## Kiddushin Daf 73a

###### Kiddushin 73a:1
[Kiddushin 73a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:1)

חַד – לְכֹהֲנִים, וְחַד – לַלְוִיִּם, וְחַד – לְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים, וְחַד – לְמִישְׁרֵי מַמְזֵר בִּשְׁתוּקִי, וְחַד – לְמִישְׁרֵי שְׁתוּקִי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. קְהַל גֵּרִים לָא אִיקְּרִי קָהָל. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם מֵחַד ״קָהָל״ נָפְקִי, אִיַּיתַּר לֵיהּ לִקְהַל גֵּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One** is referring **to priests,** to teach that people with flawed lineage may not enter their congregation; **and one** is referring **to Levites; and one to Israelites; and one** serves **to permit a *mamzer* to** marry **a *shetuki*,** since a *mamzer* is prohibited from entering only the congregation of God, but he may marry someone who is not definitely a member of the congregation, e.g., a *shetuki*; **and one** serves **to permit a *shetuki* to** marry **an Israelite,** as only one who is a definite *mamzer* may not marry an Israelite. As for the **congregation of converts, it is not called a congregation** at all, and they may marry those prohibited from entering the congregation of Israel. **And Rabbi Yehuda** holds that **priests and Levites are derived from one** instance of the word **“congregation,”** since they are from the same tribe, that of Levi. Consequently, one instance of the word “congregation” **remains for him** to interpret. He interprets it as referring **to the congregation of converts,** and deems it prohibited for a *mamzer* to enter that congregation as well.


###### Kiddushin 73a:2
[Kiddushin 73a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:2)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי, תְּרֵי קְהָלֵי נִינְהוּ, מַמְזֵר בִּשְׁתוּקִי וּשְׁתוּקִי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחַד ״קָהָל״ נָפְקָא – ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר בִּקְהַל ה׳״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say: So too,** Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Yosei that Levites and priests **are two congregations,** since there are special *halakhot* of marriage that apply only to priests. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the permissibility of the marriage of **a *mamzer* with a *shetuki* and a *shetuki* with an Israelite** is **derived from one** instance of the word **“congregation,”** from the verse: **“A *mamzer* shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord”** (Deuteronomy 23:3).


###### Kiddushin 73a:3
[Kiddushin 73a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:3)

מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא מַמְזֵר סָפֵק – יָבֹא, בְּקָהָל וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא בְּקָהָל סָפֵק – יָבֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is accomplished by inferring the following: **It is** one who is **a definite *mamzer* who may not enter, but** one who is **a *mamzer*** as a result **of an uncertainty,** e.g., a *shetuki*, **may enter. And similarly, it is into the congregation** of those with **definite** unflawed lineage that a *mamzer* **may not enter, but into a congregation** of those with **uncertain** lineage, e.g., a *shetuki*, **he may enter.** This verse therefore teaches that both types of marriage are permitted. In any event, Rabbi Yehuda remains with one instance of the word “congregation” to interpret, from which he derives that it is also prohibited for a convert to marry a *mamzeret*.


###### Kiddushin 73a:4
[Kiddushin 73a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:4)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָנֵי נָמֵי תְּרֵי קְהָלֵי נִינְהוּ, וְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מֵהָכָא: ״הַקָּהָל חֻקָּה אַחַת לָכֶם וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר״. וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? ״חֻקָּה אַחַת״ – הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say: These too,** one who is a definite *mamzer* and one who is a *mamzer* as the result of an uncertainty, **are two congregations,** each requiring its own verse, **and the reason of Rabbi Yehuda is from here: “As for the congregation, there shall be one statute both for you, and for the stranger that sojourns with you”** (Numbers 15:15), which indicates that converts are considered like Israelites with regard to their being included in the category of “congregation.” **And according to Rabbi Yosei,** who holds that a convert may marry a *mamzeret*, the phrase **“one statute” interrupts the matter,** and converts are not considered part of the congregation of God.


