## Kiddushin Daf 67b

###### Kiddushin 67b:1
[Kiddushin 67b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:1)

״כׇּל מָקוֹם״ דְּסֵיפָא – לְאֵתוֹיֵי גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא מַמְזֶרֶת. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, ״כׇּל מָקוֹם״ דְּרֵישָׁא – כְּדַאֲמַרַן, ״אֵיזוֹ זוֹ״ – כְּדַאֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא ״כׇּל מָקוֹם״ דְּסֵיפָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And the phrase: **Any case, of the latter clause,** which is referring to betrothal with a transgression, serves **to include a convert who married a *mamzeret*. But if you say** that the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** then granted the phrase: **Any case** where there is betrothal and no transgression, **of the first clause, is as we said,** i.e., it includes an Israelite who married a *ḥalala*; and the phrase: In **which** case **is this** applicable, **is as we said,** i.e., to the exclusion of Ravin or Rav Dimi, and the case of a convert who married a *mamzeret*. **But what** does the phrase: **Any case, of the latter clause,** serve **to add?**


###### Kiddushin 67b:2
[Kiddushin 67b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:2)

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״אֵיזוֹ זוֹ״ דְּסֵיפָא לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא: אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״אֵיזוֹ זוֹ״, תְּנָא סֵיפָא ״אֵיזוֹ זוֹ״. הָכִי נָמֵי אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״כׇּל מָקוֹם״, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא ״כׇּל מָקוֹם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And according to your reasoning,** the same question applies **to Rabbi Yehuda** as well: **Why do I** need the phrase: In **which** case **is this** applicable, **of the latter clause? Rather,** you must say: **Since** the mishna **taught** its **first clause** using the phrase: In **which** case **is this** applicable, **it** also **taught** its **latter clause** using the phrase: In **which** case **is this** applicable, merely for the sake of stylistic consistency. **So too** here, with regard to Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, one can say: **Since** the mishna **taught** the **first clause** with the expression: **Any case, it** also **taught** its **latter clause** with: **Any case.**


###### Kiddushin 67b:3
[Kiddushin 67b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:3)

גּוּפָא: כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בָּאוּמּוֹת – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר. נִתְגַּיְּירוּ – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses **the** aforementioned matter **itself: When Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to the nations,** if members of two different nations married when they were gentiles, **follow the male** to determine the status of their child. If **they converted** before marriage, **follow the flawed** lineage **of the two.**


###### Kiddushin 67b:4
[Kiddushin 67b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:4)

מַאי ״בָּאוּמּוֹת הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר״? כִּדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְאֶחָד מִן הָאוּמּוֹת שֶׁבָּא עַל הַכְּנַעֲנִית וְהוֹלִיד בֵּן שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִקְנוֹתוֹ בְּעֶבֶד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this statement: **What** is the meaning of: **With regard to the nations, follow the male? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived with regard **to one** member **of the nations** outside Eretz Yisrael **who engaged in intercourse with a Canaanite woman and fathered a son** from her, **that you are permitted to purchase** the son **as a slave,** and he is not considered a member of the Canaanite nations, who are not allowed to live in Eretz Yisrael?


###### Kiddushin 67b:5
[Kiddushin 67b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:5)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְגַם מִבְּנֵי הַתּוֹשָׁבִים הַגָּרִים עִמָּכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ״. יָכוֹל אַף עֶבֶד שֶׁבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה מִן הָאוּמּוֹת וְהוֹלִיד בֵּן שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִקְנוֹתוֹ בְּעֶבֶד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר הוֹלִידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם״ – מִן הַנּוֹלָדִין בְּאַרְצְכֶם, וְלֹא מִן הַגָּרִים בְּאַרְצְכֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The verse states: “And also of the children of the residents who sojourn with you, of them you may buy”** (Leviticus 25:45), which indicates that there is a way in which one may purchase slaves from the inhabitants of Canaan. One **might** have thought that **even** with regard to a Canaanite **slave who engaged in intercourse with a maidservant from the** other **nations and fathered a son, that you are permitted to buy** the son **as a slave.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Which they have begotten in your land”** (Leviticus 25:45). This means that one may purchase **from those** who are merely **begotten in your land,** whose fathers are not from the Canaanite nations, **but not from those who reside in your land,** i.e., whose fathers are from the seven Canaanite nations.


