Kiddushin 75a — the Talmud in English

Everything whom

the priest

may marry

the

daughter,

also

you

the priest

may marry

the

widow—because she was not disqualified through his intercourse with her.

since she was not disqualified by his intercourse with her.

And everyone whom you may not

the priest

marry

the

daughter,

also

you may not marry

the

widow.

For every woman whose daughter is forbidden to a priest, also her widow, [and every woman with whom he had intercourse], is forbidden to a priest, because she was disqualified through his intercourse with her. And below it will be explained in what they disagree.

And we raised an objection to it:

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

But according to the words of both of them, all disqualified members of the congregation disqualify a woman for the priesthood through their intercourse with her.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The widow of a convert who is a

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

who is forbidden to enter the congregation, but whose son, a “third-generation Egyptian,” is permitted to enter the congregation]

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 an Israelite woman. As it is written: “The children who are born to them, the third generation, may enter the congregation of the Lord.” But [male] converts who are descended from Ammon or Moab are forbidden forever.

And both of them,

the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei,

did not learn it

their method

except from a High Priest with a widow.

For the source of this law—that a woman is disqualified for the priesthood through forbidden intercourse—is learned from the profanation of a widow who had intercourse with a High Priest, as it is written concerning him: “And he shall not profane his offspring among his people.” And since “he shall profane” is written with two instances of “he shall profane,” two profanations are implied: both his offspring is profaned, and the widow herself is profaned through this intercourse. And she is thereby disqualified even from marrying an ordinary priest. And from this we learned concerning all forbidden acts of intercourse, that they disqualify the woman with whom intercourse was had and the child for the priesthood.

For the first tanna holds:

All forbidden acts of intercourse disqualify

because

like

the intercourse of a High Priest with a widow:

Just as a High Priest with a widow, whose intercourse is a transgression, disqualifies her—

so too, everyone whose intercourse is a transgression disqualifies

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

And Rabbi Yosei holds:

Specifically one whose offspring is disqualified for the priesthood disqualifies the woman through his intercourse with her, for the priesthood—

because

as he disqualifies the woman

a High Priest

through his intercourse

with a widow:

Just as a High Priest with a widow, whose offspring

born from her

is disqualified

for the priesthood,

and disqualifies

his wife

; so too, everyone

whose

offspring is disqualified disqualifies

through his intercourse.

To exclude,

to exclude

a second-generation Egyptian,

who does not disqualify through his intercourse, 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, the third generation, may enter the congregation

of the Lord.”

We learned in the beraita above:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything whom you may marry

the

daughter, you may marry

the

widow.

And everyone whom you may not marry

the

daughter, you may not marry

the

widow.

And we raised an objection to it:

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

But according to the words of both of them, every forbidden intercourse disqualifies, except for the intercourse of a second-generation Egyptian.

Ulla said:

The intercourse of

an Ammonite and Moabite convert is the difference between them,

for they disagreed whether he disqualifies the woman for the priesthood through his intercourse with her.

And both of them did not learn it

for their method

except from a High Priest with a widow,

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

For Rabbi Yosei holds:

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

because

as

a High Priest with a widow:

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

who becomes a ḥalal, for the priesthood,

disqualifies

the woman through his intercourse.

So too, everyone whose offspring is disqualified disqualifies

the woman through his intercourse. And an Ammonite and Moabite convert is also included in this, for his sons are forbidden to enter the congregation forever.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds

also that we learn disqualification only through intercourse that is

as

like

the intercourse of a High Priest with a widow:

But he learned this in a different manner:

Just as, like the intercourse of

a

High Priest with a widow, whose entire offspring is disqualified

for the priesthood—both his sons and his daughters are profaned from the priesthood—the intercourse disqualifies the woman

; so too, everyone

whose

entire offspring is disqualified, even the females,

disqualifies a woman for the priesthood through his intercourse.

To exclude,

to exclude from this category,

an Ammonite and Moabite convert,

who does not disqualify the woman through his intercourse, because only his sons are forbidden to enter the congregation, but

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:

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

“Ammonite”—

but not an Ammonite woman;

“Moabite”—

but not a Moabite woman!

Rav Hisda said: Everyone agrees concerning

“the widow of a mixture,”

that

she is

disqualified for the priesthood.

“Mixture” means an expression of doubt, that is, a doubtful ḥalal. It is uncertain to us whether the mother of this priest was divorced, and he is therefore a ḥalal, or whether she was a widow, in which case he is a fit priest. And she is called “a mixture” because she resembles dough into which several things have been kneaded, and each one is not recognizable on its own; so too, this is “mixed” and kneaded with doubts.

And the widow of this doubtful person is disqualified for the priesthood. For perhaps her husband the priest was a ḥalal, and a ḥalal disqualifies a woman for the priesthood through his intercourse with her.

For

who is the one who is

the one who

more lenient with

than all

these tannaim who disagreed above concerning intercourse that disqualifies for the priesthood?—

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

It is

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

who declares even an Ammonite and Moabite convert fit.

