Kiddushin

This verse, the first part refers to a High Priest and the second to an ordinary priest?1 — Yes, he replied. And is a verse thus written? — Even so, he replied, for 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.2 But sitting was [permitted] in the Temple only to the Kings of the Davidic dynasty?3 Hence [it must mean:] and the lamp of God was not yet gone out in the Temple of the Lord, and Samuel was laid down in his place.4 And a widow that is the widow of a priest they shall take.5 Only of a priest, but not of an Israelite? — This is the meaning of ‘of a priest they shall take:’ those of the other priests6 may take. It was taught likewise: . . . of a priest they shall take’: [i.e.,] those of the other priests may take. R. Judah interpreted: of those who can give [their daughters] in marriage to the priesthood they may take.7 R. Judah is in harmony with his view, for he said: THE DAUGHTER OF A MALE PROSELYTE IS AS THE DAUGHTER OF A MALE HALAL: when you may marry his daughter, you may marry his widow; and when you may not marry his daughter, you may not marry his widow.8 R. JOSE SAID: ALSO IF A MALE PROSELYTE MARRIES A FEMALE PROSELYTE. R. Hamnuna said on ‘Ulla's authority: The halachah is as R. Jose. And Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said likewise: The halachah is as R. Jose; but since the day that the Temple was destroyed, the priests have insisted on9 a superior status, in accordance with R. Eliezer b. Jacob.10 R. Nahman said: Huna told me: If he [a priest] comes to take counsel, we give him a ruling in accordance with R. Eliezer b. Jacob; but if he marries,11 we do not compel him to divorce her,12 in accordance with R. Jose. MISHNAH. IF A MAN DECLAREs, ‘THIS SON OF MINE IS A MAMZER,’ HE IS DISBELIEVED. AND EVEN IF BOTH [THE HUSBAND AND WIFE] ADMIT THAT THE CHILD WITHIN HER IS MAMZER,13 THEY ARE DISBELIEVED. R. JUDAH SAID: THEY ARE BELIEVED. GEMARA. Why [state], EVEN IF BOTH [etc.]?14 — He leads to a climax.15 It goes without saying that he [the father], who cannot be certain thereof16 [is disbelieved]; but even she [the mother], who is certain, is [also] disbelieved. And it goes without saying that they are disbelieved where he [the child] enjoys the presumption of fitness; but even [in the case of] an embryo, who does not enjoy the presumption of fitness, they are [still] disbelieved. R. JUDAH SAID: THEY ARE BELIEVED. As it was taught: He shall acknowledge [the firstborn]:17 [i.e.,] he shall acknowledge him before others. Hence R. Judah said: A man is believed when he says: ‘This son is my first born.’ And just as he is believed when he says: ‘This son is my firstborn,’ so is he also believed when he says, ‘This is the son of a divorced woman’; ‘this is the son of a haluzah.’ But the Sages say: He is not believed.18 R. Nahman b. Isaac asked Raba: As for R. Judah, it is well: for that reason it is written: ‘he shall acknowledge’. But on the view of the Rabbis, what is the purpose of, ‘he shall acknowledge’? — Where acknowledgment is necessary.19 In respect of what [is he believed]? to give him a double portion?20 That is obvious, and what is the need of a verse; for if he desired to make him a gift, could he not do so? — This refers to property which he [the father] inherits [only] subsequently.21 But according to R. Meir, who maintained: One can transmit property that is non-existent, what is the purpose of ‘he shall acknowledge’? — Where he inherits it while he was dying. 22 MISHNAH. IF A MAN AUTHORIZES HIS AGENT TO GIVE HIS DAUGHTER IN BETROTHAL,23 AND THEN HE HIMSELF GOES AND GIVES HER IN BETROTHAL TO ANOTHER, IF THE [BETROTHAL] BY HIM WAS FIRST, HIS BETROTHAL IS VALID; IF THE AGENT'S WAS FIRST, THE LATTER'S BETROTHAL IS VALID. BUT IF IT IS UNKNOWN, shall take’ permits it. preposition. proselyte. found it necessary to safeguard it in other ways. cannot gift this legacy, which, as far as he is concerned, is non-existent; and yet he is believed in respect of a double portion for the son recognised by him as his firstborn. is valid, but that he is physically unable to make one. For fuller notes v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 530ff