## Kiddushin Daf 75a

###### Kiddushin 75a:1
[Kiddushin 75a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:1)

כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ – אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ. וְכֹל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ – אִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow.** If a priest is permitted to marry someone’s daughter, he is likewise permitted to marry that person’s widow; she has not become disqualified to marry a priest by having engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband. **And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow** either.


###### Kiddushin 75a:2
[Kiddushin 75a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:2)

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין תַּנָּא קַמָּא וּבֵין רַבִּי יוֹסֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא לְמָדוּהָ אֶלָּא מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** difference **is there between the first *tanna*** of the mishna **and Rabbi Yosei,** as they appear to be saying the same thing? **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The practical difference **between them** concerns a Jewish woman who engaged in intercourse with **a second**-generation **Egyptian.** The Torah prohibits Egyptian converts and their children from entering into the congregation by marriage, but the grandchildren of the Egyptian convert, i.e., the third generation, are permitted to marry Jews with unflawed lineage. **And both of them learned** their respective opinions **only from** the *halakha* of **a High Priest** who engaged in intercourse **with a widow,** although they derived the *halakha* in different ways.


###### Kiddushin 75a:3
[Kiddushin 75a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:3)

דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: כִּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה. מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה שֶׁבִּיאָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה וּפוֹסֵל בָּהּ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁבִּיאָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה – פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
How so? As **the first *tanna* holds** that this case is **like** that of **a High Priest** who engages in sexual intercourse **with a widow: Just as** with regard to **a High Priest** who engages in intercourse **with a widow, his** act of **intercourse** with her is performed **by** means of **a transgression and he disqualifies her** from marrying into the priesthood, **so too anyone whose** act of **intercourse** is **by** means of **a transgression,** such as a second-generation Egyptian who engages in intercourse with a Jewish woman, likewise **disqualifies her** from marrying into the priesthood.


###### Kiddushin 75a:4
[Kiddushin 75a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:4)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: כִּי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה. מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל, אַף כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל – פּוֹסֵל. לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״בָּנִים אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל ה׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei holds** that the derivation is as follows: It is **like a High Priest** who engages in sexual intercourse **with a widow: Just as** with regard to **a High Priest** who engages in intercourse **with a widow, whose offspring is unfit** for the priesthood, as they have the status of a *ḥalal*, **and he** similarly **disqualifies** her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her, **so too, anyone whose offspring is unfit** for the priesthood also **disqualifies** her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her. This comparison serves **to exclude a second**-generation **Egyptian, whose offspring is not unfit, as the verse states: “The children of the third generation that are born to them may enter into the congregation of the Lord”** (Deuteronomy 23:9). Therefore, a second-generation Egyptian does not disqualify a woman with whom he engages in intercourse from marrying a priest.


###### Kiddushin 75a:5
[Kiddushin 75a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:5)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ – אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אֶת בִּתּוֹ – אִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? אָמַר עוּלָּא: גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא לְמָדוּהָ אֶלָּא מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* also taught that **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow. And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow** either. The Gemara asks: **What** difference **is there between** the opinions of **Rabbi Yosei and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?** They seem to be stating the same *halakha*. **Ulla said: The** difference **between them** involves a male **Ammonite** convert **and** a male **Moabite convert.** According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, male Ammonite and Moabite converts disqualify a woman with whom they engage in sexual intercourse from marrying a priest, whereas Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says they do not disqualify her. **And both of them learned** their respective opinions **only from** the *halakha* of **a High Priest** who engaged in intercourse **with a widow,** although they derived the *halakha* in different ways.


###### Kiddushin 75a:6
[Kiddushin 75a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:6)

דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: כִּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה. מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל – וּפוֹסֵל, אַף כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל – פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
How so? **As Rabbi Yosei holds** that this case is **like** that of **a High Priest** who engages in intercourse **with a widow: Just as** with regard to **a High Priest** who engages in sexual intercourse **with a widow,** the *halakha* is **that his offspring are unfit** for the priesthood, as they have the status of a *ḥalal*, **and he** similarly **disqualifies** her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her, **so too, anyone whose offspring is unfit** for the priesthood, including a male Ammonite or Moabite convert, also **disqualifies** her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her.