###### Kiddushin 73a:5
[Kiddushin 73a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:5)

אֶחָד גֵּר וְאֶחָד עֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר וְחָלָל מוּתָּרִין בְּכֹהֶנֶת. מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ לְרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא הוּזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁירוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara comments: The statement of the *Tosefta* that **a convert, and an emancipated slave, and a *ḥalal* are all permitted to** marry **the daughter of a priest supports** the opinion **of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: Women of unflawed** lineage who are daughters of priests **were not prohibited** from **marrying those disqualified** from the priesthood **due to flawed lineage [*ḥalalim*],** since that prohibition applies only to male priests.


###### Kiddushin 73a:6
[Kiddushin 73a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:6)

דְּרַשׁ רַבִּי זֵירָא בְּמָחוֹזָא: גֵּר מוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. רַגְמוּהּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בְּאֶתְרוֹגַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר רָבָא: מִי אִיכָּא דְּדָרֵישׁ מִילְּתָא כִּי הַאי בְּדוּכְתָּא דִּשְׁכִיחִי גִּיּוֹרֵי? דְּרַשׁ רָבָא בְּמָחוֹזָא: גֵּר מוּתָּר בְּכֹהֶנֶת. טַעֲנוּהּ בְּשִׁירָאֵי. הֲדַר דְּרַשׁ לְהוּ: גֵּר מוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַפְסֵידְתָּא לְקַמַּיְיתָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: דְּטָבָא לְכוּ עֲבַדִי לְכוּ, אִי בָּעֵי מֵהָכָא נָסֵיב וְאִי בָּעֵי מֵהָכָא נָסֵיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira taught in Meḥoza:** It is **permitted** for **a convert to** marry **a *mamzeret*. Everyone stoned him with their *etrogim*,** since the many converts present were insulted by his statement, which they understood to mean that converts are not members of God’s congregation. **Rava said: Is there** a person **who teaches such a matter in a place where there are commonly converts?** He should have been more circumspect. **Rava** himself **taught** this **in Meḥoza** to ameliorate the situation: It is **permitted** for **a convert to** marry **the daughter of a priest. They carried him on silk [*beshira’ei*]** for elevating the honor of converts. **He later taught them:** It is **permitted** for **a convert to** marry **a *mamzeret*. They said to him: You have forfeited** the honor of your **first** sermon. Rava **said to them: I have done for you what is good for you. If** a convert **wishes,** he may **marry from here,** i.e., from those of pure lineage, **and if he wishes,** he may **marry from here,** i.e., a *mamzeret*.


###### Kiddushin 73a:7
[Kiddushin 73a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:7)

וְהִילְכְתָא: גֵּר מוּתָּר בְּכֹהֶנֶת וּמוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. מוּתָּר בְּכֹהֶנֶת – לֹא הוּזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁירוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִים, וּמוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת – כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is: It is **permitted** for **a convert to** marry **the daughter of a priest, and** it is **permitted** for him **to** marry **a *mamzeret*.** It is **permitted** for **a convert to** marry **the daughter of a priest,** since **women of unflawed** lineage **were not prohibited** from **marrying those disqualified** for the priesthood. **And** it is **permitted** for him **to** marry **a *mamzeret*, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** who holds that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation.


###### Kiddushin 73a:8
[Kiddushin 73a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:8)

אֵלּוּ הֵן: שְׁתוּקִי – כֹּל שֶׁמַּכִּיר. אָמַר רָבָא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה שְׁתוּקִי כָּשֵׁר. מַאי טַעְמָא – רוֹב כְּשֵׁרִים אֶצְלָהּ, וּמִיעוּט פְּסוּלִין אֶצְלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And these are** the last two categories: **A *shetuki*** is **any** person **who knows** the identity of his mother but does not know the identity of his father. **Rava says: By Torah law, a *shetuki* is fit** to enter the congregation. **What is the reason** for this? **Most are fit with regard to her,** i.e., most men are fit to engage in intercourse with an unmarried woman, **and** only **a minority are unfit with regard to** engaging in intercourse with **her.** There are few men who are related to a woman in a way that would render the offspring *mamzerim*.