And

he himself

says: Everything whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow.

And everyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow.

And

to exclude what

did he say this?—

You must say:

to exclude the widow of a mixture,

who is disqualified for the priesthood. For the daughter of a ḥalal is disqualified for the priesthood. And also the daughter of this “mixture” you may not marry, because of the doubt that perhaps he is a ḥalal. Therefore, also his widow is disqualified.

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

to exclude these tannaim,

who declare the widow of a mixture fit for the priesthood.

For we learned

in tractate Eduyot:

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

And the Gemara explains their reason:

What is the reason?—

Because it is a double doubt. For even her husband was only of doubtful disqualification. And she, who comes to be disqualified on his account, is considered a second doubt. [And this is not in the category of the usual double doubt, in which there is a second doubt even on the side of the first doubt; rather, the intention is that the doubt did not arise concerning her, but she is a doubt resulting from the husband’s doubt, and therefore she is to be maintained on 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

a double doubt

such as this we rule

leniently,

and she is fit for the priesthood.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says:

A certain person with a certain person is permitted;

a certain person with a doubtful person, and a doubtful person with a certain person, and a doubtful person with a doubtful person, are forbidden.

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

And Rav Yehuda added and said:

When I stated it before Shmuel,

that Rav had ruled so,

he said to me:

We find in a beraita the words of

Hillel,

that this is how he

teaches:

Ten genealogical classes ascended from Babylonia.

And all of them,

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

are permitted to enter into one another.

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

And

if

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

who forbids a mamzer with a shetuki and a shetuki with a shetuki!?

And he raises

a contradiction

from Rav against Rav, and he raises

a contradiction

from Shmuel against Shmuel!

For both of them contradicted their own teachings.

For it was stated: A betrothed woman who became pregnant,

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

Rav said: The offspring

has the status of a

mamzer,

for perhaps she became pregnant from the majority of the world, and the majority are forbidden to her with the prohibition of a married woman, and he is therefore permitted with a certain mamzeret [even though he is not a certain mamzer, because it is possible that she became pregnant from her betrothed].

And Shmuel said: The offspring is a shetuki,

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

And there is a practical difference between them:

According to

Rav, who says “

the offspring is a mamzer,”

he is

permitted with a certain mamzeret

with certainty.

Whereas according to

Shmuel, who says “

the offspring is a shetuki,”

he is a doubtful mamzer, and

is forbidden with a mamzeret.

And this is difficult: did Rav not rule above in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who says that a doubtful mamzer is forbidden with a certain mamzeret? Yet here Rav said that a doubtful mamzer has the status of a certain mamzer, and is permitted with a mamzeret.

And it is likewise difficult concerning Shmuel, who above ruled that a certain person with a doubtful person is permitted, whereas here he said that a shetuki is forbidden with a mamzeret. And we answer:

Reverse it!

The report concerning the betrothed woman who became pregnant must be stated in reverse, and this is what was stated:

Rav said: The offspring is a shetuki,

and is forbidden with a mamzeret. And this accords with his view that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

And Shmuel said: The offspring is a mamzer,

and is permitted with a mamzeret, and this accords with his view that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, but in accordance with the first tanna.

But it is still possible to object: If so,

why do I need two statements?

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

And the Gemara answers with two answers:

1.

It is necessary

for them to make their ruling known both concerning a betrothed woman who became pregnant and concerning an ordinary shetuki.

If it were stated

their dispute

concerning this,

in our Mishna, which deals with an ordinary shetuki, I might have said that specifically

concerning this Rav says

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who forbids a doubtful mamzer with a mamzeret,

because

his mother is an unmarried woman, and

the majority

of the world

are fit with her,

and presumably he is fit and forbidden with a mamzeret.

But there,

concerning a betrothed woman who became pregnant,

the majority

of the world

are disqualified with her,

for she is a married woman, and it is more plausible that she had intercourse with them, rather than with her betrothed, who is only a minority;

say,

in this case

Rav concedes

to

Shmuel

that he is judged as disqualified and permitted with a mamzeret.

And if it were stated concerning the other,

concerning a betrothed woman who became pregnant, I might have said that specifically

concerning this Rav says

that the offspring is forbidden with a mamzeret,

because it is possible to attribute it

there is reason to attribute it

to the betrothed,

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

But concerning this,

an ordinary shetuki, whose mother is an unmarried woman,

say, Rav concedes

to

Shmuel

that he is of doubtful disqualification and permitted with a mamzeret.

Therefore,

it is necessary

for Rav to make his words known in both cases.

2.

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

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

And what is meant by “the offspring is

offspring is a

a mamzer”

that Rav said?—

Not

that he

is permitted with a mamzeret, but that he is forbidden with an Israelite woman,

because he is a doubtful mamzer.

And in fact, he is also forbidden with a certain mamzeret, in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who forbade doubtful persons with certain persons.

