Kiddushin — Daf 64a

נאמן לנדרים ולחרמים ולהקדשות ולערכים אבל לא למכות ולעונשין

מתני׳ קדשתי את בתי קדשתיה וגרשתיה כשהיא קטנה והרי היא קטנה נאמן קדשתיה וגרשתיה כשהיא קטנה והרי היא גדולה אינו נאמן נשבית ופדיתיה בין שהיא קטנה בין שהיא גדולה אינו נאמן

גמ׳ מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא רישא בידיה סיפא לאו בידיה

ולא והרי בידו להשיאה לחלל דקא פסלה מכהונה

הא לא קשיא כרבי דוסתאי בן יהודה דאמר בנות ישראל מקוה טהרה לחללין

והרי בידו להשיאה לממזר כרבי עקיבא דאמר אין קדושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין

הרי בידו להשיאה אלמנה לכהן גדול וכר' סימאי דתניא ר' סימאי אומר מן הכל עושה ר' עקיבא ממזר חוץ מאלמנה לכהן גדול שהרי אמרה תורה (ויקרא כא, ז) לא יקח (ויקרא כא, ו) ולא יחלל חלולים עושה ואין עושה ממזרים

כר' ישבב דאמר בואו ונצווח על עקיבא בן יוסף שהיה אומר כל שאין לו ביאה בישראל הולד ממזר

הניחא לר' ישבב אי לטעמיה דנפשיה שפיר אלא אי לאפוקי מטעמא דר' סימאי קאתי הרי בידו להשיאה לחייבי עשה

אמר רב אשי ותסברא רישא משום דבידו הוא נהי דבידו לקדשה בידו לגרשה ועוד אילו אמר האי דלא ניחא בגוה מי מצי מקדש ניהליה בעל כרחיה

אלא אמר רב אשי רישא רחמנא הימניה כרב הונא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מנין לאב שנאמן לאסור את בתו מן התורה שנאמר (דברים כב, טז) את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה לאיש אסרה הזה התירה

בנישואין הימניה רחמנא לאב בשבוייה לא הימניה

מתני׳ מי שאמר בשעת מיתתו יש לי בנים נאמן יש לי אחים אינו נאמן

גמ׳ אלמא נאמן להתיר ואין נאמן לאסור נימא מתניתין דלא כר' נתן

דתניא בשעת קידושין אמר יש לו בנים בשעת מיתה אמר אין לו בנים בשעת קידושין אמר אין לו אחים בשעת מיתה אמר יש לו אחים נאמן להתיר ואין נאמן לאסור דברי רבי ר' נתן אומר אף נאמן לאסור

אמר רבא שאני התם כיון דבשעת מיתה קא הדר ביה אימא קושטא קאמר אמר ליה אביי ולאו כל דכן הוא השתא ומה התם דקא מרע ליה לדבוריה אמרת קושטא קאמר מתני' דלא קא מרע ליה לדבוריה לא כ"ש

אלא אמר אביי מתני' דלא מוחזק לן באחי ולא מוחזק לן בבני דאמרינן כיון דלא מוחזק לן בבני ולא באחי אמר יש לי בנים נאמן יש לי אחים אינו נאמן לאו כל כמיניה דאסר לה אכולי עלמא ברייתא