###### Kiddushin 67b:6
[Kiddushin 67b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:6)

״נִתְגַּיְּירוּ הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶם״ – בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּמִצְרִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא עַמּוֹנִית, מַאי פָּגוּם אִיכָּא, ״עַמּוֹנִי״ – וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the second clause of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: If **they converted, follow the flawed** lineage **of the two. To which** case does this refer? **If we say** that it is referring **to an Egyptian man who married an Ammonite woman, what flawed** lineage **is there** here? The lineage of an Ammonite woman who converts is not flawed at all, as the Sages expounded that the verse: “An Ammonite…shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4) is referring to **an Ammonite man but not an Ammonite woman,** which means that she can marry a Jew of unflawed lineage.


###### Kiddushin 67b:7
[Kiddushin 67b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:7)

אֶלָּא בְּעַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית, וְאִי זָכָר הָוֵי – הַאי שִׁדְיֵהּ אַבָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ, וְאִם נְקֵבָה הָוְיָא – שִׁדְיַהּ אַבָּתְרַהּ דִּידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be referring **to an Ammonite man who married an Egyptian woman, and** in that case **if** the child **is a male, cast him after** his father, and render him permanently prohibited from entering the congregation as an Ammonite male. **And if** the child born to them **is a female, cast her after** the mother, so that she is considered a second-generation Egyptian, who may not marry a Jew of unflawed lineage.


###### Kiddushin 67b:8
[Kiddushin 67b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:8)

כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו קִידּוּשִׁין. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּמָטוּ בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי, וְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא וּמָטוּ בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר״ – לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא לִקְרוֹבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that in **any** case **where** a woman **cannot** join in **betrothal with him,** but she can join in betrothal with others, the offspring is a *mamzer*. The Gemara explains: **From where are these matters** derived? **As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and** some **determined** that **it** was said **in the name of Rabbi Yannai; and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, determined** that **it** was said **in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: The verse states** with regard to a divorced woman: **“And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife”** (Deuteronomy 24:2). This teaches that she can become the wife **of others, but not of relatives,** i.e., betrothal to forbidden relatives does not take effect.


###### Kiddushin 67b:9
[Kiddushin 67b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:9)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: וְאֵימָא ״לְאַחֵר״ וְלֹא לְבֵן! בֵּן בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו״, ״אַחֵר״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא לִקְרוֹבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba objects to this: But** one can **say** and explain that the term **“another”** in the verse indicates: **But not to** her husband’s **son,** i.e., betrothal is ineffective only in the case of a prohibition that warrants court-imposed capital punishment, not one that warrants *karet*. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **With regard to a son it is explicitly written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife”** (Deuteronomy 23:1), which means that betrothal is ineffective in this situation. If so, **why do I** need the emphasis of the term **“another”? Learn from** this term **that** she may marry **others but not relatives.**


###### Kiddushin 67b:10
[Kiddushin 67b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:10)

וְאֵימָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי לְבֵן, הָא – לְכַתְּחִילָּה, וְהָא – דִּיעֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this explanation: **But** one can **say** that both **this** verse **and that** verse are referring **to a son** and yet both are necessary, as **this** verse: “Shall not take,” is referring to the *halakha **ab initio*****.** It does not mean that betrothal is ineffective, but merely that one may not marry his father’s wife. **And that** verse: “And becomes another man’s wife,” teaches that even **after the fact,** if the son attempted to betroth his father’s wife, his act is of no consequence.


###### Kiddushin 67b:11
[Kiddushin 67b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:11)

לְכַתְּחִילָּה מֵאֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה נָפְקָא: וּמָה אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה, בְּכָרֵת לָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין, חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: One learns that betrothal is ineffective in this case ***ab initio*** from a different source, as it is **derived from** the prohibition proscribing **a wife’s sister** by the following *a fortiori* inference: **If,** with regard to the prohibition proscribing **a wife’s sister,** whose transgression is punished **with *karet*, she cannot be betrothed** by her sister’s husband, in accordance with the verse: “And you shall not take a woman with her sister” (Leviticus 18:18), then with regard to cases that entail **liability to** receive **court-imposed capital punishment,** e.g., intercourse with one’s father’s wife, is it **not all the more so** the case that betrothal does not take effect?