###### Kiddushin 73a:9
[Kiddushin 73a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:9)

וְאִי אָזְלִי אִינְהוּ לְגַבַּהּ, כֹּל דְּפָרֵישׁ – מֵרוּבָּא פָּרֵישׁ. מַאי אָמְרַתְּ – דִּילְמָא אָזְלָה אִיהִי לְגַבַּיְיהוּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ קָבוּעַ, וְכֹל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava analyzes two possibilities: **And if they came to her,** i.e., if the father came to the mother’s location when the child was conceived, the following principle with regard to an uncertain prohibition takes effect: **Anything that separates** from its fixed location is presumed to have **separated from the majority** of items like it in that location. If the father separated from the population at large and came to the mother, one can assume that he was from the majority, who are of unflawed lineage. **What** might **you say,** that **perhaps she went to them,** and the child was conceived in the place where the father was? In such a case, **it is** an uncertain prohibition located in its **fixed** place, **and** the halakhic principle is: **Anything fixed is considered** as though it were **half and half,** i.e., fifty percent, and it remains a case of uncertainty, and it should be prohibited for the *shetuki* to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.


###### Kiddushin 73a:10
[Kiddushin 73a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:10)

וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר״ – מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא מַמְזֵר סָפֵק – יָבֹא. בְּקָהָל וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא בְּקָהָל סָפֵק – יָבֹא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in any case, this does not suffice to prevent her *shetuki* child from marrying a Jew with unflawed lineage, since **the Torah states: “A *mamzer* shall not enter** into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3), which indicates: **It is a definite *mamzer* who may not enter, but** one who is **a *mamzer*** as a result **of an uncertainty may enter.** Similarly, **it is into a congregation** of those with **definite** unflawed lineage that **he may not enter, but into a congregation** of those with **uncertain** lineage **he may enter.** Therefore, even if it is uncertain if one is a *mamzer*, by Torah law he may marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.


###### Kiddushin 73a:11
[Kiddushin 73a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:11)

וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ שְׁתוּקִי פָּסוּל? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, שְׁתוּקִי – שְׁתוּקִית לֹא יִשָּׂא, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And for what reason did** the Sages nevertheless **say** that **a *shetuki*** is of **flawed** lineage? Due to a rabbinic **decree, lest he marry his sister from his father,** since the identity of his father is unknown. The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** it **should not** be permitted for **a *shetuki*** to **marry** even **a female *shetuki*, lest he marry his sister from his father.**


###### Kiddushin 73a:12
[Kiddushin 73a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:12)

כֹּל כִּי הָנֵי מְזַנּוּ וְאָזְלִי? בַּת שְׁתוּקִית לֹא יִשָּׂא, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו! אֶלָּא: לָא שְׁכִיחָא, הָכִי נָמֵי לָא שְׁכִיחָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And do** people **engage in licentiousness to such an extent** that one should be concerned that all the children of unknown paternity in one city were fathered by the same man? By the same reasoning, there should also be a decree that a *shetuki* may **not marry the daughter of a female *shetuki*** from a proper marriage, **lest he marry his sister from his father,** since the man who married the female *shetuki* might have been his father. **Rather,** it must be that **it is not common** for a *shetuki* to happen to marry his sister, and therefore he may marry the daughter of a female *shetuki*. **So too, it is not common** for him to happen to marry his sister, and the Sages would not issue a decree to prevent this from occurring.


###### Kiddushin 73a:13
[Kiddushin 73a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:13)

אֶלָּא מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בְּיוּחֲסִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The question therefore remains, why did they render it prohibited for a *shetuki* to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers that it is not prohibited for a *shetuki* to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage due to any halakhic concern. **Rather,** the Sages **established a higher standard with regard to lineage,** in that they rendered it prohibited for people from unknown backgrounds to marry those with unflawed lineage.


