## Kiddushin Daf 78b

###### Kiddushin 78b:1
[Kiddushin 78b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:1)

הַאי קְרָא, רֵישָׁא בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְסֵיפָא בְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Concerning **this verse** from Ezekiel, **the first clause** addresses a case **with a High Priest,** as it states that he may not marry a widow, **and the latter clause** addresses a case **with a common priest,** as it states that he may marry a widow. Is that a reasonable manner in which to interpret a verse? Rava **said to him: Yes,** that is the correct interpretation of the verse.


###### Kiddushin 78b:2
[Kiddushin 78b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:2)

וּכְתַב קְרָא הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנֵר אֱלֹהִים טֶרֶם יִכְבֶּה וּשְׁמוּאֵל שֹׁכֵב בְּהֵיכַל ה׳״ – וַהֲלֹא אֵין יְשִׁיבָה בַּעֲזָרָה אֶלָּא לְמַלְכֵי בֵית דָּוִד בִּלְבַד! אֶלָּא: ״נֵר אֱלֹהִים טֶרֶם יִכְבֶּה״ – בְּהֵיכַל ה׳, ״וּשְׁמוּאֵל שֹׁכֵב״ – בִּמְקוֹמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman proceeded to ask: **But** can **a verse be written** in **this way,** addressing two different subjects without any demarcation? Rava **said to him: Yes,** and there is a similar case, **as it is written: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was laid down to sleep in the Temple of the Lord”** (I Samuel 3:3). If read literally, this verse is puzzling. It apparently states that Samuel was lying in the Sanctuary, **but there is** a right to **sit in the courtyard** of the Temple **only for the kings of the house of David alone.** How then could Samuel be laid down to sleep in the Temple? **Rather,** the verse should be understood as follows: **“And the lamp of God was not yet gone out” in the Temple of the Lord, “and Samuel was laid down” in his place** outside the Temple.


###### Kiddushin 78b:3
[Kiddushin 78b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:3)

״וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ״ – ״מִכֹּהֵן״ – אִין, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לָא?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ״ – מִשְּׁאָר כֹּהֲנִים יִקָּחוּ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ״ – מִשְּׁאָר כֹּהֲנִים יִקָּחוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the Gemara quoted the verse in Ezekiel, it proceeds to discuss it further. The continuation of that verse states: **“And a widow who is the widow of a priest, they may take”** (Ezekiel 44:22). Does this mean that a priest may marry the widow **of a priest, yes,** but the widow **of an Israelite** he **may not** marry? This is counter to the *halakha* that allows a priest to marry any widow. Rather, **this is** what the verse **is saying:** “And a widow who is the widow **of a priest they may take,”** meaning that **of the rest of the priests, they may take.** In other words, it is permitted for all other priests, i.e., common priests, to marry widows, and only the High Priest may not marry them. **That is also taught** in a *baraita*: **“Of a priest they may take”** means **of the rest of the priests, they may take.**


###### Kiddushin 78b:4
[Kiddushin 78b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:4)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִן הַמַּשִּׂיאִים לַכְּהוּנָּה יִקָּחוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: בַּת גֵּר זָכָר כְּבַת חָלָל זָכָר, כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ – אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ – אִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda states** a different explanation of the verse: A widow who is the widow **of one** whose daughters are **fit to marry into the priesthood, they may take.** The Gemara clarifies: **Rabbi Yehuda** conforms **to his** line of **reasoning** above, **as he says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male *ḥalal*,** and he ruled that **anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may** likewise **marry his widow; anyone whose daughter you may not marry,** e.g., a male convert, **you may not marry his widow** either. The verse therefore states that a priest may marry the widow only of one whose daughter is permitted to marry into the priesthood.


###### Kiddushin 78b:5
[Kiddushin 78b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:5)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת. אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּמִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ נָהֲגוּ כֹּהֲנִים סִילְסוּל בְּעַצְמָן כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yosei says: Even** if there was a male **convert who married** a female **convert,** his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood. **Rav Hamnuna says in the name of Ulla:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, and similarly, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei. And from the day the Temple was destroyed, the priests were accustomed** to act with **a higher standard for themselves, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov,** and they would marry the daughter of a convert only if one parent was born Jewish.


###### Kiddushin 78b:6
[Kiddushin 78b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:6)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר לִי הוּנָא: בָּא לִימָּלֵךְ – מוֹרִים לוֹ כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, נָשָׂא – אֵין מוֹצִיאִים אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ, כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says:** Rav **Huna said to me:** If a priest **comes to consult** with us as to whether or not he should marry the daughter of two converts, **we instruct him** not to, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.** But if **he married** her, **we do not remove her from him, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** as the *halakha* follows his opinion, as stated above.


