הַאי קְרָא רֵישָׁא בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְסֵיפָא בְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.

Concerning this verse from Ezekiel, the first clause addresses a case with a High Priest, as it states that he may not marry a widow, and the latter clause addresses a case with a common priest, as it states that he may marry a widow. Is that a reasonable manner in which to interpret a verse? Rava said to him: Yes, that is the correct interpretation of the verse.

וְכָתַב קְרָא הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, דִּכְתִיב ״וְנֵר אֱלֹהִים טֶרֶם יִכְבֶּה וּשְׁמוּאֵל שֹׁכֵב בְּהֵיכַל ה׳״. וַהֲלֹא אֵין יְשִׁיבָה בָּעֲזָרָה אֶלָּא לְמַלְכֵי בֵּית דָּוִד בִּלְבַד! אֶלָּא: ״נֵר אֱלֹהִים טֶרֶם יִכְבֶּה״ – בְּהֵיכַל ה׳, ״וּשְׁמוּאֵל שֹׁכֵב״ – בִּמְקוֹמוֹ.

Rav Naḥman proceeded to ask: But can a verse be written in this way, addressing two different subjects without any demarcation? Rava said to him: Yes, and there is a similar case, as 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” (I Samuel 3:3). If read literally, this verse is puzzling. It apparently states that Samuel was lying in the Sanctuary, but there is a right to sit in the courtyard of the Temple only for the kings of the house of David alone. How then could Samuel be laid down to sleep in the Temple? Rather, the verse should be understood as follows: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out” in the Temple of the Lord, “and Samuel was laid down” in his place outside the Temple.

״וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ״. מִכֹּהֵן – אִין, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל – לָא?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ – מִשְּׁאָר כֹּהֲנִים יִקָּחוּ. תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי: ״מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ״ – מִשְּׁאָר כֹּהֲנִים יִקָּחוּ.

Since the Gemara quoted the verse in Ezekiel, it proceeds to discuss it further. The continuation of that verse states: “And a widow who is the widow of a priest, they may take” (Ezekiel 44:22). Does this mean that a priest may marry the widow of a priest, yes, but the widow of an Israelite he may not marry? This is counter to the halakha that allows a priest to marry any widow. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: “And a widow who is the widow, of a priest they may take,” meaning that of the rest of the priests, they may take. In other words, it is permitted for all other priests, i.e., common priests, to marry widows, and only the High Priest may not marry them. That is also taught in a baraita: “Of a priest they may take” means of the rest of the priests, they may take.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִן הַמַּשִּׂיאִים לִכְהוּנָּה יִקָּחוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעֲמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: בַּת גֵּר זָכָר כְּבַת חָלָל זָכָר, כָּל שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ – אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמָנָתוֹ, וְכָל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ – אִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמָנָתוֹ.

Rabbi Yehuda states a different explanation of the verse: A widow who is the widow of one whose daughters are fit to marry into the priesthood, they may take. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning above, as he says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male ḥalal, and he ruled that anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may likewise marry his widow; anyone whose daughter you may not marry, e.g., a male convert, you may not marry his widow either. The verse therefore states that a priest may marry the widow only of one whose daughter is permitted to marry into the priesthood.

״רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אַף גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת״. אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּמִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ נָהֲגוּ כֹּהֲנִים סִילְסוּל בְּעַצְמָן כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: Even if there was a male convert who married a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood. Rav Hamnuna says in the name of Ulla: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and similarly, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And from the day the Temple was destroyed, the priests were accustomed to act with a higher standard for themselves, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, and they would marry the daughter of a convert only if one parent was born Jewish.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לִי הוּנָא: בָּא לִימָּלֵךְ – מוֹרִים לוֹ כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. נָשָׂא – אֵין מוֹצִיאִים אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ, כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

Rav Naḥman says: Rav Huna said to me: If a priest comes to consult with us as to whether or not he should marry the daughter of two converts, we instruct him not to, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. But if he married her, we do not remove her from him, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as the halakha follows his opinion, as stated above.

מתני׳ הָאוֹמֵר ״בְּנִי זֶה מַמְזֵר״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים עַל הָעוּבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ מַמְזֵר הוּא – אֵינָם נֶאֱמָנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמָנִים.

One who says: This son of mine is a mamzer, e.g., if he claims that the son was born to one forbidden to him by a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet, he is not deemed credible to render him a mamzer. And even if both of them, the father and the mother, admit that a fetus in her womb is a mamzer, they are not deemed credible. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are deemed credible.

