## Kiddushin Daf 66b

###### Kiddushin 66b:1
[Kiddushin 66b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:1)

מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּמְגוֹרָה שֶׁל דִּסְקִים בְּיַבְנֶה שֶׁהָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת בְּחֶזְקַת שְׁלֵימָה, וּמָדְדוּ וְנִמְצֵאת חֲסֵירָה –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where do I say** my claim that one does not rely on a lone witness in matters of forbidden relations? **As we learned** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon said: An incident** occurred **with regard to** a water **reservoir of Diskim in Yavne, which had the presumptive status of** being **complete,** i.e., they thought it contained forty *se’a*, the requisite amount for a ritual bath, **and they measured it** after a time **and it was found to be deficient,** as it contained less than that amount.


###### Kiddushin 66b:2
[Kiddushin 66b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:2)

כׇּל טְהָרוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל גַּבָּהּ הָיָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן מְטַהֵר, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַמֵּא. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: מִקְוֶה זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שָׁלֵם הוּא עוֹמֵד, מִסָּפֵק אַתָּה בָּא לְחַסְּרוֹ – אַל תְּחַסְּרֶנּוּ מִסָּפֵק. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אָדָם זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת טָמֵא הוּא עוֹמֵד, מִסָּפֵק אַתָּה בָּא לְטַהֲרוֹ – אַל תְּטַהֲרֶנּוּ מִסָּפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **all** immersions of **ritual purification performed in** the reservoir before it was measured, **Rabbi Tarfon would render** them **ritually pure, and Rabbi Akiva** would **render** them **ritually impure.** The two Sages discussed the matter. **Rabbi Tarfon said: This ritual bath retained the presumptive status of** being **whole** throughout this period, and **you are coming to** declare it **deficient** in the past **out of uncertainty. Do not deem it deficient out of uncertainty. Rabbi Akiva said** in response: **This person** who immersed himself in that ritual bath **retained the presumptive status of** being **ritually impure** before he immersed. **You are coming to purify him out of uncertainty. Do not deem him ritually pure out of uncertainty.**


###### Kiddushin 66b:3
[Kiddushin 66b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: מָשָׁל לְעוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה, שֶׁעֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מָשָׁל לְעוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מוּם, שֶׁעֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Tarfon said** in response: There is **a parable** that illustrates this. A priest was **standing and sacrificing** offerings **on the altar, and it became known that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza*.** The *halakha* is **that his** earlier **service** before this discovery remains **valid. Rabbi Akiva said:** A more accurate **parable** is that of a priest who was **standing and sacrificing on the altar, and it became known that he is blemished.** In this case, the *halakha* is **that his** earlier **service** is **disqualified.**


###### Kiddushin 66b:4
[Kiddushin 66b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: אַתָּה דִּימִּיתוֹ לְבַעַל מוּם, וַאֲנִי דִּמִּיתִיו לְבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ לְבֶן חֲלוּצָה, נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה. אִי דּוֹמֶה לְבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה וּלְבֶן חֲלוּצָה – נְדוּנֶנּוּ כְּבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ כְּבֶן חֲלוּצָה, אִם דּוֹמֶה לְבַעַל מוּם – נְדוּנֶנּוּ כְּבַעַל מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Tarfon said: You compared** the case of a ritual bath found to be deficient **to** that of **a blemished** priest, **whereas I compared it to** the case of **the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza*. Let us see to which** case **it is similar. If** this case **is similar to** that of **the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza*, let us treat it like** the case of **the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza*; if it is similar to** the case of **a blemished** priest, **let us treat it like** that of **a blemished** priest.


###### Kiddushin 66b:5
[Kiddushin 66b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:5)

הִתְחִיל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לָדוּן: מִקְוֶה פְּסוּלוֹ בְּיָחִיד, וּבַעַל מוּם פְּסוּלוֹ בְּיָחִיד, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה וּבֶן חֲלוּצָה שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ בִּשְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva began to analyze** the matter: **The disqualification of a ritual bath** is **by** the testimony of **an individual,** as witnesses are not required to establish that a ritual bath is deficient, **and** likewise **the disqualification of a blemished** priest with regard to performing the Temple service **is** by the testimony of **an individual. And do not let** the *halakha* of **the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza* prove** otherwise, **as his disqualification is by** the testimony of **two** witnesses. Two witnesses are required to testify about one’s mother to disqualify him from performing the Temple service; one is insufficient.


