## Kiddushin Daf 74a

###### Kiddushin 74a:1
[Kiddushin 74a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:1)

וְנִיחְזֵי זוּזֵי מִמַּאן נָקֵט? לָא צְרִיכָא דְּנָקֵט מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ וְאָמַר: חַד מִדַּעְתַּאי, וְחַד בְּעַל כּוּרְחַי. וְלָא יְדִיעַ הֵי מִדַּעְתּוֹ וְהֵי לֹא מִדַּעְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let us see from whom he took the money,** as it will be obvious that he is the one who bought it. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach this *halakha* in a case **where** the seller **took** money **from both of them, and** he then **said: One** payment I accepted **willingly, and one** payment was given to me **against my will, and it is not known which** person gave him money in accordance **with his will and which** did so **against his will.** In that case, if the item is no longer in the seller’s possession, he is not deemed credible to testify to whom he sold it.


###### Kiddushin 74a:2
[Kiddushin 74a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:2)

נֶאֱמָן דַּיָּין לוֹמַר: לָזֶה זִכִּיתִי וְלָזֶה חִיַּיבְתִּי. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁבַּעֲלֵי דִינִים עוֹמְדִים לְפָנָיו, אֲבָל אֵין בַּעֲלֵי דִינִים עוֹמְדִים לְפָנָיו – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. וְנִיחְזֵי זְכוּתָא מַאן נָקֵיט?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the continuation of the *baraita*: Similarly, **a judge** is **deemed credible to say: I found this** person **victorious** in a civil case, **and I found this one obligated** to pay. **In what** case **is this statement said? When the litigants are** still **standing before him. But if the litigants are not standing before him** but have left, **he is not deemed credible.** The Gemara asks: **And let us see who holds the writ of a favorable verdict.** Why is there a need to rely on the statement of the judge?


###### Kiddushin 74a:3
[Kiddushin 74a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:3)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּקְרִיעַ זְכוּתַיְיהוּ. וְנִיהְדַּר וְנִידַיְּינִינְהוּ! בְּשׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach this *halakha* in a case **where their writs of a favorable verdict have been torn up** and cannot be examined. The Gemara asks: If so, **then let him return and judge them** again, and presumably the same verdict will be issued. The Gemara answers: It was a case **of the judges’ discretion [*shuda dedayyanei*].** In certain cases, the verdict depends on the decision of the judges based solely on their sense of which litigant deserves to win. There is no guarantee that they will make the same decision the second time around.


###### Kiddushin 74a:4
[Kiddushin 74a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַבְּכוֹר, אֵלּוּ הֵן: חַיָּה, אָבִיו, וְאִמּוֹ. חַיָּה – לְאַלְתַּר, אִמּוֹ – כׇּל שִׁבְעָה, אָבִיו – לְעוֹלָם. כִּדְתַנְיָא. ״יַכִּיר״ – יַכִּירֶנּוּ לַאֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to discuss the credibility of various people with regard to a firstborn. **Rav Naḥman says: Three are deemed credible with regard to** stating that a child is **a firstborn,** and **they are: A midwife, his father, and his mother. A midwife** is deemed credible only **immediately; his mother** is deemed credible **all** of the first **seven** days after his birth; **his father** is deemed credible **forever. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: Expounding the verse: “But **he shall acknowledge** the firstborn” (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Sages said: The father **shall acknowledge him to others.** In other words, he is deemed credible to tell others that this is his firstborn.


###### Kiddushin 74a:5
[Kiddushin 74a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:5)

מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״, כָּךְ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה״ וְ״זֶה בֶּן חֲלוּצָה״. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From here, Rabbi Yehuda said: A person** is **deemed credible to say: This** is **my firstborn son. And just as he** is **deemed credible to say: This** is **my firstborn son, so** too, if he is a priest he is **deemed credible to say** about his son: **This** is **a son of a divorced woman, or: This** is **a son of a *ḥalutza*. And the Rabbis say:** As far as these latter claims are concerned, **he is not deemed credible.** He is deemed credible to state only which son is his firstborn.


