Kiddushin 75a (עה.) — the Talmud in English

Anyone whom

the priest

may marry

—

his daughter—

so too

you

the priest

may marry

her

widow,

since she was not disqualified by his intercourse with her.

And anyone whom you may not

the priest

marry

—

his daughter—

so too

you may not marry

her

widow.

For whenever his daughter is forbidden to a priest, his widow [and likewise every woman with whom he had intercourse] is also forbidden to a priest, since she was disqualified by his intercourse with her. The Gemara will explain below in what respect they disagree.

And we raise the following difficulty:

What difference is there between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei?

Is it not the case that according to both of them, all those disqualified from entering the congregation disqualify a woman for the priesthood through intercourse with her?

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The widow of a convert who is a

second-generation Egyptian [

who is forbidden to enter the congregation, whereas his son, who is a “third-generation Egyptian,” is permitted to enter the congregation]—

that is the difference between them.

An Egyptian convert and his son are forbidden to enter the congregation until the third generation. But the third generation is already permitted to marry a Jewish woman, as it is written: “The children who are born to them in the third generation may enter the congregation of the Lord.” But male converts descended from Ammon or Moab are forbidden forever.

And both of them,

the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei,

did not derive

their respective positions

except from the case of a High Priest with a widow.

The source of the law that a woman is disqualified for the priesthood through forbidden intercourse is the desecration of a widow who had intercourse with a High Priest, concerning whom it is written: “He shall not desecrate his offspring among his people.” And since the word “desecrate” is written twice in the verse, two acts of desecration are implied: not only is his offspring desecrated, but the widow herself is also desecrated through this intercourse. Consequently, she is disqualified even from marrying an ordinary priest. From this we derive the rule concerning all forbidden acts of intercourse: they disqualify both the woman with whom the intercourse took place and the offspring for the priesthood.

The first tanna holds:

All forbidden acts of intercourse disqualify

like

the intercourse of

a High Priest with a widow:

Just as with a High Priest and a widow, whose intercourse is forbidden and disqualifies her,

so too, whenever the intercourse is forbidden, it disqualifies

the woman for the priesthood. It follows that the widow of a second-generation Egyptian is included in this rule, since the intercourse of the second-generation Egyptian with her was also forbidden.

And Rabbi Yosei holds:

Specifically one whose offspring is disqualified for the priesthood disqualifies the woman with whom he has intercourse

like

the way he disqualifies the woman

a High Priest

through intercourse

with a widow:

Just as with a High Priest and a widow, whose offspring

born from her

is disqualified

for the priesthood

and disqualifies

his wife

; so too, anyone

whose

offspring is disqualified disqualifies

through intercourse with him.

To exclude

and exclude

a second-generation Egyptian,

whose intercourse does not disqualify, because

his offspring is not disqualified.

For

his offspring is already of the third generation, which is permitted to enter the congregation. For

the verse says [Deuteronomy 23:9]: “

The children who are born to them in the third generation may enter the congregation

of the Lord.”

We learned in the beraita above:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whom you may marry

his

daughter, you may marry

his

widow.

And anyone whom you may not marry

his

daughter, you may not marry

his

widow.

And we raise the following difficulty:

What difference is there between Rabbi Yosei and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

Is it not the case that according to both of them, every forbidden act of intercourse disqualifies, except for the intercourse of a second-generation Egyptian?

Ulla said:

The intercourse of

an Ammonite or Moabite convert is the difference between them,

as they disagree whether he disqualifies a woman for the priesthood through intercourse with her.

And both of them did not derive

their positions

except from the case of a High Priest with a widow,

which is the source of this law, as explained above.

Rabbi Yosei holds:

Every forbidden act of intercourse, even that of an Ammonite or Moabite convert, disqualifies

like

the

High Priest with a widow:

Just as with a High Priest and a widow, anyone whose offspring is disqualified

who becomes a ḥalal

disqualifies

the woman through intercourse with him,

so too, anyone whose offspring is disqualified disqualifies

the woman through intercourse with him. An Ammonite or Moabite convert is included in this rule, since his sons are forbidden to enter the congregation forever.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds

that he too derives disqualification only through intercourse that is

like

the intercourse of

a High Priest with a widow:

But he derives it in a different manner:

Just

as in the intercourse of

a High Priest with a widow, whose entire offspring is disqualified,

for the priesthood, since both his sons and his daughters are desecrated with regard to the priesthood, the intercourse disqualifies the woman

; so too, anyone

whose

entire offspring is disqualified, even the females,

disqualifies a woman for the priesthood through intercourse with him.