###### Kiddushin 75a:7
[Kiddushin 75a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:7)

וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה. מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה שֶׁכׇּל זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל, אַף כֹּל שֶׁכׇּל זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל, אֲפִילּוּ נְקֵבוֹת, לְאַפּוֹקֵי גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי דִּנְקֵבוֹת הָווּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל. דְּאָמַר מָר: עַמּוֹנִי וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית, מוֹאָבִי וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** holds that the derivation is as follows: It is **like a High Priest** who engages in sexual intercourse **with a widow. Just as** with regard to **a High Priest** who engages in intercourse **with a widow, as all his offspring are unfit,** the females as well as the males, and he disqualifies her by engaging in intercourse with her, **so too, everyone** about whom the *halakha* is **that all his offspring are unfit, even** the **females,** disqualifies a woman with whom he engages in intercourse from marrying a priest. This comparison serves **to exclude** a male **Ammonite or Moabite convert, as** the **females** born to them **are fit to enter into the congregation. As the Master said: An Ammonite man** is prohibited from entering into the congregation, **but not an Ammonite woman;** similarly **a Moabite man** is prohibited from doing so, **but not a Moabite woman.**


###### Kiddushin 75a:8
[Kiddushin 75a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:8)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּאַלְמְנַת עִיסָּה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה לַכְּהוּנָּה. מַאן מֵיקֵל בְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי – רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְקָאָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ – אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ – אִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי אַלְמְנַת עִיסָּה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה לַכְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda says: All concede with regard to a widow of questionable lineage,** i.e., a widow whose husband was possibly a *ḥalal*, **that she is unfit to** marry into the **priesthood.** The Gemara explains: **Who is the** most **lenient of these *tanna’im*?** It is **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and he says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow; and anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow** either. He said the latter clause **to exclude what?** It is **to exclude a widow of questionable lineage;** and it teaches **that she is unfit to** marry into **the priesthood,** since the daughter of one who was possibly a *ḥalal* is prohibited from marrying a priest.


###### Kiddushin 75a:9
[Kiddushin 75a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:9)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי דִּתְנַן: הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא עַל אַלְמְנַת עִיסָּה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה לַכְּהוּנָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא – הָוֵי סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא, וּסְפֵק סְפֵיקָא לְקוּלָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: This statement of Rav Ḥisda serves **to exclude** the opinion of **these** following ***tanna’im*. As we learned** in a mishna (*Eduyyot* 8:3): **Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira testified with regard to a widow of questionable lineage, that she is fit to** marry into **the priesthood. What is the reason** for this lenient ruling? **It is** a case of **a compound uncertainty, and** the principle is that in a case of **a compound uncertainty** the ruling **is to be lenient.**


###### Kiddushin 75a:10
[Kiddushin 75a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:10)

וַדָּאָן בְּוַדָּאָן מוּתָּר. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אֲמַר לִי: הִלֵּל שׁוֹנֶה: עֲשָׂרָה יוּחֲסִים עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל וְכוּלָּם מוּתָּרִים לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Eliezer, 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 to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, and it is also prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry those whose flaws result from an uncertainty. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.** Rav Yehuda added: **When I said that** *halakha* **in front of Shmuel, he said to me: Hillel** the Elder **teaches** the mishna as stating: Jews with **ten** types of **lineage ascended from Babylonia, and all of them,** i.e., all of those who may not enter into the congregation, even those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, **are permitted to marry** into **each other’s** families; **and you said** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer?**


###### Kiddushin 75a:11
[Kiddushin 75a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:11)

וּרְמִי דְּרַב אַדְּרַב וּרְמִי דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אַדִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאִיתְּמַר: אֲרוּסָה שֶׁעִיבְּרָה, רַב אָמַר: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And a contradiction can be raised** from this statement **of Rav against** another statement **of Rav, and** similarly **a contradiction can be raised from** this statement **of Shmuel against** another statement **of Shmuel. As it was stated** that they had the following dispute: With regard to **a betrothed woman who became pregnant** during her period of betrothal, and it is unknown whether it was her betrothed or someone else who impregnated her, **Rav says** that **the offspring is a *mamzer*.** The assumption is that she was impregnated by a different man and that the child is the offspring of a betrothed woman and a man other than her betrothed. **And Shmuel says** that **the offspring is a *shetuki*,** since there is no proof that it is a *mamzer*; she might have been impregnated by her betrothed.


