## Kiddushin Daf 64a

###### Kiddushin 64a:1
[Kiddushin 64a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:1)

נֶאֱמָן לִנְדָרִים, וְלַחֲרָמִים, וּלְהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת וְלַעֲרָכִים, אֲבָל לֹא לְמַכּוֹת וְלָעוֹנָשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the father is **deemed credible** concerning the ages of his children **with regard to vows,** i.e., any vow they make is valid; **and with regard to dedications,** i.e., if they consecrate an item by saying it should be dedicated to God; and **with regard to consecrations and with regard to valuations,** i.e., vows to donate to the Temple treasury the fixed valuation of oneself or others. In all these cases their vows are valid. **But** the father is **not** deemed credible **with regard to lashes** of the court, **or with regard to** other corporal **punishments** for transgressions they have committed, as the testimony of one witness, especially that of a family member, is insufficient for this purpose.


###### Kiddushin 64a:2
[Kiddushin 64a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״קִדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת בִּתִּי״, ״קִדַּשְׁתִּיהָ וְגֵרַשְׁתִּיהָ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה״, וַהֲרֵי הִיא קְטַנָּה – נֶאֱמָן. ״קִדַּשְׁתִּיהָ וְגֵרַשְׁתִּיהָ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה״, וַהֲרֵי הִיא גְּדוֹלָה – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. נִשְׁבֵּית וּפְדִיתִיהָ, בֵּין שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה בֵּין שֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a father says: **I betrothed my** minor **daughter** to someone, or: **I betrothed her** to someone **and** accepted **her divorce when she was a minor girl, and she is** still **a minor girl** at the time of this statement, he is **deemed credible** to render her forbidden to all other men as a married woman, or to a priest as a divorced woman. But if he says: **I betrothed her** to someone **and** accepted **her divorce when she was a minor, and she is an adult woman** at the time of his declaration, his statement is **not deemed credible.** Likewise, if he says: **She was taken captive and I redeemed her, he is not deemed credible** to disqualify her from marrying a priest **whether she was a minor girl or an adult woman.**


###### Kiddushin 64a:3
[Kiddushin 64a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? רֵישָׁא בִּידֵיהּ, סֵיפָא לָאו בִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is different** in **the first clause** of the mishna **and what is different** in **the latter clause?** Why is the father deemed credible when she is a minor but not when she is an adult or to testify that she was taken captive? The Gemara answers: In **the first clause** it is still **in his power** to betroth her, and therefore he is deemed credible when he says that he did so earlier. By contrast, in **the latter clause** it is **not in his power** to betroth her, as one cannot betroth his adult daughter. Likewise, as it is not permitted for him to disqualify her by handing her over to a gentile, either when she is a minor or when she is an adult, he is not deemed credible when he says that she was taken captive.


###### Kiddushin 64a:4
[Kiddushin 64a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:4)

וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי בְּיָדוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ לְחָלָל, דְּקָא פָסְלַהּ מִכְּהוּנָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** does a father **not** have the power to disqualify his daughter? **But** it is **in his power to marry** off his minor daughter **to a *ḥalal*,** i.e., the son of a priest who married a woman prohibited to him, **which** thereby **disqualifies her from** marrying into **the priesthood.** The father should therefore be deemed credible when he claims that she was taken captive.


###### Kiddushin 64a:5
[Kiddushin 64a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:5)

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, כְּרַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִקְוֵה טׇהֳרָה לַחֲלָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **This** is **not difficult,** as one can say that the mishna **is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, who says: The daughters of Israelites** are **a ritual bath of purity for individuals of *ḥalal* status.** In other words, an Israelite woman who marries a *ḥalal* purifies their children, i.e., renders their children fit, in that any daughter born to them is qualified to marry a priest. Similarly, the woman herself does not become disqualified by her intercourse with the *ḥalal*, and she may marry a priest if her husband dies. If so, a father does not have the power to disqualify his daughter from marrying into the priesthood.


###### Kiddushin 64a:6
[Kiddushin 64a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:6)

וַהֲרֵי בְּיָדוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ לְמַמְזֵר! כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: אֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** it is **in** the father’s **power to marry her** off **to a *mamzer*,** thereby disqualifying her from the priesthood. The Gemara answers: This *tanna* holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says: Betrothal does not take effect** even **with** those women with whom one **is** only **liable** for violating **a prohibition** of engaging in intercourse and not a more severe prohibition that would render one liable for *karet* or capital punishment, so betrothal does not take effect with a *mamzer*.