###### Kiddushin 74a:6
[Kiddushin 74a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:6)

אַבָּא שָׁאוּל הָיָה קוֹרֵא לַשְּׁתוּקִי ״בְּדוּקִי״. מַאי ״בְּדוּקִי״? אִילֵימָא שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאוֹמֶרֶת: לְכָשֵׁר נִבְעַלְתִּי – נֶאֱמֶנֶת, כְּמַאן – כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא! דִּתְנַן: הָיְתָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ: מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל עוּבָּר זֶה? אָמְרָה לָהֶם: מֵאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכֹהֵן הוּא. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Abba Shaul would call a *shetuki*** by the label of ***beduki*.** The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of ***beduki*? If we say that they examine [*bodekin*] his mother, and** if **she says: I engaged in sexual intercourse with** a man of **unflawed** lineage, in which case **she is deemed credible,** then **with whose** opinion does this *halakha* accord? **With** that of **Rabban Gamliel.** But **we** already **learned** this **on another occasion, as we learned** in a mishna (*Ketubot* 13a): If an unmarried woman **was pregnant, and they said to her: What is the status of this fetus,** and **she said to them:** It is **from so-and-so, and he is a priest,** then **Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say:** She is **deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: We don’t live from,** i.e., we don’t rely on, the words of **her mouth,** and she is not trusted. **And Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel.** What, then, did Abba Shaul add beyond what was taught in that mishna?


###### Kiddushin 74a:7
[Kiddushin 74a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:7)

– חֲדָא לְהַכְשִׁיר בָּהּ, וַחֲדָא לְהַכְשִׁיר בְּבִתָּהּ. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר בָּהּ – פּוֹסֵל בְּבִתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Abba Shaul’s statement that the woman is deemed credible when she states that the father of the child was of unflawed lineage is nevertheless necessary. **One** *halakha* was stated in order **to render her fit** to marry a priest, **and one** *halakha* was stated **to render her daughter fit** to marry a priest as well. The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says:** According **to the statement of the one who deems her fit** to marry a priest, **he** nevertheless **deems her daughter unfit,** as her credibility does not extend to her daughter, who never had a presumptive status of unflawed lineage. Abba Shaul therefore presents a novel ruling, that if she claims to have engaged in intercourse with a man of unflawed lineage, she is deemed credible even with regard to the status of her daughter.


###### Kiddushin 74a:8
[Kiddushin 74a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:8)

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר בָּהּ – מַכְשִׁיר בְּבִתָּהּ, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל מַאי אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to the one who says:** According **to the statement of the one who deems her fit** to marry a priest, **he deems her daughter fit** to do so as well, **what is Abba Shaul coming to teach us?**


###### Kiddushin 74a:9
[Kiddushin 74a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:9)

דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל עֲדִיפָא מִדְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דְּאִי מֵהָתָם הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָתָם, דְּרוֹב כְּשֵׁרִין אֶצְלָהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּרוֹב פְּסוּלִין אֶצְלָהּ – אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא. אָמַר רָבָא: הֲלָכָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The statement **of Abba Shaul** is **preferable** and is more far-reaching than **that of Rabban Gamliel, as, if** the *halakha* were learned only **from there,** the case of an unmarried woman, **I would say: There** it is a case when **most are fit with regard to her,** as it is permitted for most people to engage in intercourse with a single woman. **But** in a circumstance **where most are unfit with regard to her,** e.g., if she was betrothed and claimed that the man betrothed to her was the father, you might **say** this: She is **not** deemed credible when she claims to have engaged in intercourse with a man that would result in the child being of unflawed lineage, as only a small minority of people, i.e., her betrothed, would not render the child unfit, while the rest of the people in the world would render him unfit. Therefore, Abba Shaul’s *halakha* was **necessary** in order to include that case. **Rava says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the statement of **Abba Shaul.**


###### Kiddushin 74a:10
[Kiddushin 74a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל הָאֲסוּרִין לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל – מוּתָּרִים לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **All those** for **whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation,** i.e., to marry a Jew of unflawed lineage, **are permitted to marry** into **each other’s** families. **Rabbi Yehuda prohibits** them from marrying anyone other than those who share their specific flaw.