###### Kiddushin 73a:14
[Kiddushin 73a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:14)

וְאָמַר רָבָא, דְּבַר תּוֹרָה: אֲסוּפִי – כָּשֵׁר. מַאי טַעְמָא? אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ – בְּבַעְלָהּ תּוֹלָה. מַאי אִיכָּא? מִיעוּט אֲרוּסוֹת וּמִיעוּט שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלֵיהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says** a similar statement: **By Torah law, a foundling,** a child found in the marketplace whose parents are unknown, **is fit,** and there is no concern that the child is a *mamzer*. **What is the reason** for this? **A married woman** who becomes pregnant through extramarital intercourse, which results in the child being a *mamzer*, **ascribes** the child **to her husband.** Since everyone assumes that her husband is the father, she has no reason to abandon the child in the marketplace. **What** case **is there** where a mother would want to abandon her *mamzer* child? There is the **minority** of situations involving **betrothed women** who committed adultery but cannot claim that her betrothed is the father, as they had not been living together. **And** there is the **minority** of women **whose husbands have gone overseas** and could not have fathered the children.


###### Kiddushin 73a:15
[Kiddushin 73a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:15)

כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא פְּנוּיָה, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דְּמֵחֲמַת רְעָבוֹן, הָוֵה פַּלְגָא וּפַלְגָא. וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר בְּקָהָל ה׳״ – מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא מַמְזֵר סָפֵק יָבֹא. בְּקָהָל וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֹא יָבֹא, הָא בְּקָהָל סָפֵק יָבֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Since there are** many other cases of **unmarried** women who do abandon their children although those children have unflawed lineage, **and there are also** children with unflawed lineage who are abandoned by their parents **due to hunger,** the concern that the child is a *mamzer* **is** no more than **half and half,** i.e., fifty percent. **And the Torah states: “A *mamzer* shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord”** (Deuteronomy 23:3), which indicates: **It is** one who is **a definite *mamzer* who may not enter, but** one who is **a *mamzer*** as a result **of an uncertainty may enter.** Similarly, **it is into a congregation** of those with **definite** unflawed lineage that **he may not enter, but into a congregation** of those with **uncertain** lineage **he may enter.** This child is a *mamzer* as the result of an uncertainty, and by Torah law may marry a Jew with unflawed lineage.


###### Kiddushin 73a:16
[Kiddushin 73a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:16)

וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ אֲסוּפִי פָּסוּל – שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה אֲסוּפִי – אֲסוּפִית לֹא יִשָּׂא, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ בֵּין מֵאָבִיו בֵּין מֵאִמּוֹ! כֹּל הָנֵי שָׁדוּ וְאָזְלִי?! בַּת אֲסוּפִי לֹא יִשָּׂא, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ! אֶלָּא לָא שְׁכִיחַ, הָכִי נָמֵי לָא שְׁכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And for what reason did** the Sages **say** that **a foundling is unfit? Lest he marry his sister from his father.** The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** it **should not** be permitted for **a foundling** to **marry** even a female **foundling, lest he marry his sister from either his father or his mother.** The Gemara rejects this: Are they **continually throwing away all these** children? Is it likely that the same parents abandoned both a son and a daughter? If you accept that suggestion, it **should not** be permitted for **him** to **marry the daughter of a foundling, lest he marry his sister,** as perhaps the father of the one he wishes to marry is his father as well. **Rather,** it must be that **it is not common** for a foundling to happen to marry his sister, and therefore he may marry the daughter of a foundling. **So too, it is not common** for him to happen to marry his sister, and the Sages would not make a decree to prevent this from occurring.


###### Kiddushin 73a:17
[Kiddushin 73a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:17)

אֶלָּא, מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בְּיוֹחֲסִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The question therefore remains: Why did they prohibit a foundling from marrying a Jew with unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers that it is prohibited for a foundling to marry a Jew with unflawed lineage not due to any halakhic concern. **Rather,** the Sages **established a higher standard with regard to lineage,** in that they rendered it prohibited for people from unknown backgrounds to marry those with unflawed lineage.


###### Kiddushin 73a:18
[Kiddushin 73a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/73a:18)

אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא: מְצָאוֹ מָהוּל –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava bar Rav Huna says:** If an abandoned boy was **found circumcised,**