###### Kiddushin 66b:6
[Kiddushin 66b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:6)

דָּבָר אַחֵר: מִקְוֶה פְּסוּלוֹ בְּגוּפוֹ, בַּעַל מוּם פְּסוּלוֹ בְּגוּפוֹ, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה וּבֶן חֲלוּצָה שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ מֵאֲחֵרִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: עֲקִיבָא! כׇּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** one can say: **The disqualification of a ritual bath is due to** the bath **itself,** and similarly, **the disqualification of a blemished** priest is **due to** the priest **himself. And do not let** the *halakha* of **the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza* prove** otherwise, **as his disqualification is due to others,** i.e., through his mother. **Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Akiva, anyone who separates from you, it is as though he has separated from life** itself. Rabbi Tarfon was impressed by Rabbi Akiva’s explanation and accepted it. This concludes the *baraita*.


###### Kiddushin 66b:7
[Kiddushin 66b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:7)

הַאי בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ בְּיָחִיד הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּקָא מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ, מִי מְהֵימַן? אֶלָּא דְּשָׁתֵיק,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the topic at hand: **What are the circumstances** with regard to **this blemished** priest **whose disqualification is by** means of **an individual** witness? **If** the priest **denies his** claim, maintaining that he is not blemished, **is** a lone witness **deemed credible? Rather,** it must be **that** the priest remains **silent** and therefore is considered to have admitted to the accusation.


###### Kiddushin 66b:8
[Kiddushin 66b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:8)

וְדִכְוָתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה וּבֶן חֲלוּצָה דְּשָׁתֵיק, וְקָתָנֵי: מִקְוֶה פְּסוּלוֹ בְּיָחִיד וּבַעַל מוּם פְּסוּלוֹ בְּיָחִיד, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה וּבֶן חֲלוּצָה שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ בִּשְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly with regard to the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza*,** it must also be referring **to** one who is **silent, and** yet the *baraita* **teaches: The disqualification of a ritual bath** is **by** the testimony of **an individual, and** likewise **the disqualification of a blemished** priest with regard to performing the Temple service **is** by the testimony of **an individual. And do not let** the *halakha* of **the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza* prove** otherwise, **as his disqualification is by** the testimony of **two** witnesses. This indicates that if the person under scrutiny himself remains silent, one witness is insufficient to disqualify him.


###### Kiddushin 66b:9
[Kiddushin 66b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:9)

וְאַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם דְּקָא מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: ׳אַמַּאי מְהֵימַן׳ – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁלַח אַחְוִי. וְהַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: מִקְוֶה פְּסוּלוֹ בְּגוּפוֹ וּבַעַל מוּם פְּסוּלוֹ בְּגוּפוֹ, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה וּבֶן חֲלוּצָה שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ מֵאֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye** could have **said** in response to this proof: **Actually,** both cases deal **with** an individual **who denies** the witness’s testimony, **and that which you said: Why is** the witness **deemed credible** when he says that this priest is blemished, it is referring to a case **where** the witness **said to him: Remove** your clothes and **show** us that you are not blemished. Since this is a matter that can be investigated, the witness is deemed credible, because if he were lying the priest could prove it. **And this** explanation **is** consistent with **that which the *baraita* teaches: The disqualification of a ritual bath is due to** the bath **itself,** and similarly, **the disqualification of a blemished** priest is **due to** the priest **himself,** as he himself can be examined. **And do not let** the *halakha* of **the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza* prove** otherwise, **as his disqualification is due to others.**


###### Kiddushin 66b:10
[Kiddushin 66b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:10)

וּבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה וּבֶן חֲלוּצָה דַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו״ – בֵּין זֶרַע כָּשֵׁר וּבֵין זֶרַע פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question with regard to the *halakha* of the *baraita*: **And from where do we** derive **that the service of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza* is valid** after the fact? **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: As the verse states** with regard to Pinehas the priest: **“And it shall be for him and his seed after him** the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:13), which includes **both fit seed and unfit seed.** This teaches that the service of a priest is valid after the fact even if he was disqualified.


###### Kiddushin 66b:11
[Kiddushin 66b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:11)

אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מֵהָכָא: ״בָּרֵךְ ה׳ חֵילוֹ וּפֹעַל יָדָיו תִּרְצֶה״ – אֲפִילּוּ חוּלִּין שֶׁבּוֹ תִּרְצֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel’s father said** that the proof text is **from here:** It states in the blessing of the tribe of Levi: **“Bless, Lord, his substance [*ḥeilo*], and accept the work of his hands”** (Deuteronomy 33:11). The word *ḥeilo* is expounded as including **even** the service of **his profane ones [*ḥullin*],** which God will **accept** after the fact.