###### Kiddushin 74a:11
[Kiddushin 74a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:11)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: וַדָּאָן בְּוַדָּאָן – מוּתָּר, וַדָּאָן בִּסְפֵיקָן, וּסְפֵיקָן בְּוַדָּאָן, וּסְפֵיקָן בִּסְפֵיקָן – אָסוּר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַסְּפֵיקוֹת: שְׁתוּקִי, אֲסוּפִי, וְכוּתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer says:** It is **permitted** for **those** with **definite** flaws to marry **with those** with **definite** flaws. For example, it is permitted for *mamzerim* and Gibeonites to marry each other. By contrast, it is **prohibited** for **those** with **definite** flaws, such as *mamzerim*, to marry **with those** whose flaws result from **an uncertainty,** such as a child of unknown paternity [*shetuki*] and a foundling; **and** it is prohibited for **those** whose flaws result from **an uncertainty** to marry **with those** with **definite** flaws; **and** it is prohibited for **those** whose flaws result from **an uncertainty** to marry **with those** whose flaws result from **an uncertainty,** such as a *shetuki* and a female *shetuki*. **And these are the** ones whose flaws result from **an uncertainty: A *shetuki*, a foundling, and a Samaritan.**


###### Kiddushin 74a:12
[Kiddushin 74a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי כׇּל הָאֲסוּרִין לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל? אִילֵימָא מַמְזֵירֵי וּנְתִינֵי שְׁתוּקֵי וַאֲסוּפֵי – הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא, מַמְזֵירֵי וּנְתִינֵי שְׁתוּקֵי וַאֲסוּפֵי מוּתָּרִים לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **What** is the meaning of: **All those** for **whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation? If we say *mamzerim* and Gibeonites, *shetukim*, and foundlings, wasn’t it** already **taught in the first clause** of the first mishna of the chapter that with regard to ***mamzerim* and Gibeonites, *shetukim*, and foundlings,** it is **permitted** for men and women in these categories **to marry** into **each other’s** families?


###### Kiddushin 74a:13
[Kiddushin 74a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:13)

וְתוּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר, אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַוַּדָּאָן בִּסְפֵיקָן – הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: וַדָּאָן בְּוַדָּאָן – מוּתָּר, וַדָּאָן בִּסְפֵיקָן, וּסְפֵיקָן בִּסְפֵיקָן – אָסוּר, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, to which** case in the mishna here is it referring when it states: **Rabbi Yehuda prohibits** them? **If we say** it is referring **to those** with **definite** flaws marrying **with those** whose flaws result from **an uncertainty,** and it is teaching that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits them from marrying each other, this is difficult. **But from** the fact **that it teaches** in the **latter clause** that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** It is **permitted** for **those** with **definite** flaws to marry **with those** with **definite** flaws; by contrast, it is **prohibited** for **those** with **definite** flaws to marry **with those** whose flaws result from **an uncertainty, and** it is prohibited for **those** whose flaws result from **an uncertainty** to marry **with those** with **definite** flaws, **and** it is prohibited for **those** whose flaws result from **an uncertainty** to marry **with those** whose flaws result from **an uncertainty;** then **by inference, it is clear** that **Rabbi Yehuda does not maintain** this opinion.


###### Kiddushin 74a:14
[Kiddushin 74a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:14)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר אַגֵּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת, מִידֵּי גֵּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת קָתָנֵי? כׇּל הָאֲסוּרִין לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that when **Rabbi Yehuda prohibits** those with flawed lineage from marrying each other, he is referring **to** the prohibition against **a convert** marrying **with a *mamzeret*, does** the mishna **teach** the *halakha* of **a convert** marrying **with a *mamzeret*? It teaches: All those** for **whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation,** which does not include a convert.


###### Kiddushin 74a:15
[Kiddushin 74a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/74a:15)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says:**