Kiddushin 73b (עג:) — the Talmud in English

Rava bar Rav Huna said:

if

they found

the foundling in the marketplace when he was

circumcised,

he does not have the status of a foundling,

and he has the presumption of being fit, and is permitted to enter the congregation even by rabbinic decree, because if he had not been fit, they would not have taken the trouble to circumcise him.

Similarly, if the foundling was discovered when he had

imaging signs [

his limbs were properly formed and aligned], he is fit,

and he does not have the status of a foundling.

For if he had been disqualified, his mother would not have arranged his limbs. Rather, it is certain that she abandoned him because of hunger.

Similarly, if

he was rubbed with oil [

he was anointed with oil]—

And

similarly, if

he had blue eye-paint [

kohl] around his eyes in order to beautify him—

Similarly, if

they had tied medicinal cords [

they tied him with knots as a remedy]—

Similarly, if

they hung

on him

a written amulet [

an amulet containing writing]—

Similarly, if

they hung

on him

an amulet [

an amulet containing herbs]—

If all these things were found on him,

he does not have the status of a foundling.

Since his mother took pity on him and went to the trouble of doing all these things for him, she certainly did not abandon him so that he would die; rather, she abandoned him because of hunger. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that he is fit.

If the foundling was discovered 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 an animal can get there] and might devour him,

he has the status of a foundling.

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

And

if not,

as no wild animal can reach him there and devour him,

he does not have the status of a foundling.

If he was found on a tree called

zeradeta—

if it is

near the city [

close to the city],

he has the status of a foundling.

For even if no wild animal can reach him there, it is a dangerous place because demons are commonly found there.

And if not,

if it is not near the city,

he does not have the status of a foundling.

Because demons are not commonly found there.

He was found in

a synagogue [

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

near the city and many people frequented it, he does not have the status of a foundling.

Since many people are found there, harmful beings are not commonly found there.

And if not,

if it is distant and many people do not frequent it,

he has the status of a foundling.

Because harmful beings are commonly found there.

The general principle is: Wherever it appears that his mother abandoned him there intending that he die, and did not take pity on him, there is concern that he is disqualified. He is forbidden to enter the congregation, like a foundling.

Ameimar said: This pit of date pits [

a pit into which date pits were thrown as food for animals]—if the infant was found in it,

he has the status of a foundling.

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

If he was found inside a trough in

the middle of the river [

in the middle of the river],

he does not have the status of a foundling.

Because boats pass there frequently, and therefore his mother took the 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 thawing waters [

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

he has the status of a foundling.

Because boats do not pass there and find him, which demonstrates that his mother did not take pity on him.

If he was found

at the sides of the public domain, he does not have the status of a foundling.

Because it is a somewhat protected place.

If he was found in the middle of

the public domain, he has the status of a foundling.

Because it is an unprotected, ownerless place.

Rava said: And during years of famine, he does not have

the foundling

status.

For we attribute his mother’s abandonment of him to hunger, and not to his being disqualified.

We raised a difficulty against this:

To which case does Rava’s statement apply?—

If he said this regarding

a

foundling found in the middle of

the public domain,

one might ask: Is it because

since

there

are years of famine,

his mother kills him? Is that a reason for her to abandon him to die? Rather, it must be that she abandoned him because of his disqualification.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that Rava said it regarding

the sides of the public domain;

the difficulty still remains.

If so,

why specifically,

what relevance is there to

years of famine?

After all,

even

during

years without famine,

he does not have the status of a foundling.

Rather, when

the statement

of Rava was stated,

he did not say it with regard to Ameimar’s statement, 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 Zevadi, who said in the name of Rav: As long as

the foundling is still

found in the marketplace, his father and mother are deemed credible regarding him

to say that he is their son.

But after he

has been taken from the marketplace,

they

are no longer

trusted

deemed credible regarding him

to say that he is their son.

What is the reason?—

Rava said: Since

he has already

acquired the reputation of a foundling.

And once he has acquired the reputation of being disqualified, he can no longer be rendered fit.

And

regarding this

Rava said: And during years of famine, even though he has already

been taken from the marketplace,

and the report about him has spread, his father and mother are still deemed credible regarding him, to return and render him fit. Since many infants are abandoned during these years, the Sages did not wish to disqualify them merely because a report had spread about them, because they did not wish to increase the number of disqualified people among Israel.

Rav Ḥisda said: Three

people, whom the Sages granted special credibility, are not

deemed credible

except

immediately,

whereas other people who are deemed credible remain credible 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 ritual impurity. Each of them will be explained shortly.