###### Kiddushin 64a:7
[Kiddushin 64a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:7)

הֲרֵי בְּיָדוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וּכְרַבִּי סִימַאי, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: מִן הַכֹּל עוֹשֶׂה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַמְזֵר, חוּץ מֵאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״לֹא יִקָּח... וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל״: – חִלּוּלִים עוֹשֶׂה, וְאֵין עוֹשֶׂה מַמְזֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further challenges: **But** it is **in** the father’s **power to marry her** off as **a widow to a High Priest, and** this is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Simai, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Simai says: In all** cases **Rabbi Akiva deems** the child **a *mamzer*,** i.e., he considers the offspring of all forbidden acts of intercourse to be *mamzerim*, **apart from a widow to a High Priest, as the Torah stated** with regard to a High Priest: “A widow…**shall he not take…and he shall not profane [*yeḥallel*]** his seed” (Leviticus 21:14–15). From this verse it is derived: **He renders** his children ***ḥalalim*** by means of this relationship, **but he does not render** them ***mamzerim*.** Since this act of intercourse does not produce *mamzerim*, Rabbi Akiva agrees that betrothal is effective in this case.


###### Kiddushin 64a:8
[Kiddushin 64a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:8)

כְּרַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, דְּאָמַר: בּוֹאוּ וְנִצְוַוח עַל עֲקִיבָא בֶּן יוֹסֵף שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בִּיאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *tanna* of the mishna holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yeshevav, who says: Come, let us shout at Akiva ben Yosef, who would say:** In **every** case where **a Jew may not engage in intercourse** with a particular woman, and he does so, **the offspring** that results from this union **is a *mamzer*.** This indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva all acts of forbidden intercourse produce *mamzerim*. Consequently, betrothal is of no effect in the case of any prohibition, including a widow to a High Priest, which means that a father cannot disqualify his daughter from the priesthood.


###### Kiddushin 64a:9
[Kiddushin 64a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:9)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב אִי לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִטַּעְמָא דְּרַבִּי סִימַאי קָאָתֵי, הֲרֵי בְּיָדוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ לְחַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This** mishna can **work out well** even **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yeshevav if** he states **a reasoning of his own,** i.e., he states an independent statement critical of Rabbi Akiva’s ruling that the child of any illicit union is a *mamzer*. Then, the ruling of the mishna is **well,** as it is a categorical statement that applies to all illicit unions. **But if he comes to exclude the reason of Rabbi Simai,** i.e., he means to take issue with the ruling of Rabbi Akiva in the specific case mentioned by Rabbi Simai, that of a widow to a High Priest, then Rabbi Yeshevav too concedes that according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, betrothal does take effect in a case where a positive mitzva is violated by the betrothal. Accordingly, it is **in** the father’s **power to marry her to those** with whom intercourse renders them **liable for** the violation of **positive** mitzvot, as Rabbi Akiva’s principle does not include cases of this kind.


###### Kiddushin 64a:10
[Kiddushin 64a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:10)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי וְתִסְבְּרַאּ רֵישָׁא מִשּׁוּם דִּבְיָדוֹ הוּא? נְהִי דִּבְיָדוֹ לְקַדְּשָׁהּ, בְּיָדוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ? וְעוֹד, אִילּוּ אֲמַר הַאי דְּלָא נִיחָא [לֵיהּ] בְּגַוַּהּ מִי מָצֵי מְקַדֵּשׁ [לַהּ] נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּעַל כֻּרְחֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi says: And** how can **you understand** it that way? Can it be that the reason for the *halakha* in **the first clause** of the mishna **is because** it is **in his power? Although** it is **in his power to betroth her,** is it **in his power to divorce her? And furthermore, if this one,** the prospective husband, **says that** it is **not satisfactory** for him **to** betroth **her, can** her father **betroth her to him against his will?** A father cannot betroth his daughter to whomever he chooses without taking the man’s wishes into account.


###### Kiddushin 64a:11
[Kiddushin 64a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:11)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: רֵישָׁא רַחֲמָנָא הֵימְנֵיהּ, כְּרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן לְאָב שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן לֶאֱסוֹר אֶת בִּתּוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה״, ״לָאִישׁ״ – אֲסָרָהּ, ״הַזֶּה״ – הִתִּירָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi says:** In **the first clause** of the mishna, the reason is that **the Merciful One believes him, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says** that **Rav says: From where** is it derived that **a father is deemed credible to render his daughter forbidden** as a betrothed woman **by Torah law? As it is stated: “I gave my daughter to this man [*la’ish hazzeh*]”** (Deuteronomy 22:16). When the father said that he married her **to “the man [*la’ish*],” he rendered her forbidden** to all men. When he then said **“this [*hazzeh*],” he rendered her permitted** to this specific man, her husband.


