## Kiddushin Daf 68a

###### Kiddushin 68a:1
[Kiddushin 68a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:1)

אֲפִילּוּ נִדָּה נָמֵי! אַלְּמָה אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּבָא עַל הַנִּדָּה וְעַל הַסּוֹטָה, שֶׁאֵין הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: אָמַר קְרָא ״וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו״, אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁעַת נִדָּתָהּ – תְּהֵא בָּהּ הֲוָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
then **even** if he betrothed **a menstruating woman as well,** his betrothal should not be effective and the offspring should be a *mamzer*, as a menstruating woman is included in the list in that chapter of those with whom sexual intercourse is forbidden. If so, **why** did **Abaye say: All concede with regard to one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman or with a *sota*,** a woman forbidden to her husband on suspicion of being unfaithful to him, **that the offspring is not a *mamzer*? Ḥizkiyya said:** In the case of a menstruating woman, **the verse states: “And her impurity be [*ut’hi*] upon him”** (Leviticus 15:24), from which it is derived that **even at the time of her impurity,** the type of **becoming [*havaya*]** stated with regard to betrothal (see Deuteronomy 24:2) **should** apply **to her.** The Gemara is interpreting the connection between the words *ut’hi* and *havaya*, as both share the same Hebrew root.


###### Kiddushin 68a:2
[Kiddushin 68a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:2)

מִכְּדֵי אִיכָּא לְאַקּוֹשַׁהּ לְנִדָּה, וְאִיכָּא לְאַקּוֹשַׁהּ לַאֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה, מַאי חָזֵית דְּמַקְּשַׁתְּ לְהוּ לַאֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה? אַקְּשַׁהּ לְנִדָּה! קוּלָּא וְחוּמְרָא – לְחוּמְרָא מַקְּשִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **After all, there is** the possibility **of juxtaposing** all other forbidden relatives **to a menstruating woman, and there is** also the possibility **of juxtaposing** them **to a wife’s sister. What did you see that you juxtaposed them to a wife’s sister?** Why not **juxtapose them** instead **to a menstruating woman?** The Gemara answers: When there is an option of juxtaposing a case in a manner that leads to **a leniency, or** juxtaposing it to a *halakha* that entails **a stringency, we juxtapose** it in a fashion that leads **to a stringency.**


###### Kiddushin 68a:3
[Kiddushin 68a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:3)

רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: אָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִיבָמָה: וּמָה יְבָמָה, שֶׁהִיא בְּלָאו – לָא תָּפְסִי בָּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין, חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת וְחַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אִי הָכִי, שְׁאָר חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said** that there is a different source for the *halakha* that betrothal is ineffective with forbidden relatives: This principle **is derived by** means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of **a *yevama*: Just as a *yevama*,** before she is released from the *yavam* through *ḥalitza*, **is** forbidden **by** a mere **prohibition,** which entails lashes, and yet **betrothal is not effective with her,** with regard to **those** people with whom sexual intercourse renders one **liable to** receive the **death** penalty **or liable to** be punished with ***karet*,** is it **not all the more so** the case that betrothal should not be effective in these cases? The Gemara asks: **If so,** meaning that this is the source, one should **also** derive that betrothal is ineffective with any **other** people with whom one **is** only **liable** for violating **a prohibition** of engaging in intercourse, by means of the same analogy.


###### Kiddushin 68a:4
[Kiddushin 68a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:4)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ – ״כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה״, וְכִי יֵשׁ שְׂנוּאָה לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם וַאֲהוּבָה לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם? אֶלָּא: ״אֲהוּבָה״ – אֲהוּבָה בְּנִישּׂוּאֶיהָ, ״שְׂנוּאָה״ – שְׂנוּאָה בְּנִישּׂוּאֶיהָ. וְקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa says: It **is written explicitly** in the Torah that a man can betroth women **with whom he is liable** for violating ordinary **prohibitions** of intercourse. The Torah states in a different context: **“If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated”** (Deuteronomy 21:15). Rav Pappa asks rhetorically: **But is there one who is hated before the Omnipresent and one who is beloved before the Omnipresent? Rather, “beloved”** means **beloved in her marriage,** i.e., her marriage is permitted; **“hated”** means **hated in her marriage,** i.e., her marriage involves the violation of a prohibition. **And** despite the fact that the latter marriage is between a man and a woman who are forbidden to one another, their union still has the status of a marriage, as **the Merciful One states: “If a man has** two wives,” i.e., he is married to both of them.


###### Kiddushin 68a:5
[Kiddushin 68a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:5)

וּלְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: אֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, ״כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ״ בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים? בְּאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וּכְרַבִּי סִימַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** 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, **with regard to what** case **does he establish** the verse: **“If a man has** two wives”? The Gemara answers: He explains that this verse is referring **to a widow** married **to a High Priest, and** this is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Simai.**


###### Kiddushin 68a:6
[Kiddushin 68a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:6)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: מִן הַכֹּל הָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא עוֹשֶׂה מַמְזֵר חוּץ מֵאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל״ – חִילּוּלִים עוֹשֶׂה, וְאֵין עוֹשֶׂה מַמְזֵרוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Simai says: From all** relationships that involve prohibitions, **Rabbi Akiva would render** the offspring **a *mamzer*, except for** the marriage of **a widow to a High Priest, as the Torah said: “And he shall not profane [*yeḥallel*]”** (Leviticus 21:15), which teaches that **he renders them profane [*ḥillulim*],** i.e., his children from this marriage are *ḥalalim*, **but he does not render** them labeled with ***mamzer* status.**


###### Kiddushin 68a:7
[Kiddushin 68a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:7)

וּלְרַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, דְּאָמַר: בּוֹאוּ וְנִצְוַוח עַל עֲקִיבָא בֶּן יוֹסֵף שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בִּיאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל – הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר? הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב אִי לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי סִימַאי קָאָתֵי – שַׁפִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what can be said **according to** 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*,** even the child of a widow and a High Priest? **This works out well** even **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yeshevav if he comes to exclude the reason of Rabbi Simai,** i.e., if he means to take issue with the ruling of Rabbi Akiva in the specific case mentioned by Rabbi Simai, that of a widow married 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, one can establish the phrase “and the one hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15) as referring to those whose marriage entailed the violation of a positive mitzva.


