in the marketplace, when he was

circumcised, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact folio location")

there is no status of a foundling concerning him,

and he has the presumptive status of being fit, and is permitted to enter the assembly even rabbinically. Since, if he had not been fit, they would not have taken the trouble to circumcise him.

And likewise, if the foundling was found when

his limbs were arranged

[his limbs were corrected and straightened], he is fit,

and there is no status of a foundling concerning him.

For if he had been disqualified, his mother would not have arranged him. Rather, certainly, he was cast out because of hunger.

And likewise, if

he was smeared with oil

[was anointed with oil]—

And

likewise, if

he was filled with eye-paint

[eye-paint] around his eyes, in order to beautify him—

And likewise, if

he was tied with medicinal cords

[they tied him with knots for healing]—

And likewise, if

she hung

on him

a written amulet

[an amulet of writing]—

And likewise, if

she hung

on him

an amulet

[an amulet of roots]—

If all these were found on him,

there is no status of a foundling concerning him.

For since his mother had pity on him and took trouble with him in all these matters, certainly she did not cast him out so that he should die; rather, she cast him out because of hunger. Therefore it is reasonable that he is fit.

If the foundling was found when he was

hanging from a palm tree

[hanging on the palm tree]—

if

he is in a place where

a wild animal can reach him

[where a wild animal reaches there], and it may maul him,

there is a status of a foundling concerning him.

For it is possible that he is disqualified, since his mother abandoned him to die.

And

if not,

so that a wild animal cannot reach him there and maul him,

there is no status of a foundling concerning him.

If he was found on a tree whose name is

zeradta—

if he is

close to the city

[near the city],

there is a status of a foundling concerning him.

For even if a wild animal cannot reach there, it is a dangerous place, because demons are common there.

And if not,

if it is not close to the city,

there is no status of a foundling concerning him.

Since demons are not common there.

He was found in

the synagogue

[a synagogue, which in those days was commonly located outside the city]—if the synagogue was

close to the city, and many people were common there, there is no status of a foundling concerning him.

For since many people are found there, harmful beings are not found there.

And if not,

if it is distant and many people are not found there,

there is a status of a foundling concerning him.

Since harmful beings are found there.

The general rule of the matter: In every place where it appears that his mother cast him there with the intention that he should die, and did not have pity on him, there is concern that he is disqualified. And he is forbidden to enter the assembly like a foundling.

Ameimar said: This pit of date-pit refuse

[a pit into which date pits are cast as food for animals], if the infant was found in it,

there is a status of a foundling concerning him.

Since this place is outside the city, and harmful beings are found there.

He was found inside a trough in

the river’s rapids

[in the middle of the river],

there is no status of a foundling concerning him.

Because boats pass there regularly, and therefore his mother took trouble to bring him there, so that the boats would find him and he would not die.

And if he was found inside a trough in

the thaw waters

[on the slope of the river, where water gathers through the melting of the snow],

there is a status of a foundling concerning him.

Because boats do not pass there and find him, and it is proven that his mother did not have pity on him.

He was found

at the sides of the public domain; there is no status of a foundling concerning him.

Since it is a somewhat protected place.

He was found in the middle of

the public domain; there is a status of a foundling concerning him.

Since it is an ownerless place.

Rava said: And in years of famine, there is no

status of a foundling

concerning the child.

For we attribute it to the fact that his mother cast him out because of hunger, and not because he was disqualified.

And we raised it:

This statement of Rava, with regard to what

[did he say this]?

If he said this with regard to

a child

found in the middle of

the public domain,

there is reason to wonder: Is it that

because

there are

years of famine,

she is

killing him?

Is this a reason that she should cast him out to die? Rather, necessarily, she cast him out because of his disqualification.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that Rava said it with regard to

the sides of the public domain;

it is still difficult.

If so,

why specifically,

what is the relevance of

years of famine?

But

even in

years that are

not years of famine,

there is no status of a foundling concerning him.

Rather, when

the statement

of Rava was stated, he did not say it with regard to the words of Ameimar, but rather

with regard to

that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Abba, who said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi, who said: As long as

the foundling is still

found in the marketplace, his father and mother are trusted concerning him

to say that he is their son.

But after he was

gathered from the marketplace,

they

are no longer

trusted

concerning him

to say that he is their son.

What is the reason?

Rava said: Since

already

a name of foundling has gone out concerning him.

And since a name of disqualification has already gone out concerning him, he can no longer be declared fit.

And

concerning this

Rava said: And in years of famine, even though

he has already been

gathered from the marketplace,

and the report has gone out concerning him, his father and mother are still trusted concerning him to return and declare him fit. Since in these years many infants are cast out, the Sages did not wish to disqualify them because the report had gone out, for they did not wish to increase the number of disqualified persons in Israel.

Rav Hisda said: Three

people, whom the Sages trusted with special reliability, are not

trusted

except

immediately,

whereas the other trusted persons are trusted even after time has passed.