To exclude

and exclude from this category

an Ammonite or Moabite convert,

who does not disqualify a woman through intercourse with him, since only his sons are forbidden to enter the congregation, whereas

the females

his daughters

are fit to enter the congregation.

For

the Master said:

It is written: “An Ammonite and a Moabite may not enter the congregation of the Lord.” And we expound: “

An Ammonite”

but not an Ammonite woman; “

a Moabite”

but not a Moabite woman!

Rav Hisda said: Everyone agrees with regard to “

the widow of a doubtful lineage”

that

she is

disqualified for the priesthood. The term “doubtful lineage” means one of doubtful status, that is, a doubtful ḥalal. We are uncertain whether the mother of this priest was divorced, in which case he is a ḥalal, or whether she was a widow, in which case he is a fit priest. She is called “dough,” because she resembles dough into which several things have been kneaded, with none of them individually recognizable; likewise, her status is “mixed” and kneaded together with uncertainties. The widow of this doubtful person is disqualified for the priesthood, because perhaps her husband the priest was a ḥalal, and a ḥalal disqualifies a woman for the priesthood through intercourse with her.

“Dough” means a case of uncertainty, that is, a doubtful profaned priest. We are uncertain whether the mother of this priest was divorced, in which case he is a profaned priest, or whether she was a widow, in which case he is a fit priest. She is called “dough” because she resembles dough in which several ingredients have been kneaded together and none is recognizable by itself; this case too is “mixed” and blended with uncertainties.

And the widow of this doubtful priest is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, because perhaps her husband the priest was a profaned priest, and a profaned priest disqualifies a woman from marrying into the priesthood through his intercourse.

For

who is the

most

lenient of

all

these tannaim

who disagreed above concerning intercourse that disqualifies a woman for the priesthood? —

It is

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

who declares even an Ammonite or Moabite convert fit.

And

he himself

says: Anyone whom you may marry, you may marry his daughter.

And anyone whom you may not marry his daughter, you may not marry his widow.

And

what does this exclude

when he said this? —

It follows that it excludes

the widow of a doubtful lineage,

who is disqualified for the priesthood. For the daughter of a ḥalal is disqualified for the priesthood. And you may not marry the daughter of this “doubtful lineage” either, because of the uncertainty whether he is a ḥalal. Therefore, his widow is likewise disqualified.

And Rav Hisda came to say that the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel are

to exclude the position of these tannaim,

who declare the widow of a doubtful lineage fit for the priesthood.

As we learned

in tractate Eduyot:

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira testified concerning the widow of a doubtful lineage that she is fit for the priesthood.

And the Gemara explains their reasoning:

What is the reason? —

Because it is a double doubt. For even her husband was only of doubtful disqualification. And she, who would become disqualified on his account, is regarded as a second doubt. [This is not the usual category of a double doubt, in which the second doubt exists even on the side of the first doubt; rather, the meaning is that the doubt did not arise concerning her, but is a doubt resulting from her husband’s doubt, and therefore she is left with her presumption of fitness.]

Her husband himself was only of doubtful disqualification. Since she would become disqualified on his account, she is considered a second doubt. [This is not the usual type of compound doubt, in which there is a second doubt even on the side of the first possibility. Rather, the meaning is that the doubt did not arise concerning her directly; it arose as a result of her husband’s doubt, and therefore she retains her presumption of fitness].

And

with

such a double doubt

we rule

leniently,

and she is fit for the priesthood.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says:

A definite mamzer with a definite mamzeret is permitted;

a definite mamzer with one of doubtful status, one of doubtful status with a definite mamzeret, and one of doubtful status with another of doubtful status are forbidden.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

And Rav Yehuda added:

When I stated this before Shmuel,

that Rav had ruled so,

he said to me:

We find in a beraita the words of

Hillel,

who

taught as follows:

Ten classes of lineage ascended from Babylonia.

And all of them,

all those among them who were forbidden to enter the congregation,

are permitted to marry one another.

It is explicit, then, that a mamzer, a netin, a shetuki, and an asufi are permitted to marry one another.

And

if

you had said to me: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who forbids a mamzer to marry one of doubtful status and one of doubtful status to marry another of doubtful status!?

And he raises a contradiction

and

raises a contradiction

between Rav and Rav, and

between Shmuel and Shmuel!

For both of them contradicted their own rulings.

For it was stated: If a betrothed woman became pregnant,

and it is unknown whether she became pregnant by her betrothed, in which case the fetus is fit, or whether she became pregnant by another man, in which case he is a mamzer—

Rav said: The offspring

has the status of a

mamzer,

as perhaps she became pregnant from one of the majority of men, who are forbidden to her under the prohibition of a married woman; and he is therefore permitted to marry a mamzeret [although he is not certainly a mamzer, since it is possible that she became pregnant from her betrothed].

