Kiddushin 73bקידושין ע״ג ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Kiddushin 73b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
73bע״ג ב

אין בו משום אסופי משלטי הדמיה אין בו משום אסופי שייף משחא ומלא כוחלא רמי חומרי תלי פיתקא ותלי קמיעא אין בו משום אסופי

he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If the baby’s lineage were unfit, his parents would not have gone to the trouble of circumcising him. Likewise, if his limbs are adjusted, indicating that he was cared for after birth, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. Similarly, if he was anointed with oil, or if his eyes were smeared with eye salve, or if he was adorned with rings, or if a note [pitka] was hanging on him, or if an amulet was hanging on him, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

תלי בדיקלי אי מטיא ליה חיה יש בו משום אסופי אם לאו אין בו משום אסופי

Concerning a child found hanging from a palm tree, if he was in such a place that an animal could reach him, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If not, if he was placed on a palm tree in a way that he could not be reached by an animal, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling, since he was cared for enough to be placed in a safe location.

זרדתא סמיכא למתא יש בו משום אסופי ואם לאו אין בו משום אסופי בי כנישתא סמיכתא למתא ושכיחי ביה רבים אין בו משום אסופי ואם לאו יש בו משום אסופי

Similarly, if the child was placed in a thicket near a town, where people are not commonly found, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. But if not, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If the child was discovered in a synagogue near a town, and people are commonly found there, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling, since the parents wanted to give him to others. But if not, if the synagogue was not near a town or if it was not frequented by people, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

אמר אמימר האי פירא דסופלי יש בו משום אסופי חריפתא דנהרא אין בו משום אסופי פשרי יש בו משום אסופי צידי רשות הרבים אין בו משום אסופי רשות הרבים יש בו משום אסופי

Ameimar said: With regard to this cistern into which date pits are placed [peira desuflei] as animal fodder, if a child is found there, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was found in the middle of a fast-flowing river with boats passing by, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was placed at the side of the river, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling. If he was found at the sides of a public domain, which is not frequented by many people, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. But if the child was discovered in the public domain itself, where he might easily be trampled, he is subject to the halakhot of a foundling.

אמר רבא ובשני רעבון אין בו משום אסופי הא דרבא אהייא אילימא ארשות הרבים איידי דשני רעבון קטלא ליה ואלא אצידי רשות הרבים מאי איריא שני רעבון אפילו בלא שני רעבון

Rava said: And in famine years, he is not subject to the halakhot of a foundling. The Gemara asks: With regard to this statement of Rava, to which specific case is it referring? If we say it is referring to the case where the child was left in the public domain because it is a famine year, would a mother kill him by placing him in a place where he is likely to be trampled? Rather, if Rava’s statement is referring to the case where the child was found at the sides of a public domain, why specifically mention famine years? Even when it is not famine years, the child was placed in a safe location where he was likely to be found.

אלא כי אתמר דרבא אהא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רבי אבא אמר רבי יהודה בר זבדי אמר רב כל זמן שבשוק אביו ואמו נאמנים עליו נאסף מן השוק אין נאמנים עליו

Rather, it must be that when Rava’s halakha was stated, it was stated with regard to that which Rav Yehuda says that Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi says that Rav says: As long as the abandoned child is still in the marketplace, his father and mother are deemed credible with regard to him when they later claim the child as theirs. But once the child has been collected from the marketplace, they are no longer deemed credible with regard to him.

מאי טעמא אמר רבא הואיל ויצא עליו שם אסופי ואמר רבא ובשני רעבון אע"פ שנאסף מן השוק אביו ואמו נאמנים עליו

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Since the child has already been publicized with the name of being of flawed lineage as a foundling, they cannot change the status of the child. And it is with regard to this halakha that Rava says: And in famine years, although the child has been collected from the marketplace, his father and mother are deemed credible with regard to him, as it is common even for parents of unflawed lineage to abandon their children in famine years, and it is likely that they are speaking the truth.

אמר רב חסדא שלשה נאמנים לאלתר אלו הן אסופי חיה ופוטרת חברותיה

§ Rav Ḥisda says: There are three cases where people are deemed credible if they immediately offer testimony with regard to a matter about which they are not ordinarily deemed credible to testify. These are they: A foundling, a midwife, and one who exempts her friends from uncertain impurity.