###### Kiddushin 75a:12
[Kiddushin 75a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:12)

רַב אָמַר: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר וּמוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי וְאָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. אֵיפוֹךְ, רַב אָמַר: הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains their respective opinions: **Rav says the offspring is a *mamzer* and is** therefore **permitted to** marry **a *mamzeret*; and Shmuel says the offspring is a *shetuki* and is prohibited to** marry **a *mamzeret*.** It is seen here that Shmuel prohibits one whose flaw results from an uncertainty from marrying one with definite *mamzer* status, whereas Rav permits such a person to marry one with definite *mamzer* status. This contradicts their earlier statements, in which Rav prohibited one whose flaw results from an uncertainty from marrying one with definite *mamzer* status and Shmuel permitted it. The Gemara answers: **Reverse** the opinions in this dispute, so that **Rav** is the one who **says: The offspring is a *shetuki*** and is prohibited to marry a *mamzeret*; **and Shmuel says: The offspring is a *mamzer*** and may marry a *mamzeret*.


###### Kiddushin 75a:13
[Kiddushin 75a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:13)

תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב מִשּׁוּם דְּרוֹב כְּשֵׁרִים אֶצְלָהּ. אֲבָל הָתָם, דְּרוֹב פְּסוּלִים אֶצְלָהּ, אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לִשְׁמוּאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **why do I** need **two** instances of the same dispute? The Gemara answers: It is **necessary** to state the dispute twice, **because if it were stated** only **with regard to that** mishna, which discusses an unmarried woman whose offspring is a *shetuki*, one could have said: It was **with regard to that** case that **Rav states** his opinion, **because the majority are fit with regard to her** and only a minority of men are those who are forbidden to her as relatives or are those who are disqualified from entering into the congregation. **But there,** in the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant, **where the majority are unfit with regard to her** and she is forbidden to everyone other than her betrothed, one might **say that** Rav **concedes to Shmuel** that her child is a definite *mamzer*.


###### Kiddushin 75a:14
[Kiddushin 75a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:14)

וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָךְ, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיתְלְ[יַ]הּ בְּאָרוּס, אֲבָל בְּהָא אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לִשְׁמוּאֵל, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if it was stated** only **in this** case of a betrothed woman, one could have said it was **with regard to this** case that **Rav states** the offspring is a *shetuki*, **because it is** most reasonable **to ascribe** the pregnancy **to the betrothed man,** which would mean that the offspring is not a *mamzer*, **but in that** case of an unmarried woman, one might **say that he agrees with Shmuel** that the child is considered to be a definite *mamzer*. It is therefore **necessary** to state both cases.


###### Kiddushin 75a:15
[Kiddushin 75a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:15)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, וּמַאי מַמְזֵר דְּקָאָמַר רַב – לָאו מוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת, אֶלָּא דְּאָסוּר בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי, דְּאָסוּר בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִי הָכִי הַיְינוּ דְּרַב! אֶלָּא: מַאי שְׁתוּקִי – שֶׁמְּשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִדִּין כְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say: Actually, do not reverse** the opinions, **and what** is the meaning of the term ***mamzer* that Rav is saying?** It does **not** signify that this offspring is **permitted to** marry **a *mamzeret*, but** merely **that he is prohibited from** marrying **a Jewish woman. And** when **Shmuel says the offspring is a *shetuki*,** he meant that he is **prohibited from** marrying **a Jewish woman.** The Gemara asks: **If so, that is** the same as **Rav. Rather, what** is the meaning of the term ***shetuki*** in Shmuel’s statement? It is **that one silences [*meshattekin*] him,** i.e., disqualifies him, **from the *halakha* of the priesthood.** In other words, even if the betrothed man was a priest, the child is not considered a priest.


###### Kiddushin 75a:16
[Kiddushin 75a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:16)

פְּשִׁיטָא, הַשְׁתָּא מִדִּין יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשַׁתְּקִינַן לֵיהּ, מִדִּין כְּהוּנָּה מִיבְּעֵי?! אֶלָּא: מַאי שְׁתוּקִי – שֶׁמְּשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִנִּכְסֵי אָבִיו. פְּשִׁיטָא, מִי יָדְעִינַן אֲבוּהּ מַנּוּ? לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּתְפַס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this: Isn’t this **obvious? Now,** if **one silences him from the *halakha* of a Jew** with unflawed lineage, and he is not allowed to enter into the congregation, **is it necessary** to say that he is silenced **from the *halakha* of the priesthood? Rather, what** is the meaning of ***shetuki*** in Shmuel’s statement? It is **that one silences him from his** presumed **father’s property,** i.e., he does not inherit from him. The Gemara again questions: This too **is obvious; do we know who his father is?** The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** in a case **where** this son **seized** possession of the property of the betrothed man, claiming that the betrothed man is his father. It is with regard to such a scenario that Shmuel said that the property is taken away from him, and one does not say that the burden of proof rests upon the other inheritors to demonstrate conclusively that the betrothed man is not his father.