###### Kiddushin 67b:12
[Kiddushin 67b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:12)

וְאֵימָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּאֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה, הָא – לְכַתְּחִילָּה, הָא – דִיעֲבַד! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another interpretation of the verses. **But** as the verse has already prohibited betrothal to a wife’s sister, one can **say** as follows: Both **this** verse: “You shall not take” (Leviticus 18:18), **and that** one: “Becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2), are referring **to a wife’s sister,** as **this** one: “You shall not take,” prohibits this relationship ***ab initio*,** whereas **that** verse: “Another man’s wife,” teaches that this betrothal is of no effect even **after the fact.** The Gemara responds: **Yes, it is indeed so.** The verse should be interpreted in this manner.


###### Kiddushin 67b:13
[Kiddushin 67b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:13)

אַשְׁכְּחַן אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה, שְׁאָר עֲרָיוֹת מְנָלַן? יָלְפִינַן מֵאֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה: מָה אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה מְיוּחֶדֶת, שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה וְחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת – וְלָא תָּפְסִי בָּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין, אַף כֹּל שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה וְחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת – לָא תָּפְסִי בָּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the prohibition proscribing **a wife’s sister; from where do we** derive that betrothal is also ineffective for the **other forbidden relations?** The Gemara answers: **We derive** it **from** the case of **a wife’s sister,** by means of the following analogy: **Just as** the prohibition with regard to **a wife’s sister,** which is **specified** by the Torah, **is** a prohibition of **a forbidden relative** that is punished with ***karet* for its intentional** transgression **and** requires **a sin-offering for its unwitting** transgression, **and betrothal is ineffective in** this case, **so too,** with regard to **any** prohibition **that** involves **a forbidden relative whose intentional** transgression is punished with ***karet* and whose unwitting** transgression renders one liable to bring **a sin-offering, betrothal is** likewise **ineffective in** those cases.


###### Kiddushin 67b:14
[Kiddushin 67b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:14)

בִּשְׁלָמָא כּוּלְּהוּ אָתְיָין, אֶלָּא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְאֵשֶׁת אָח – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לַאֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין לָהּ הֶיתֵּר בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה – תֹּאמַר בְּאֵשֶׁת אָח שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֶיתֵּר בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** virtually **all** other forbidden relatives can be **derived** in this manner. **But** the cases of **a married woman and a brother’s wife** are exceptions, and the analogy in these cases **can be refuted** as follows. **What** is unique **about a wife’s sister is that she is not permitted in the case of a mitzva,** as even where the mitzva of levirate marriage would apply, one still may not marry one’s wife’s sister. **Will you say** the same **with regard to a brother’s wife, who is permitted in the case of** the **mitzva** of levirate marriage?


###### Kiddushin 67b:15
[Kiddushin 67b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:15)

אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ נָמֵי אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין לָהּ הֶיתֵּר בְּחַיֵּי אוֹסְרָן – תֹּאמַר בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֶיתֵּר בְּחַיֵּי אוֹסְרָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **a married woman** the interpretation **can likewise be refuted: What** is unique **about these** cases of a wife’s sister and a brother’s wife is **that they cannot be permitted during the lives of those whose** existence **renders them prohibited,** as neither a wife’s sister nor a brother’s wife can be permitted while the person who causes the prohibition is alive. This caveat is added because one’s wife’s sister does become permitted once his wife has died. **Will you say** the same **with regard to a married woman, who** can become **permitted during the life of the one who renders her forbidden,** by means of a divorce?


###### Kiddushin 67b:16
[Kiddushin 67b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:16)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְנִכְרְתוּ״, הוּקְשׁוּ כׇּל הָעֲרָיוֹת כּוּלָּם לַאֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה, מָה אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה לֹא תָּפְסִי בָּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין – אַף כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת כּוּלָּם לֹא תָּפְסִי בָּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this *halakha*, that betrothal is ineffective for other forbidden relatives, is derived from a different source, as **Rabbi Yona says, and some say** this was taught by **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: The verse states** explicitly in the chapter dealing with forbidden relatives: **“Whoever shall do any of these abominations shall be cut off”** (Leviticus 18:29). In this verse **all those with whom relations are forbidden are juxtaposed** to one another, and therefore also **to a wife’s sister: Just as betrothal is not effective** in the case of **a wife’s sister, so too, betrothal is not effective with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden.**


###### Kiddushin 67b:17
[Kiddushin 67b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67b:17)

אִי הָכִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** that this *halakha* is derived from here,