אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. מְשַׁלְּטֵי הֲדָמֵיהּ – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. שָׁיֵיף מִשְׁחָא וּמְלָא כּוּחְלָא, רְמֵי חוּמְרֵי, תָּלֵי פִּיתְקָא, וְתָלֵי קָמֵיעָא – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי.

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.

תָּלֵי בְּדִיקְלֵי, אִי מָטְיָא לֵיהּ חַיָּה – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי; אִם לָאו – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי.

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.

זְרַדְתָא סְמִיכָא לְמָתָא – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. בֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא סְמִיכְתָּא לְמָתָא, וּשְׁכִיחִי בֵּיהּ רַבִּים – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי; וְאִם לָאו – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי.

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.

אֲמַר אַמֵימָר: הַאי פֵּירָא דְּסוּפְלֵי – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. חֲרִיפְתָּא דְּנַהֲרָא – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. פִּשְׁרֵי – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. צִידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי.

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.

אֲמַר רָבָא: וּבִשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. הָא דְּרָבָא אַהַיָּיא? אִילֵימָא אַרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, אַיְידֵי דִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן קְטָלָא לֵיהּ?! וְאֶלָּא אַצִּידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – מַאי אִירְיָא שְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן? אֲפִילּוּ בְּלָא שְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן!

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.

אֶלָּא, כִּי אִתְּמַר דְּרָבָא – אַהָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר זַבְדִּי אָמַר רַב: כָּל זְמַן שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק – אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ נֶאֱמָנִים עָלָיו. נֶאֱסַף מִן הַשּׁוּק – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִים עָלָיו.

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.

מַאי טַעֲמָא? אֲמַר רָבָא: הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא עָלָיו שֵׁם אֲסוּפִי. וְאָמַר רָבָא: וּבִשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱסַף מִן הַשּׁוּק – אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ נֶאֱמָנִים עָלָיו.

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.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שְׁלֹשָׁה נֶאֱמָנִים לְאַלְתַּר. אֵלּוּ הֵן: אֲסוּפִי, חַיָּה, וּפוֹטֶרֶת חַבְרוֹתֶיהָ.

§ 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.

אֲסוּפִי – הָא דַּאֲמָרַן.

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.

חַיָּה – דְּתַנְיָא: חַיָּה נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר: זֶה יָצָא רִאשׁוֹן וְזֶה יָצָא שֵׁנִי. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁלֹּא יָצְתָה וְחָזְרָה, אֲבָל יָצְתָה וְחָזְרָה – אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הוּחְזְקָה עַל עוֹמְדָהּ – נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאִם לָאו – אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאַהֲדַר אַפָּהּ.

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.

פּוֹטֶרֶת חַבְרוֹתֶיהָ מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ יְשֵׁנוֹת בְּמִטָּה אַחַת, וְנִמְצָא דָּם תַּחַת אַחַת מֵהֶן – כּוּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. בָּדְקָה אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצֵאת טְמֵאָה – הִיא טְמֵאָה, וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת. אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כְּשִׁיעוּר וֶוסֶת.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נֶאֱמֶנֶת חַיָּה לוֹמַר: זֶה כֹּהֵן וְזֶה לֵוִי, זֶה נָתִין וְזֶה מַמְזֵר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁלֹּא קָרָא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם עַרְעָר, אֲבָל קָרָא עָלֶיהָ עַרְעָר – אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת.

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.

עַרְעָר דְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא עַרְעָר חַד – וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין עַרְעָר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם! אֶלָּא עַרְעָר תְּרֵי.

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.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ עַרְעָר חַד. וְכִי אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵין עַרְעָר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאִיתָא חֲזָקָה דְּכַשְׁרוּת, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא חֲזָקָה דְּכַשְׁרוּת – חַד נַמִי מְהֵימַן.

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.

נֶאֱמָן בַּעַל מִקָּח לוֹמַר: לָזֶה מָכַרְתִּי וְלָזֶה אֵין מָכַרְתִּי. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקָּחוֹ בְּיָדוֹ, אֲבָל אֵין מִקָּחוֹ בְּיָדוֹ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

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.