###### Kiddushin 75a:17
[Kiddushin 75a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:17)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: מַאי שְׁתוּקִי – בְּדוּקִי, שֶׁבּוֹדְקִים אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאוֹמֶרֶת: ״לְכָשֵׁר נִבְעַלְתִּי״ – נֶאֱמֶנֶת. כְּמַאן – כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? הָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל חֲדָא זִימְנָא, דִּתְנַן: הָיְתָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ: מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל עוּבָּר זֶה? מֵאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכֹהֵן הוּא – רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say: What** is the meaning of ***shetuki*** in Shmuel’s statement? It means ***beduki*,** meaning **that they examine his mother, and** if **she says: I engaged in sexual intercourse with** a man with **unflawed** lineage, **she is deemed credible.** The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion is this *halakha*? Is it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel?** But **didn’t Shmuel** already **say** it **once? As we learned** in a mishna (*Ketubot* 13a): If an unmarried woman **was pregnant, and** people **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; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say:** She is **deemed credible; and Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not deemed credible. And Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel.** This shows that Shmuel had already issued an explicit ruling in Rabban Gamliel’s favor; why did he repeat himself?


###### Kiddushin 75a:18
[Kiddushin 75a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:18)

צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי מֵהָתָם הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָתָם רוֹב כְּשֵׁירִים אֶצְלָהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּרוֹב פְּסוּלִים אֶצְלָהּ, אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **necessary** for Shmuel to rule twice. **As, if** he had learned it only **from there,** from the mishna discussing an unmarried pregnant woman, **I would say** he rules that way **there,** when **the majority are fit with regard to her,** as her unmarried status means that the offspring resulting from sexual intercourse with most men would be of unflawed lineage. **But here,** in the case of a betrothed woman, when **the majority** of men **are unfit with regard to her,** as she is forbidden to everyone other than her betrothed, **you** might **say** that she should **not** be deemed credible to say she engaged in intercourse with the betrothed man. It is therefore **necessary** for Shmuel to state his ruling twice.


###### Kiddushin 75a:19
[Kiddushin 75a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:19)

תַּנְיָא: וְכֵן רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כּוּתִי לֹא יִשָּׂא כּוּתִית. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּגֵר לְאַחַר עֲשָׂרָה דּוֹרוֹת, דְּתַנְיָא: גֵּר, עַד עֲשָׂרָה דּוֹרוֹת – מוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – אָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 5:2): **And similarly Rabbi Elazar says: A Samaritan** man **may not marry a Samaritan woman.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? **Rav Yosef said:** The Sages **established him** to be **like** the descendant of **a convert, after ten generations. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the descendant of **a convert,** he **is permitted to** marry **a *mamzeret*** if he is **within ten generations** of both parents being descendants of converts; **from this** point **forward** the descendant of a convert **is prohibited from** marrying **a *mamzeret*,** as people no longer remember that he has the lineage of a convert.


###### Kiddushin 75a:20
[Kiddushin 75a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:20)

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּקֵּעַ שֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִמֶּנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And some say** that the descendant of a convert is permitted to marry a *mamzeret* **until the name of idol worship is forgotten from him,** i.e., as long as people remember that his roots are from gentiles he remains permitted to marry a *mamzeret*, regardless of the passage of time. Rav Yosef understands that Rabbi Elazar regards a Samaritan as being like a convert after ten generations, who may not marry a *mamzeret*. Since Samaritans assimilated among the Jewish people and are no longer recognized by the public as having Samaritan lineage, they may not marry those of flawed lineage, including, presumably, other Samaritans.


###### Kiddushin 75a:21
[Kiddushin 75a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/75a:21)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם גֵּר יָשָׁן וּמַמְזֶרֶת חֲדָשָׁה, אָמְרִי: בַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא דְּקָא נָסֵיב מַמְזֶרֶת. הָכָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ. אֶלָּא: כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **Is it comparable** to the case of a convert? **There,** he is **an old convert,** i.e., the conversion occurred a long time ago, **and she is a new *mamzeret*,** i.e., her status as a *mamzeret* is known. Consequently, people who see him marrying a *mamzeret* will **say:** A **Jewish man is marrying a *mamzeret*. Here, this and that,** the two Samaritans, **are the same as each other.** If people consider the Samaritan man as being assimilated among the Jewish people, and consequently he may not marry a woman of flawed lineage, the Samaritan woman should likewise be considered a Jew of unflawed lineage. **Rather,** the Gemara rejects the previous explanation in favor of the following: **When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael **he said: Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,**