אסופי הא דאמרן

How so? The case of a foundling is that which we said, that his parents can testify with regard to his lineage before he is collected from the marketplace.

חיה דתניא חיה נאמנת לומר זה יצא ראשון וזה יצא שני במה דברים אמורים שלא יצתה וחזרה אבל יצתה וחזרה אינה נאמנת רבי אליעזר אומר הוחזקה על עומדה נאמנת ואם לאו אינה נאמנת מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאהדר אפה

The case of a midwife is as it is taught in a baraita: A midwife is deemed credible to say that this child emerged first from the womb and that child emerged second from the womb. Her testimony is relied upon to determine which of them is the firstborn. In what case is this statement said? When she has not left the birthing room and returned. But if she left the birthing room and returned, she is not deemed credible, since the babies might have been exchanged in the meantime. Rabbi Eliezer says: If she has stood in her place, she is deemed credible. But if not, she is not deemed credible. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case when the midwife turned her head aside after the birth. According to Rabbi Eliezer she is no longer deemed credible, despite having remained in the room.

פוטרת חברותיה מאי היא דתנן שלש נשים שהיו ישנות במטה אחת ונמצא דם תחת אחת מהן כולן טמאות בדקה אחת מהן ונמצאת טמאה היא טמאה וכולן טהורות אמר רב חסדא שבדקה עצמה כשיעור ווסת

What is the case of one who exempts her friends? As we learned in a mishna (Nidda 60b): If there were three women who were sleeping in one bed, and blood was found beneath one of them, they are all deemed impure as menstruating women, as it is not known from which of them the blood came. If one of them examined herself and was found to be impure, i.e., she saw that she was menstruating, she is impure and all the rest are pure. With regard to this, Rav Ḥisda said: This applies provided that she examined herself within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, i.e., immediately after the discovery of the blood. But if she did so even a short while later, her discovery is not accepted as proof with regard to the source of the blood.

תנו רבנן נאמנת חיה לומר זה כהן וזה לוי זה נתין וזה ממזר במה דברים אמורים שלא קרא עליה שם ערער אבל קרא עליה ערער אינה נאמנת

The Sages taught: If several women gave birth at the same time, the midwife is deemed credible to say: This baby is a priest and that baby is a Levite; this baby is a Gibeonite and that baby is a mamzer. In other words, she is deemed credible to say which baby was born to which mother. In what case is this statement said? When no objection was registered about it. But if an objection was registered about it, she is not deemed credible.

ערער דמאי אילימא ערער חד והאמר רבי יוחנן אין ערער פחות משנים אלא ערער תרי

The Gemara clarifies: An objection of what type? If we say it is an objection of one witness claiming that her testimony is not accurate, but doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: There is no objection with less than two witnesses? Rather, the baraita must refer to the objection of two witnesses, but she is deemed credible when contradicted by a single witness.

ואיבעית אימא לעולם אימא לך ערער חד וכי אמר רבי יוחנן אין ערער פחות משנים הני מילי היכא דאיתא חזקה דכשרות אבל היכא דליכא חזקה דכשרות חד נמי מהימן

And if you wish, say: Actually, I could say to you that she is not deemed credible even when contradicted by the objection of one witness, and when Rabbi Yoḥanan said that there is no objection with less than two witnesses, that statement applies only in a case where there is a presumption of validity, which can be countered only by the objection of two witnesses. But in a case where there is no presumption of validity, such as in this case, when the baby was just born, one witness is also deemed credible to object.

נאמן בעל מקח לומר לזה מכרתי ולזה אין מכרתי במה דברים אמורים בזמן שמקחו בידו אבל אין מקחו בידו אינו נאמן

Similarly, if the owner of an item being purchased is confronted by two people, each claiming to have purchased the item, he is deemed credible to say: I sold to this one, and I did not sell to that one. In what case is this statement said? When the item being purchased is still in the seller’s possession. But if the item being purchased is not in his possession, he is not deemed credible any more than a single witness is.