And Shmuel said: The offspring is of doubtful status,

since he is only a doubtful mamzer, as perhaps she became pregnant from her betrothed.

There is a practical difference between them:

According to

Rav, who says “

the offspring is a mamzer,”

he is

permitted to marry a definite mamzeret.

with certainty.

Whereas according to

Shmuel, who says “

the offspring is of doubtful status,”

he is a doubtful mamzer, and

is forbidden to marry a mamzeret.

This is difficult: did Rav not rule above in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who says that one of doubtful status is forbidden to marry a definite mamzeret? Yet here Rav says that a doubtful mamzer has the status of a definite mamzer and is permitted to marry a mamzeret.

And Shmuel’s ruling is likewise difficult. Above he ruled that a definite person and one of doubtful status are permitted to marry one another, whereas here he says that one of doubtful status is forbidden to marry a mamzeret. And we answer:

Reverse it!

The report concerning a betrothed woman who became pregnant must be reversed, and it was stated as follows:

Rav said: The offspring is of doubtful status,

and is forbidden to marry a mamzeret, in accordance with his position that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

And Shmuel said: The offspring is a mamzer,

and is permitted to marry a mamzeret, in accordance with his position that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer but with the first tanna.

But it is still possible to raise the following difficulty: If so,

why do I need both statements?

Rav and Shmuel have already disagreed above as to whether the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

The Gemara gives two answers:

1.

It is necessary

for them to state their rulings both with regard to a betrothed woman who became pregnant and with regard to an ordinary person of doubtful status.

If the dispute had been stated

only in

this case,

in the Mishna’s discussion of an ordinary person of doubtful status, I might have said that specifically

in this case Rav said

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who forbids one of doubtful status to marry a mamzeret,

because

his mother is an unmarried woman, and

the majority

of men

are fit with regard to her, so presumably he is fit and forbidden to marry a mamzeret.

so presumably he is fit and is forbidden to marry a mamzeret.

But there,

in the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant,

the majority

of men

are disqualified with regard to her, since she is a married woman and it is more likely that she had intercourse with them than with her betrothed, who is only a minority possibility.

since she is a married woman, and it is more likely that she had intercourse with one of them than with her fiancé, who is only a minority possibility.

Say

in this case

Rav agrees

with

Shmuel, that the offspring is treated as disqualified and is permitted to marry a mamzeret.

the child has the status of a disqualified person and may marry a mamzeret.

And if it had been stated in that case,

in the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant, I might have said that specifically

in this case Rav said

that the offspring is forbidden to marry a mamzeret,

because it is possible to attribute it

to

the betrothed,

from whom she became pregnant and not from a stranger forbidden to her, and presumably he is fit.

But in this case,

with regard to an ordinary person of doubtful status, whose mother is unmarried,

say, Rav agrees

with

Shmuel,

that he is of doubtful status and is permitted to marry a mamzeret.

Therefore,

it is necessary

for Rav to state his ruling in both cases.

2.

And if you wish, say: In fact, do not reverse

the words of Rav and Shmuel concerning a betrothed woman who became pregnant.

And what does “the

offspring is a

mamzer”

that Rav said mean?

It does not mean

that he is

permitted to marry a mamzeret; rather, he is forbidden to marry a Jewish woman, because he is a doubtful mamzer.

because he is a doubtful mamzer.

And in fact he is also forbidden to marry a definite mamzeret, in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who forbids those of doubtful status to marry those of definite status.

And Shmuel,

who

said “

the offspring is of doubtful status,”

also meant

that

he is

forbidden to marry a Jewish woman.

But he is permitted to marry a mamzeret, in accordance with the first tanna, who permits a doubtful mamzer to marry a definite mamzer.

But according to this, the following difficulty arises:

If so,

having now established that Shmuel too holds that the offspring of a betrothed woman who became pregnant is forbidden to marry a Jewish woman, Shmuel’s words

are the same as what

what

Rav

held!

And in what did Shmuel disagree with him? Did they not say the same thing?

In what, then, did Shmuel disagree with him? They stated the same thing.

And we answer:

they answer:

Rather, what does “

of doubtful status”

that Shmuel said concerning the betrothed woman who became pregnant mean?

They silence him with regard to the priesthood.

If the betrothed was a priest, the offspring is not attributed to him for purposes of the priesthood, because perhaps he is the son of another man.

And we reject this: Is it not

obvious

that this is so

! For now,

since

we silence him with regard to Israelite status,

disqualifying him from the congregation because of the concern that he is a mamzer, then

with regard to the priesthood, it is necessary

for Shmuel to say that he is silenced because he is disqualified?!