A foundling—

that which we said.

His father and mother are deemed credible to render him fit only immediately, when he is found, but not after he has been taken from the marketplace.

A midwife [

a woman who assists at childbirth]—

as it is taught in a beraita: A midwife is deemed credible to say

regarding twins who were born:

This one emerged first

and he is the firstborn,

and this one emerged second.

In what case is this statement said,

that she is deemed credible in this matter? It is

when

she has still

not left [

departed]

and returned

from the place of birth.

But

if she

left

there

and

afterward

returned,

she is

no longer deemed credible.

Rabbi Eliezer says: She is deemed credible only as long as she is “

«

standing in her place” [

as will be explained],

deemed credible.

And if not, she is not deemed credible.

We raised a difficulty against this:

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 deemed credible. But according to Rabbi Eliezer, she is no longer deemed credible.

And this is what Rav Ḥisda said: A midwife is deemed credible only immediately, and not after some time has passed since the birth. “

Who exempts her companions,”

what is this?—

As we learned

in tractate Niddah:

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

with the impurity of a menstruating woman, due to uncertainty. This is referring to a case in which they were intertwined and attached to one another, and therefore there is uncertainty regarding each one: perhaps the blood came from her, and she contracted the impurity of a menstruating woman.

And if

one of them examined herself

herself

and was found to be impure,

then only

she

alone is

impure, and all the others are pure.

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

Rav Ḥisda said:

This is so only

if she examined

herself

immediately,

within

the time required for a menstrual examination from the time the blood was found. This measure is the amount of time required to take the examination cloth lying beside the doorpost [near her] and wipe herself with it. But after this time, even if she is found to be impure, the concern of impurity is not removed from her companions, and they too are impure.

The Sages taught: If several women who had recently given birth are found in one house,

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

the midwife is deemed credible

is

to say:

The child

this one is a kohen

born to the wife of the kohen,

and this one is a Levite,

born to the wife of the Levite,

and this one is a Netin,

born to the wife of the Netin,

and this one is a mamzer,

born to the wife of the mamzer.

In what case is this statement said,

that the midwife is deemed credible to say regarding a particular child that he is fit?

When no challenge was raised against her.

That is, no one challenged her by saying that one of the children whom the midwife declared fit is the son of the mamzer.

But

if

a challenge was raised against her, she is not deemed credible

to declare a particular child fit.

We raised a difficulty against this: “

A challenge”—

of what kind [

how many witnesses are required to raise the challenge]?—

If you say a challenge

by one

witness

who testifies that he is disqualified—

But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: A challenge cannot consist of fewer than two?

For one witness is not deemed credible to testify that a person is disqualified.

And we conclude:

Rather, it is a challenge by two.

If two witnesses testified regarding one of the children that he was born to the wife of the mamzer, the midwife is not deemed credible to contradict them and declare him fit.

And if you wish, I can say that

even in a place where there is

a challenge by one witness,

the midwife is not deemed credible.

And when Rabbi Yoḥanan said, “

A challenge cannot consist of fewer than two,”

that applies only where there is a presumption of fitness.

For one witness is not deemed credible to disqualify a person who has an established presumption of fitness.

But where there is no presumption of fitness,

as in our case, where the children have just been born and no presumption of fitness has been established regarding them, and it is not known which of them is fit and which is disqualified, even one

witness is also deemed credible

to contradict the midwife, who says regarding one of them that he is the fit one. Since they contradict one another, the original uncertainty is restored, and each of them is of uncertain status as a disqualified person.

The Gemara now cites the continuation of the beraita: If two people are arguing with one another over the same purchase, each claiming that he bought the purchased item with money, and not the other—

the owner of the

seller of the

purchase [

the seller]

is deemed credible to say: I sold it to this one, and I did not

sell

it to that one.

In what case is this statement said,

that the seller is deemed credible?

When

the

purchase is still in his possession,

as the buyer has not yet taken it, but has only given him its price. Although money does not effect acquisition until the buyer pulls the item, it is forbidden for the seller to retract from the sale after receiving the money. If he retracts, he is subject to the curse of “He Who exacted payment.”

Since he is obligated to deliver the item to the buyer, he pays attention to the matter, and carefully remembers to whom he sold it.

But

if

the purchase is no longer in his possession,

as he has already handed it over to the buyer and both of them are holding it,

the seller is not deemed credible

to say to whom he sold it. Since he has already given it to the buyer, the matter is no longer his responsibility, and he no longer takes care to remember to whom he sold it.