###### Kiddushin 68a:8
[Kiddushin 68a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:8)

אֶלָּא אִי טַעְמָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָאָמַר, וַאֲפִילּוּ חַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה, בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But 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*, **and** it is a categorical statement that applies to all illicit unions, **even those liable** for violating **a positive mitzva,** i.e., Rabbi Akiva holds that even the offspring of this relationship is a *mamzer*, **with regard to what** case **does he interpret** the “hated” woman of the above verse?


###### Kiddushin 68a:9
[Kiddushin 68a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:9)

בִּבְעוּלָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. וּמַאי שְׁנָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי לֵיהּ עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֵין שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yeshevav would say that the verse is referring **to a non-virgin** married **to a High Priest,** as there is a positive mitzva that a High Priest should marry a virgin. The Gemara asks: **And** in **what** way **is** this case **different from** the previous ones? If Rabbi Yeshevav holds that a child born of any act of intercourse prohibited by a positive mitzva is a *mamzer*, the marriage of a non-virgin to a High Priest likewise involves the violation of a positive mitzva. The Gemara answers: **Because it is a positive mitzva that is not equally applicable to all,** and since this command applies only to a High Priest and not to other Jews, its violation is considered less severe than that of other positive mitzvot.


###### Kiddushin 68a:10
[Kiddushin 68a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:10)

וְרַבָּנַן, אַדְּמוֹקֵי לַהּ בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, נוֹקְמַהּ בְּחַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, **rather than establishing** the verse: “If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15), as referring **to** those who are **liable for** violating **prohibitions, let them establish it** as referring **to those liable for** violating **a positive mitzva.** In other words, betrothal should not be effective if it involves the violation of a prohibition. And as for the “hated” woman whose marriage is nevertheless valid, mentioned in that verse, this is referring to one whose engaging in sexual intercourse violates a positive mitzva.


###### Kiddushin 68a:11
[Kiddushin 68a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:11)

הָנֵי חַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה, בְּמַאי נִינְהוּ? אִי שְׁתֵּיהֶן מִצְרִיּוֹת – שְׁתֵּיהֶן שְׂנוּאוֹת, אִי אַחַת מִצְרִית וְאַחַת יִשְׂרְאֵלִית – שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים מֵעַם אֶחָד בָּעֵינַן, אִי בְּעוּלָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל – מִי כְּתִיב ״תִּהְיֶיןָ לְכֹהֵן״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **These** cases where they are **liable** for violating **a positive mitzva, what are they? If** you say that **both** wives are **Egyptian** converts, **they are both hated,** as both marriages are prohibited. **If** you claim that **one is an Egyptian woman and the other a Jewish woman** of unflawed lineage, this cannot be the case, as **we require “two wives” from the same nation,** since the Torah equates the two women. **If** the hated one is **a non-virgin** married **to a High Priest,** this too is problematic, as, **is it written: If a priest has** two wives? The verse merely says: “If a man has two wives.” Consequently, the verse cannot be interpreted as referring to those who are liable for violating a positive mitzva.


###### Kiddushin 68a:12
[Kiddushin 68a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:12)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? בְּעַל כּוּרְחֵיךְ שִׁבְקֵיהּ לִקְרָא דְּהָוֵי דָּחֵיק, וּמוֹקֵי אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** that betrothal that involves a prohibition does not take effect, this verse can be referring only to a non-virgin who marries a High Priest, or marriage to a female Egyptian convert, which involve the violation of positive mitzvot. Can the verse really be interpreted as concerning such unlikely cases? The Gemara answers: **You are forced to leave this verse** aside, **as it establishes itself as** dealing with **a difficult** case. In other words, as Rabbi Akiva claims that betrothal is ineffective if any prohibition is involved, he has no choice but to explain the verse that says: “If a man has two wives,” in this forced manner.


###### Kiddushin 68a:13
[Kiddushin 68a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/68a:13)

וְכׇל מִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו וְכוּ׳. שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אָמַר קְרָא: ״שְׁבוּ לָכֶם פֹּה עִם הַחֲמוֹר״ – עַם הַדּוֹמֶה לַחֲמוֹר. אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּלָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִדּוּשֵׁי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And** in **any** case **where** a woman **cannot** join in betrothal **with him** or with others, the offspring is like her. This ruling refers specifically to a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that betrothal with **a Canaanite maidservant** is ineffective? **Rav Huna says: The verse states** that Abraham commanded his slaves: **“You abide here with [*im*] the donkey”** (Genesis 22:5), which alludes to the fact that his slaves belong to **a nation [*am*] similar to a donkey;** just as betrothal is ineffective with animals, it is likewise ineffective with Canaanite maidservants. The Gemara comments: **We have found that betrothal is ineffective with** a Canaanite maidservant;