And Shmuel,

who

said “

the offspring is a shetuki,”

also intends to say

that

he is

forbidden with an Israelite woman.

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

But according to this it is difficult:

If so, since we have now established that Shmuel too holds that the offspring of a betrothed woman who became pregnant is forbidden with an Israelite woman, the words of Shmuel

now that we have established that Shmuel too holds that the offspring of a betrothed woman who became pregnant is forbidden to marry an Israelite woman, Shmuel’s statement

are

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:

Rather, what is meant by “

a shetuki”

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

That they silence him from the law of priesthood.

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

And we reject this: Is it not

obvious

that this is so

! For now,

for behold, now,

we silence him from the law of Israel,

and disqualify him from the congregation because of the concern of being a mamzer; if so,

from the law of priesthood, is it necessary

for Shmuel to say that they silence him because he is disqualified?!

And we conclude:

Rather, what is meant by “the offspring is

a shetuki”

that Shmuel said—

that they silence him from his father’s property,

for he does not inherit the property of the betrothed, since perhaps he is not his father.

And we object: Is this matter also not

obvious,

that he does not inherit from him and cannot take his share from the other heirs, for

who knows who his father is

his father’s identity?!

And we answer:

It is necessary

for Shmuel to make this known in a case

where he seized

the property of the betrothed after he died, claiming that he is his son and has a right to his inheritance. And Shmuel teaches us that the property is removed from his possession and given to the other heirs of the betrothed, and he cannot seize it on the basis of doubt and claim against them that they are coming to remove money that he is holding, and “the claimant from his fellow bears the proof.”

And if you wish, say: What is meant by “the offspring is

offspring is

a shetuki”

that Shmuel said—

a beduki!

For 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 for the congregation on her word.

And

in accordance with whom

did Shmuel rule thus?—

In accordance with Rabban Gamliel, who said

that she is believed.

And we are astonished:

But did

already

Shmuel

not say this

once

already, that one should rule in this matter in accordance with Rabban Gamliel? Why did he say it again?

For 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:

“From a certain man”

I became pregnant,

“and he is a priest” [of established and fit lineage]—

of established and fit lineage]—

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is believed

to render the offspring fit through this testimony.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not believed.

And the offspring is of doubtful disqualification, for perhaps she became pregnant from a mamzer, or from one of her 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 also in the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant.

For if from there, I would have said,

specifically

there

she is believed to render the fetus fit, for she is an unmarried woman, and

the majority

of the world

are fit with her.

But here,

concerning a betrothed woman who became pregnant,

the majority

of the world

are disqualified with her,

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

say that she will not

be believed to say that she became pregnant from her betrothed, since this is against the majority.

Therefore,

it is necessary

for him to make known 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 raised an objection to it:

What is the reason?

But their genealogy is the same for both of them.

And one cannot say that Rabbi Eliezer follows his own view, that doubtful persons are forbidden with doubtful persons, and that the Samaritans are doubtful mamzerim because they are not expert in the laws of bills of divorce and betrothals. For whichever way you look at it, if both of them are mamzerim, they are certainly permitted to one another. And if one is a mamzer and the other is fit, nevertheless he is a convert, and a convert is permitted with a mamzeret.

Rav Yosef said:

Because

they made him

a Samaritan

like a convert after ten generations,

who is forbidden to marry those disqualified from entering the congregation, because by then his conversion has already been forgotten, and he appears to be an Israelite, and people will say that an Israelite married a disqualified woman. Therefore, a convert after ten generations is considered like an Israelite with regard to genealogy, stringently.

For it was taught in a beraita: A convert until ten generations is permitted with a mamzeret.

But

from this point onward, he is forbidden with a mamzeret.

Since the fact that he is descended from converts has already been forgotten, and he appears to be a complete Israelite, he is forbidden with a mamzeret because of the appearance of impropriety.

And some say:

A convert is permitted with a mamzeret

until the name of idolatry is entirely erased from him.

But after it has already been forgotten that he is descended from converts, he is forbidden with a mamzeret.

And the Kuthites too underwent conversion many generations ago, and their conversion has already been forgotten.

Abaye said to him:

And is

it comparable that

a convert after ten generations, who is forbidden to a mamzeret, is comparable to a Kuthite with a Kuthite?

But

there,

the convert is

an old convert,

and it has already been forgotten that he is of the seed of converts,

and

the mamzeret is

a new mamzeret,

for it is known and recognizable concerning her that she is a mamzeret. And if we permit them to one another,

people will say:

people:

“An Israelite married a mamzeret!”

Therefore, because of appearance to the eye, they prohibited them.

But

here,

behold,

both this and that [

the Kuthite and the Kuthite woman ]

are alike!

And if they regard him as an Israelite because he is “an old convert,” then she too is regarded as having valid lineage, and there is no concern whatsoever of appearance to the eye in this.

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

who holds that a Kuthite may not marry a mamzeret,

holds in accordance

with Rabbi Ishmael.