###### Kiddushin 66b:12
[Kiddushin 66b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:12)

רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: מֵהָכָא: ״וּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם״, וְכִי תַּעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁאָדָם הוֹלֵךְ אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּיָמָיו? אֶלָּא זֶה כָּשֵׁר וְנִתְחַלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yannai said:** The source is **from here,** a verse stated with regard to first fruits: **“And you shall come to the priest who shall be in those days”** (Deuteronomy 26:3). **But can it enter your mind that a person can come to a priest who is not** alive **in his days?** What then is the meaning of the phrase “in those days”? **Rather, this** is referring to **a fit** priest **who** later **became** established as **a *ḥalal*.** All his previous days of service are considered those of a fit priest.


###### Kiddushin 66b:13
[Kiddushin 66b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:13)

בַּעַל מוּם דַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם״ – כְּשֶׁהוּא שָׁלֵם וְלֹא כְּשֶׁהוּא חָסֵר. וְהָא ״שָׁלוֹם״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וָיו דְּשָׁלוֹם קְטִיעָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its analysis of the *baraita*. **From where do we** derive **that the service of a blemished** priest **is** retroactively **invalid? Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: As the verse states** with regard to Pinehas: **“Wherefore say: Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace [*shalom*]”** (Numbers 25:12), which means that he receives the covenant **when he is whole [*shalem*], but not when he is** blemished and **lacking** a limb. The Gemara comments: **But *shalom* is written,** rather than *shalem*. **Rav Naḥman says:** The letter ***vav*** in the word ***shalom* is severed.** According to tradition, this letter is written with a break in it, and therefore the word can be read as though the *vav* were missing.


###### Kiddushin 66b:14
[Kiddushin 66b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:14)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קִידּוּשִׁין וְאֵין עֲבֵירָה – הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר. וְאֵיזֶה זוֹ – זוֹ כֹּהֶנֶת, לְוִיָּה, וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית שֶׁנִּשְּׂאוּ לְכֹהֵן, לֵוִי, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There is a principle with regard to the *halakhot* of lineage: **Any case where there is betrothal,** i.e., where the betrothal takes effect, **and** the marriage involves **no transgression** by Torah law, the lineage of **the offspring follows the male,** his father. **And** in **which** case **is this** applicable? For example, **this** is the case with regard to **the daughter of a priest;** or **the daughter of a Levite; or the daughter of an Israelite, who married a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite.** In all these cases the child’s lineage is established by his father’s family.


###### Kiddushin 66b:15
[Kiddushin 66b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:15)

וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קִידּוּשִׁין וְיֵשׁ עֲבֵירָה – הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם. וְאֵיזֶה זוֹ – זוֹ אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַמְזֵר וּלְנָתִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And any case where there is** a valid **betrothal and** yet **there is a transgression, the offspring follows the flawed** parent. **And** in **which** case **is this** applicable? For example, **this** is the case of **a widow** who is married **to a High Priest,** or **a divorced woman or a *ḥalutza*** who is married **to a common priest,** or **a *mamzeret* or a Gibeonite woman** who is married **to an Israelite,** or **an Israelite woman** who is married **to a *mamzer* or to a Gibeonite.** In these situations the child inherits the status of the blemished parent.


###### Kiddushin 66b:16
[Kiddushin 66b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:16)

וְכׇל מִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו קִידּוּשִׁין, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ עַל אֲחֵרִים קִידּוּשִׁין – הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וְאֵיזֶה זֶה – זֶה הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מִכׇּל הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. וְכׇל מִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ לֹא עָלָיו וְלֹא עַל אֲחֵרִים קִידּוּשִׁין – הַוָּלָד כְּמוֹתָהּ. וְאֵיזֶה זֶה – זֶה וְלַד שִׁפְחָה וְנׇכְרִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in **any** case **where** a woman **cannot** join in **betrothal with** a particular man, as the betrothal does not take effect, **but she can** join in **betrothal with others,** i.e., the woman is considered a member of the Jewish people and can marry other Jews, in these cases **the offspring is a *mamzer*. And** in **which** case **is this** applicable? **This is one who engages in intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden that are** written **in the Torah. And** in **any** case **where** a woman **cannot** join in **betrothal with him or with others, the offspring is like her.** He is not considered his father’s son at all, but has the same status as his mother. **And** in **which** case **is this** applicable? **This is the offspring of** a Canaanite **maidservant or a gentile woman,** as her child is a slave or a gentile like her. If he converts, he is not a *mamzer*.


###### Kiddushin 66b:17
[Kiddushin 66b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66b:17)

**גְּמָ׳** כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קִידּוּשִׁין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּלָלָא הוּא דְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קִידּוּשִׁין וְאֵין עֲבֵירָה הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר? הֲרֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that **any case where there is betrothal** and the marriage involves no transgression, the lineage of the offspring follows the male. **Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Is** it an established **principle** that **any case where there is betrothal and there is no transgression the offspring** invariably **follows the male? But**