גמ׳ מַאי ״וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם״? לָא מִיבָּעֲיָא קָאָמַר; לָא מִיבָּעֲיָא אִיהוּ דְּלָא קִים לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ אִיהִי דְּקִים לָהּ – לָא מְהֵימְנָא. וְלָא מִיבָּעֲיָא הֵיכָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חֲזָקָה דְּכַשְׁרוּת דְּלָא מְהֵימְנֵי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ עוּבָּר נַמִי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ חֲזָקָה דְּכַשְׁרוּת – לָא מְהֵימְנֵי.

What is the added novelty indicated by the phrase: And even if both of them? What is taught there that is not stated in the clause that taught that a father is not deemed credible to state that his son is a mamzer? The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state this halakha with regard to his claim, when it is not clear to him, i.e., a father can never be sure that a child is his. Rather, the halakha is the same even with regard to her, when it is clear to her who the father is, and yet she is nevertheless not deemed credible. And additionally, it is not necessary to state when the child has a presumption of unflawed lineage, as he was assumed to be of unflawed lineage before his parents came to testify, that they are not deemed credible. Rather, even in the case of a fetus, who does not have a presumption of unflawed lineage, as he has no status with regard to lineage until he is born, the parents are likewise not deemed credible.

״רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר נֶאֱמָנִים״. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״יַכִּיר״ – יַכִּירֶנּוּ לַאֲחֵרִים. מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״ – כָּךְ נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר ״זֶה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה״ וְ״זֶה בֶּן חֲלוּצָה״. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: They are deemed credible. This is as it is taught in a baraita: Expounding the verse: “He shall acknowledge the firstborn” (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Sages said: He, the father, shall acknowledge him to others. In other words, he is deemed credible to tell others that this is his firstborn. From here, Rabbi Yehuda said that a person is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son. And just as a person is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, so too, a person is deemed credible to say about his son: This is a son of a divorced woman, or: This is a son of a ḥalutza. And the Rabbis say: As far as these latter claims are concerned, he is not deemed credible. He is deemed credible only to state which son is his firstborn.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״יַכִּיר״. אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן ״יַכִּיר״ לָמָּה לִי?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, this is the meaning of that which is written: “He shall acknowledge,” as he derives from these words that a father is deemed credible to attest to the identity of his sons. But according to the Rabbis in the mishna, why do I need the phrase “he shall acknowledge”?

בְּצָרִיךְ הֶכֵּירָא. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? ״לָתֵת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם״? פְּשִׁיטָא! לָמָּה לִי קְרָא? מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי מֵיתְבָא לֵיהּ מַתָּנָה – מִי לָא יָהֲבֵי לֵיהּ?

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for a case when he requires identification, if the identity of the firstborn is unknown. In such a situation the verse teaches that the father is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this relevant? Does it refer to the requirement: “By giving him a double portion” (Deuteronomy 21:17), i.e., that the firstborn receives a double share of the inheritance? Isn’t it obvious that he is deemed credible with regard to this halakha? Why do I need a verse to teach this? His claim is supported by the fact that he could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo]: If he desired to give him a double portion as a gift while he was alive, would the court not give it to him? Since the father could have given a double portion to the firstborn without having to testify that he is his firstborn, it cannot be that the verse is teaching us that he is deemed credible with regard to the halakha that a firstborn receives a double portion of inheritance.

בִּנְכָסִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְאַחַר מִיכָּן.

The Gemara answers: The verse is referring to property that came into his possession at a later point, which he was unable to give to his son at the time that he came to testify. The verse teaches that the son whom the father states is the firstborn will receive a double portion even of that property.

וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם, ״יַכִּיר״ לָמָּה לִי? שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹסֵס.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, who says that a person can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world, which would mean that a person can give away his property even before it enters his possession, why do I need the verse: “He shall acknowledge”? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where property came into the father’s possession when he was moribund, at which point he cannot transfer ownership of any of his property to others. It is with regard to such property that the verse states: “He shall acknowledge,” to teach that the son whom the father states is the firstborn will receive a double portion even of that property.

מתני׳ מִי שֶׁנָּתַן רְשׁוּת לִשְׁלוּחוֹ לְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְהָלַךְ הוּא וְקִדְּשָׁהּ; אִם שֶׁלּוֹ קָדְמוּ – קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין, וְאִם שֶׁל שְׁלוּחוֹ קָדְמוּ – קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ

In a case of one who authorized his agent to betroth his daughter to a man that the agent would deem fit, and the father went and betrothed her to someone else, if his betrothal preceded that of the agent, his betrothal is a valid betrothal; and if the betrothal of his agent preceded his own, the betrothal of the agent is a valid betrothal. And if it is not known whose betrothal came first,