###### Kiddushin 64a:12
[Kiddushin 64a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:12)

בְּנִישּׂוּאִין הֵימְנֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְאָב, בִּשְׁבוּיָיה לָא הֵימְנֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi explains the ruling of the mishna: **The Merciful One deems the father credible with regard to marriage,** whereas He **does not deem him credible with regard to a captive.** The Torah did not grant a father any special credibility with regard to the claim that his daughter was taken captive.


###### Kiddushin 64a:13
[Kiddushin 64a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁאָמַר בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ ״יֵשׁ לִי בָּנִים״ – נֶאֱמָן. ״יֵשׁ לִי אַחִים״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who said at the time of his death: I have children,** in which case his wife does not require levirate marriage after his death, he is **deemed credible.** But if he said on his deathbed: **I have brothers,** indicating that it is prohibited for her to marry anyone else until one of his brothers performs *ḥalitza* with her after his death, he is **not deemed credible.**


###### Kiddushin 64a:14
[Kiddushin 64a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** אַלְמָא נֶאֱמָן לְהַתִּיר וְאֵין נֶאֱמָן לֶאֱסוֹר. נֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי נָתָן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Apparently,** one can infer from the mishna that a husband **is deemed credible to render** his wife **permitted but he is not deemed credible to render** her **forbidden.** The Gemara suggests: Shall **we say** that **the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan?**


###### Kiddushin 64a:15
[Kiddushin 64a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:15)

דְּתַנְיָא: בִּשְׁעַת קִידּוּשִׁין אָמַר יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים, בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה אָמַר אֵין לוֹ בָּנִים, בִּשְׁעַת קִידּוּשִׁין אָמַר אֵין לוֹ אַחִים, בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה אָמַר יֵשׁ לוֹ אַחִים – נֶאֱמָן לְהַתִּיר וְאֵין נֶאֱמָן לֶאֱסוֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אַף נֶאֱמָן לֶאֱסוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If someone **said at the time of** his **betrothal** that **he has children,** but **at the time of** his **death he said** that **he does not have children;** or if he **said at the time of betrothal** that **he does not have brothers,** and **at the time of death he said he has brothers,** in both cases he is **deemed credible to render** her **permitted,** i.e., to release her from the obligation of levirate marriage on the basis of his first statement, **but he is not deemed credible to render** her **forbidden** based on his last claim. This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabbi Natan says:** He is **deemed credible even to render** her **forbidden.**


###### Kiddushin 64a:16
[Kiddushin 64a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּבִשְׁעַת מִיתָה קָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ, אֵימָא קוּשְׁטָא קָאָמַר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלָאו כָּל דְּכֵן הוּא? הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה הָתָם דְּקָא מַרַע לֵיהּ לְדִבּוּרֵיהּ, אָמְרַתְּ קוּשְׁטָא קָאָמַר, מַתְנִיתִין, דְּלָא קָא מַרַע לֵיהּ לְדִבּוּרֵיהּ, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: There,** in the *baraita*, **it is different, since at the time of** his **death he retracted** his initial statement. Therefore, one can **say** that it is likely that **he spoke the truth.** In general, however, he is not deemed credible to render her forbidden. **Abaye said to him: And isn’t it all the more so** that he should be deemed credible in this case? Abaye elaborates: **Now** consider, **if there, where** he **weakens his** previous **statement,** as he now says the opposite of his earlier claim, nevertheless **you say** that **he spoke the truth,** in the case of **the mishna, where** he **does not weaken his** earlier **statement,** as he had issued no prior claim about having or lacking children or brothers, **is it not all the more so** that he should be deemed credible?


###### Kiddushin 64a:17
[Kiddushin 64a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/64a:17)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא מוּחְזָק לַן בְּאַחֵי וְלָא מוּחְזָק לַן בִּבְנֵי, דְּאָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מוּחְזָק לַן בִּבְנֵי וְלָא בְּאַחֵי אָמַר: ״יֵשׁ לִי בָּנִים״ – נֶאֱמָן, ״יֵשׁ לִי אַחִים״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. לָאו כֹּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ דְּאָסַר לַהּ אַכּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא. בָּרַיְיתָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said: The mishna** is referring to a case **where we** do not **have a presumptive status with regard to** possible **brothers** of his, **and** likewise **we** do **not have a presumptive status with regard to** his **children.** The court has no prior knowledge as to whether the dying man has brothers or children. **As we say: Since we** do **not** have **presumptive status with regard to either children or brothers,** if **he said: I have children,** he is **deemed credible,** whereas if he said: **I have brothers,** he is **not deemed credible.** Why? **It is not in his** power **to render her forbidden to everyone,** counter to the presumption that he has no brothers. By contrast, the ***baraita*** is referring to