Kiddushin

[For it was taught:] Who can collect from whom? He can collect from them without proof, but they cannot collect from him without proof: this is R. Jacob's view. R. Nathan said: If he is well, he must produce proof that he was sick; and if he is sick, they must produce proof that he was well.1 Shall we say that Rab rules in accordance with R. Nathan;2 while Samuel agrees with R. Jacob?3 — Rab can tell you: I agree4 even with R. Jacob. R. Jacob rules thus only there, since one can say: ‘Let the money stand in its presumptive owner — ship’; but here, can we say: ‘Let the body stand in its presumptive state’?5 And Samuel can say: I agree even with R. Nathan: R. Nathan rules thus only there, since people in general are presumed to be well; [hence] he who withdraws himself from the generality must bring proof. But here, does she then withdraw herself from a previous presumptive status?6 Shall we say that it is a dispute of these Tannaim: [For it was taught:] If her father gives her in betrothal on the road, while she betroths herself in the town, and she is a bogereth:7 one [Baraitha] taught: Behold, she stands a bogereth before us; and another taught: We fear [the validity of] the kiddushin of both. Surely one agrees with Rab, and the other with Samuel? — No. Both agree with Samuel: here she repudiates him [her father];8 there she does not.9 Then let us say, since the Baraithas do not differ, the amoraim too do not differ?10 — Now, is that reasonable; surely R. Joseph son of R. Menasia of Dabil11 gave a practical ruling in accordance with Rab, whereupon Samuel was offended and exclaimed: ‘For everyone [wisdom] is meted out in a small measure, but for this scholar it was meted out in a large measure!’12 Now, should you think that they do not differ, why was he offended? — Perhaps he gave his ruling where she repudiated him [her father]. Mar Zutra said to R. Ashi: Thus did Amemar say: The law is as Samuel; but R. Ashi said: The law agrees with Rab. And [the final ruling is:] The law is as Rab. MISHNAH. IF A MAN EMIGRATED OVERSEAS TOGETHER WITH HIS WIFE, AND THEN HE, HIS WIFE, AND HIS CHILDREN RETURNED,13 AND HE DECLARED, ‘BEHOLD, THIS IS THE WOMAN WHO EMIGRATED WITH ME OVERSEAS, AND THESE ARE HER CHILDREN’, HE NEED NOT BRING PROOF IN RESPECT OF THE WOMAN OR OF THE CHILDREN.14 [IF HE DECLARES.] SHE DIED [ABROAD] AND THESE ARE HER CHILDREN,’ HE MUST BRING PROOF OF THE CHILDREN, BUT NOT OF THE WOMAN.15 [IF HE SAID,] ‘I MARRIED A WOMAN OVERSEAS, AND BEHOLD, THIS IS SHE, AND THESE ARE HER CHILDREN: HE MUST BRING PROOF OF THE WOMAN,16 BUT NOT OF THE CHILDREN.17 [IF HE SAID,] ‘SHE DIED, AND THESE ARE HER CHILDREN: HE MUST BRING PROOF OF THE WOMAN AND OF THE CHILDREN. GEMARA. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: And in all cases it means that they cling to her.18 Our Rabbis taught: [If a man declares,] ‘I married a woman overseas, he must bring proof about the woman, but not about the children; he must bring proof about the adults, but not about the minors.19 Now, when is this said? In the case of one wife. But in the case of two wives,20 he must bring proof about the woman and about the children whether adults or minors.21 Resh Lakish said: that the gift shall be valid only if he dies; should he recover, the deed is null, though no stipulation was made. If a man in good health indites such a conveyance, it is valid. The dispute here refers to a case where a man, now well, pleads that the deed was written when he was sick, while the beneficiaries deny it; v. B.B. 153b. that the latter are her children (Rashi). Tosaf.: He need not prove that the children are both his and hers.