And

these are: a foundling, a midwife

[a woman who assists at childbirth],

and

a woman who

exempts her companions

from impurity. And each one of them will be explained shortly.

A foundling—

that which we said.

That his father and mother are trusted concerning him to declare him fit specifically immediately upon his discovery, but not after he has been gathered from the marketplace.

A midwife

[a woman who assists at childbirth]—

as it was taught in a beraita: A midwife is trusted to say

concerning twins who were born:

This one came out first

and he is the firstborn,

and this one came out second.

When are these words said,

that she is trusted concerning this?

When

she has still

not gone out

[left]

and returned

from the place of the birth.

But

if she

went out

from there,

and

afterward

returned,

she is no longer

trusted.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Only as long as she was

“

established in her position”

[as will be explained] is she

trusted.

And if not, she is not trusted.

And we raised it:

What is the difference between them,

between the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them

in a case

where

she did not leave the place, but only

turned her face

[turned her face] away from the woman who gave birth. According to the first tanna, she is still trusted. But according to Rabbi Eliezer, she is already no longer trusted.

And this is what Rav Hisda said: A midwife is trusted only immediately, and not after some time has passed from the birth. “

Who exempts her companions,”

what is it?

As we learned

in Tractate Niddah:

Three women who were sleeping in one bed, and blood was found beneath one of them, all are impure

with the impurity of a menstruant, because of uncertainty. And this refers to a case where they were interwoven and attached to one another, and therefore there is uncertainty concerning each of them, perhaps the blood came from her and she became impure with the impurity of a menstruant.

And if

one of them examined herself

herself

and was found impure,

then only

she

alone is

impure, and all of them are pure.

Since it became known that blood flowed from her source, certainly the blood found in the bed is to be attributed to her.

Rav Hisda said:

And this is so

when she examined

her

self

immediately, within

the measure of

“

the interval of a menstrual sight” from the time the blood was found. And this measure is the amount of time required to take the cloth found beside the lintel [near her] and wipe with it. But after this time, even if she was found impure, the concern of impurity does not depart from her companions, and they too are impure.

The Sages taught:

If several women who had given birth were found in one house, the

midwife

is

trusted to say:

The child

this one is a kohen,

who was born to the wife of the kohen

; and this one is a Levite,

who was born to the wife of the Levite

; and this one is a netin,

who was born to the wife of the netin

; and this one is a mamzer,

who was born to the wife of the mamzer.

When are these words said,

that the midwife is trusted to say concerning a particular child that he is fit?

When no challenge was raised against her.

For there is no one who challenges her, saying concerning one of the children whom the midwife declared fit that he is the son of the mamzer

. But

if

a challenge was raised against her, she is not trusted

to declare a particular child fit.

And we raised it: “

A challenge,”

of what kind

[how many witnesses raise the challenge]?

If you say, a challenge

of one witness,

one

who testifies that he is disqualified—

But Rabbi Yohanan said: A challenge cannot be less than two.

For one witness is not trusted to testify concerning a person that he is disqualified.

And we conclude:

Rather, a challenge by two.

For if two witnesses testified concerning one of the children that he was born to the wife of the mamzer, the midwife is not trusted to contradict them and declare him fit.

And if you wish, I shall say to you: Actually,

even in a place of

a challenge by one,

the midwife is not trusted.

And when Rabbi Yohanan said “

A challenge cannot be less than two,”

that applies where there is a presumption of fitness.

For one witness is not trusted to disqualify a person who has the presumptive status of fitness.

But where there is no presumption of fitness,

as in our case, where they have just been born and have not been established as fit, and it is not known which of them is fit and which of them is disqualified, even one

witness is also believed

to contradict the midwife who says concerning one of them that he is the fit one. And since they contradict one another, the uncertainty returns to its original state, and each one of them is a possibly disqualified person.

The Gemara now brings the continuation of the beraita: If two people are arguing with one another over the same purchase, and each one claims that he bought this purchase with money, and not his fellow—

the owner of the

seller of the

purchase

[the seller]

is trusted to say: To this one I sold, and to this one I did not

not

sell.

When are these words said,

that the seller is trusted?

When

he still

has his purchase in his possession,

for the purchaser has still not taken it, but only gave its money. And although money does not effect acquisition until the purchaser pulls the object, it is forbidden for the seller to retract from the purchase after receiving the money. And if he retracts, he is subject to the curse of “He Who exacted payment.”

And since he is obligated to deliver the object to the purchaser, he pays attention to the matter, and is precise and remembers to whom he sold.

But

if

he does not have his purchase in his possession,

and he has already delivered it into the purchaser’s hand, and both of them are holding it, he is no longer

trusted

the seller to say to whom he sold. Since once he has already given it to the purchaser, the matter is no longer his responsibility, and he is no longer precise in remembering to whom he sold.