he is believed in respect of vows, haramim,1 sanctifications, and ‘arakin;2 but not in respect of flagellation and [other] punishments. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN DECLARES.] ‘I HAVE GIVEN MY DAUGHTER IN BETROTHAL,’3 ‘I GAVE HER IN BETROTHAL AND DIVORCED HER WHILST A MINOR,’ AND SHE IS [NOW] A MINOR,4 HE IS BELIEVED.5 ‘I GAVE HER IN BETROTHAL AND DIVORCED HER WHILST A MINOR,’ AND SHE IS NOW AN ADULT, HE IS DISBELIEVED.6 ‘SHE WAS TAKEN CAPTIVE AND I REDEEMED HER,7 WHETHER SHE IS A MINOR OR AN ADULT8 HE IS DISBELIEVED. GEMARA. Wherein do the first and the second clauses differ? — In the first clause, it is in his hand;9 in the second, it is not in his hand. Is it not? Surely it is in his power to marry her to a halal,10 whereby he unfits her for the priesthood!11 — That is no difficulty: it [our Mishnah] agrees with R. Dosethai b. Judah, who maintained: The daughters of Israel are a purifying mikweh for halallim.12 But it is in his power13 to marry her to a mamzer?14 — This agrees with R. Akiba, who maintained, Kiddushin has no validity15 with those [marriages forbidden by] negative injunctions.16 But it is in his power to marry her, if a widow, to a High Priest, and in accordance with R. Simai; for it was taught: R. Simai said: [The issue] of all [marriages forbidden by a negative injunction] R. Akiba declared [to be] mamzer, excepting that of a widow [married] to a High Priest, since the Torah said, [a widow . . .] he shall not take, and he shall not profane [his seed]:17 he renders [his seed] profane,18 but not mamzer!19 — This is according to R. Yeshebab, who said: Come, let us cry out against Akiba son of Joseph20 who declared: He who has no entry in Israel,21 the issue is mamzer.22 Now, on R. Yeshebab's view, it is well if he states an independent opinion [of R. Akiba's ruling].23 But if he [merely] comes to combat R. Simai,24 then it is [still] in his [the father's] power to marry her to a person forbidden by a positive injunction?25 R. Ashi answered: Is it logical that the first clause [states that he is believed] because it is in his power? Granted that it is in his power to betroth her, is it in his power to divorce her? Moreover, if this person [to whom he desires to betroth her] says that he has no pleasure in her, can he then betroth her against his will? But, said R. Ashi, in the first clause the Divine Law declared him trustworthy, as R. Huna [said]. For R. Huna said in Rab's name: How do we know that a father is believed to interdict his daughter26 by Biblical law? Because it is said: I gave my daughter unto this man [to wife]:27 [with the words] ‘unto a man,’ he renders her forbidden [to all];28 with ‘this [one]’, he frees her. [Now,] the Divine Law believed the father in regard to marriage29 but in regard to captivity it did not believe him. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAYS AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH I HAVE SONS, HE IS BELIEVED;30 ‘I HAVE BROTHERS,’ HE IS DISBELIEVED.31 GEMARA. This shews that he is believed to free, but not to bind. Shall we say [then] that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Nathan? For it was taught: if at the time of betrothal one declares that he has sons, but at the time of his death he asserts that he has no sons; If at the time of betrothal he declares that he has brothers, while at the time of his death he declares that he has no brothers: he is believed to free, but not to bind: this is Rabbi's view. R. Nathan said: He is believed to bind too! — Said Raba, there it is different: since he retracts at the time of his death, I assume that he may be speaking truth. Abaye asked him: Does it [the reverse] not follow a minori: If there, though he contradicts his [former] words, you say that he may be speaking truth; surely it is all the more so in our Mishnah, where he does not contradict his [former] words! But, said Abaye, our Mishnah treats of one who is not presumed32 to possess brothers or sons: hence we rule, since he is not presumed to possess either brothers or sons, if he says. ‘I have sons,’ he is believed;33 but if he declares, ‘I have brothers,’ he is disbelieved, [because] it does not rest solely with him to forbid her to the whole world. [Whereas] the Baraitha refers captivity. from the priesthood. Hence he is believed. daughter is fit, his widow too (i.e., the Jewess herself) is fit, according to the principle: you may marry the widow of any man whose daughter you may marry. — Of course, a father can in any case render his daughter, a minor, unfit by marrying and divorcing her; but that is only for a priestly marriage, yet if he is a priest she may still eat terumah, whereas when he declares that she was taken into captivity he desires to disqualify her from terumah too. (Rashi) priesthood. marriage that cannot be valid is mamzer. Further, being valid, it disqualifies her from the priesthood. the marriage is entirely invalid, which in turn implies that she is not disqualified from terumah, as above. Thus the Mishnah agrees with R. Akiba as R. Yeshebab explains his view, injunction. generation that are born unto them shall enter into the assembly of the Lord. The ‘third generation’ after conversion is meant; hence the first and second are forbidden, and since that is implied by a positive statement, the interdict too ranks as a positive injunction. — Such a marriage, on the present hypothesis, is valid, and disqualifies her from terumah, v. infra 74b.