And we conclude:

Rather, what does “the offspring is

of doubtful status”

that Shmuel said mean?

They silence him with regard to his father’s property,

as he does not inherit the property of the betrothed, because perhaps he is not his father.

And we ask: Is this too not

obvious?

He does not inherit from him and cannot take his share from the other heirs, because

who knows who his father is

his father?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for Shmuel to teach this in a case

where the offspring seized

the betrothed’s property after his death, claiming that he was his son and therefore had a right to inherit him. Shmuel teaches that the property is removed from his possession and given to the other heirs of the betrothed. He may not retain the property on the basis of doubt and argue that they are attempting to take money that is in his possession, invoking the principle that one who seeks to extract money from another bears the burden of proof.

And if you wish, say: What does “the

offspring is

of doubtful status”

that Shmuel said mean?

It means that he is examined!

They examine his mother

and ask her with whom she had intercourse—

and

if she

says: “

I had intercourse with a fit man,”

she is believed, and the fetus is fit to enter the congregation on the basis of her statement.

And

in accordance with whom

did Shmuel rule this way?

In accordance with Rabban Gamliel, who said

that she is believed.

And we are astonished:

Did

already

Shmuel not already say

not say this

once

this, that the halakha should be ruled in accordance with Rabban Gamliel? Why did he say it again?

As we learned

in tractate Ketubot: An unmarried woman who

was pregnant, and they said to her: “What is the status of this fetus?”

And she said:

“I became pregnant from a certain man,”

and

he is a priest

[of established and fit lineage]—

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is believed

to render the offspring fit through this statement.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not believed.

The offspring is of doubtful status, as perhaps she became pregnant from a mamzer or from one of her close relatives.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel!

And we answer:

It is necessary

for Shmuel to say that she is believed even in the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant.

For if he had stated it only there, I would have said that specifically

only

there

she is believed to render the fetus fit, since she is unmarried and

the majority

of men

are fit with regard to her.

But here,

in the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant,

the majority

of men

are disqualified with regard to her, since she is forbidden to them as a married woman.

for she is forbidden to them with the prohibition of a married woman;

Say that she is not believed to say that she became pregnant from her betrothed, since this contradicts the majority.

believed to say that she became pregnant from her fiancé, since her claim contradicts the majority.

Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach us that she is believed even in this case.

It was taught in a beraita: And Rabbi Elazar likewise says: A Samaritan may not marry a Samaritan woman.

And we raise the following difficulty:

What is the reason?

Do they not have the same lineage status?

And one cannot say that Rabbi Elazar follows his own position, that those of doubtful status may not marry one another, and that Samaritans are of doubtful mamzer status because they are not expert in the laws of bills of divorce and betrothal. For whichever way one looks at it, if both of them are mamzerim, they are certainly permitted to marry one another; and if one is a mamzer and the other is fit, in any event he is a convert, and a convert is permitted to marry a mamzeret.

Rav Yosef said:

Because

they rendered him

a Samaritan

like a convert after ten generations,

who is forbidden to marry those disqualified from entering the congregation, since by then his convert status has been forgotten and he appears to be an Israelite; people will say that an Israelite married a disqualified woman. Therefore, a convert after ten generations is treated as an Israelite with regard to lineage, stringently.

As it was taught in a beraita: A convert is permitted to marry a mamzeret for up to ten generations.

But

from that point onward, he is forbidden to marry a mamzeret,

since by then it has already been forgotten that he is descended from converts, and he appears to be a complete Israelite; he is therefore forbidden to marry a mamzeret because of the appearance of impropriety.

And there are those who say:

A convert is permitted to marry a mamzeret

until the name of idolatry has been completely forgotten from him.

But once it has already been forgotten that he is descended from converts, he is forbidden to marry a mamzeret.

The Kutim too converted many generations ago, and their conversion has already been forgotten.

Abaye said to him:

Is

the case comparable

of a ger after ten generations, who is forbidden to a mamzeret, to that of a Kuti man and a Kutite?

But

there,

the convert is

an old convert,

and it has already been forgotten that he is descended from converts,

while

the mamzeret is

a new mamzeret,

as it is known and apparent that she is a mamzeret. If we were to permit the two to one another,

people would say:

people:

“It is an Israelite who married a mamzeret!”

Therefore, they prohibited them because of the appearance of impropriety.

But

here,

behold,

both this one and that one [

the Kuti and the Kutite]

are alike!

And if he is presumed to be an Israelite because he is an “old convert,” she too is presumed to have valid lineage, and there is no concern of the appearance of impropriety here.

Rather, when Rav Dimi came, he said: Rabbi Elazar

who holds that a Kuti may not marry a mamzeret,

held the same view

as Rabbi Ishmael.