###### Kiddushin 78b:7
[Kiddushin 78b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹמֵר ״בְּנִי זֶה מַמְזֵר״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים עַל הָעוּבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ מַמְזֵר הוּא – אֵינָם נֶאֱמָנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמָנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who says: This son of mine** is **a *mamzer*,** e.g., if he claims that the son was born to one forbidden to him by a prohibition that carries the punishment of *karet*, **he is not deemed credible** to render him a *mamzer*. **And even** if **both of them,** the father and the mother, **admit that a fetus in her womb is a *mamzer*, they are not deemed credible. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are deemed credible.**


###### Kiddushin 78b:8
[Kiddushin 78b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:8)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי ״וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם״? לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא אִיהוּ, דְּלָא קִים לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ אִיהִי דְּקִים לַהּ – לָא מְהֵימְנָא. וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא הֵיכָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חֲזָקָה דְכַשְׁרוּת, דְּלָא מְהֵימְנִי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ עוּבָּר נָמֵי, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ חֲזָקָה דְכַשְׁרוּת לָא מְהֵימְנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **What is** the added novelty indicated by the phrase: **And even** if **both of them?** What is taught there that is not stated in the clause that taught that a father is not deemed credible to state that his son is a *mamzer*? The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary. It is not necessary** to state this *halakha* with regard to **his** claim, **when it is not clear to him,** i.e., a father can never be sure that a child is his. **Rather,** the *halakha* is the same **even** with regard to **her, when it is clear** to her who the father is, and yet **she is** nevertheless **not deemed credible. And** additionally, **it is not necessary** to state **when** the child **has a presumption of unflawed** lineage, as he was assumed to be of unflawed lineage before his parents came to testify, **that they are not deemed credible. Rather, even** in the case of **a fetus, who does not have a presumption of unflawed** lineage, as he has no status with regard to lineage until he is born, the parents **are** likewise **not deemed credible.**


###### Kiddushin 78b:9
[Kiddushin 78b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:9)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר נֶאֱמָנִים. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״יַכִּיר״ – יַכִּירֶנּוּ לַאֲחֵרִים. מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״, כָּךְ נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר ״זֶה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה״ וְ״זֶה בֶּן חֲלוּצָה״. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yehuda says: They are deemed credible.** This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: Expounding the verse: **“He shall acknowledge** the firstborn” (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Sages said: **He,** the father, **shall acknowledge him to others.** In other words, he is deemed credible to tell others that this is his firstborn. **From here, Rabbi Yehuda said** that **a person is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son. And just as a person is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, so too, a person 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 only to state which son is his firstborn.


###### Kiddushin 78b:10
[Kiddushin 78b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״יַכִּיר״, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, ״יַכִּיר״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: Granted,** according **to Rabbi Yehuda, this is** the meaning of **that which is written: “He shall acknowledge,”** as he derives from these words that a father is deemed credible to attest to the identity of his sons. **But** according **to the Rabbis** in the mishna, **why do I** need the phrase **“he shall acknowledge”?**


###### Kiddushin 78b:11
[Kiddushin 78b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:11)

בִּצְרִיךְ הֶכֵּירָא. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם? פְּשִׁיטָא, לְמָה לִי קְרָא? מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי מִיתְּבַהּ לֵיהּ מַתָּנָה, מִי לָא יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for a case **when he requires identification,** if the identity of the firstborn is unknown. In such a situation the verse teaches that the father is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what *halakha*** is this relevant? Does it refer to the requirement: **“By giving him a double portion”** (Deuteronomy 21:17), i.e., that the firstborn receives a double share of the inheritance? **Isn’t** it **obvious** that he is deemed credible with regard to this *halakha*? **Why do I** need **a verse** to teach this? His claim is supported by the fact that **he could have made a more advantageous claim [*miggo*]: If he desired to give him** a double portion as **a gift** while he was alive, **would** the court **not give it to him?** Since the father could have given a double portion to the firstborn without having to testify that he is his firstborn, it cannot be that the verse is teaching us that he is deemed credible with regard to the *halakha* that a firstborn receives a double portion of inheritance.


###### Kiddushin 78b:12
[Kiddushin 78b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:12)

בִּנְכָסִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְאַחַר מִיכֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The verse is referring **to property that came** into his possession **at a later point,** which he was unable to give to his son at the time that he came to testify. The verse teaches that the son whom the father states is the firstborn will receive a double portion even of that property.


###### Kiddushin 78b:13
[Kiddushin 78b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:13)

וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם, ״יַכִּיר״ לְמָה לִי? שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹסֵס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Meir, who says** that **a person can transfer an entity that has not** yet **come into the world,** which would mean that a person can give away his property even before it enters his possession, **why do I** need the verse: **“He shall acknowledge”?** The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case **where property came into** the father’s possession **when he was moribund,** at which point he cannot transfer ownership of any of his property to others. It is with regard to such property that the verse states: “He shall acknowledge,” to teach that the son whom the father states is the firstborn will receive a double portion even of that property.


###### Kiddushin 78b:14
[Kiddushin 78b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78b:14)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁנָּתַן רְשׁוּת לִשְׁלוּחוֹ לְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְהָלַךְ הוּא וְקִדְּשָׁהּ, אִם שֶׁלּוֹ קָדְמוּ – קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין, וְאִם שֶׁל שְׁלוּחוֹ קָדְמוּ – קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין, וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case of **one who authorized his agent to betroth his daughter** to a man that the agent would deem fit, **and** the father **went and betrothed her** to someone else, **if his** betrothal **preceded** that of the agent, **his betrothal is** a valid **betrothal; and if** the betrothal **of his agent preceded** his own, the **betrothal** of the agent **is** a valid **betrothal. And if it is not known** whose betrothal came first,