Kiddushin 158

מי מוציא מיד מי

[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.

הוא מוציא מידם בלא ראיה והן אין מוציאים מידו בלא ראיה דברי ר' יעקב רבי נתן אומר אם בריא הוא עליו להביא ראיה שהיה שכיב מרע ואם שכיב מרע הוא עליהם להביא ראיה שבריא היה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man dangerously ill writes off all his property, without leaving anything for himself, it is an implied condition 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.');">¹</span> Shall we say that Rab rules in accordance with R'Nathan;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the present state is also assumed to be the former state, unless the contrary is proved.');">²</span>

נימא רב דאמר כרבי נתן ושמואל דאמר כר' יעקב אמר לך רב אנא דאמרי אפילו כרבי יעקב עד כאן לא קאמר ר' יעקב התם דאיכא למימר העמד ממון על חזקתו אבל הכא מי נימא העמד גוף על חזקתו

while Samuel agrees with R'Jacob?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the present does not prove the past.');">³</span> - Rab can tell you: I agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'say'.');">⁴</span>

ושמואל אמר אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבי נתן עד כאן לא קאמר רבי נתן התם דכולי עלמא בחזקת בריאים קיימי מאן דקא מפיק נפשיה מחזקה הוי עליה לאיתויי ראיה אבל הכא מי קא מפקא נפשה מחזקה דקמיה

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'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The body has none, since it is liable to natural change.');">⁵</span>

נימא כהני תנאי קידשה אביה בדרך וקידשה עצמה בעיר והרי היא בוגרת תנא חדא הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו ותניא אידך חיישינן לקידושי שניהם מאי לאו חד כרב וחד כשמואל

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not, since it is natural for her to change on that day.');">⁶</span>

לא אידי ואידי כשמואל כאן במכחשתו כאן בשאין מכחשתו

Shall we say that it is a dispute of these Tannaim: [For it was taught:] If her father gives her in betrotha the road, while she betroths herself in the town, and she is a bogereth:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As on p. 407, n. 7.');">⁷</span> one [Baraitha] taught: Behold, she stands a bogereth before us; and another taught: We fear [the validity of] the kiddushin of both.

ונימא מדמתניתא לא פליגי אמוראי נמי לא פליגי ותסברא הא רב יוסף בריה דרב מנשיא מדוויל עבד עובדא כוותיה דרב ואיקפיד שמואל ואמר כ"ע כיילי ליה בקבא זוטא והאי מדרבנן כיילי ליה בקבא רבה ואי סלקא דעתך לא פליגי אמאי קא מקפיד

Surely one agrees with Rab, and the other with Samuel? - No. Both agree with Samuel: here she repudiates him [her father];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that she was a bogereth when he accepted kiddushin on her behalf; then only her own betrothal is valid.');">⁸</span>

דילמא כי עבד עובדא במכחשתו

there she does not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then the kiddushin of both is regarded.');">⁹</span> Then let us say, since the Baraithas do not differ, the amoraim too do not differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab referring to the former case, Samuel to the latter.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ליה מר זוטרא לרב אשי הכי אמר אמימר הילכתא כוותיה דשמואל ורב אשי אמר הילכתא כוותיה דרב והילכתא כוותיה דרב

- Now, is that reasonable; surely R'Joseph son of R'Menasia of Dabil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is a Dabil in Armenia, with which this may be identical. On Jews in Armenia v. Obermeyer, p. 296. n. 4.');">¹¹</span> 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!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is so sure of his superior knowledge that he disregards betrothal by her father, though it may have been valid.');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מי שיצא הוא ואשתו למד"ה ובא הוא ואשתו ובניו ואמר אשה שיצאת עמי למדינת הים הרי היא זו ואלו בניה אין צריך להביא ראיה לא על האשה ולא על הבנים מתה ואלו בניה מביא ראיה על הבנים ואינו מביא ראיה על האשה

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.

אשה נשאתי במדינת הים הרי היא זו ואלו בניה מביא ראיה על האשה ואין צריך להביא ראיה על הבנים מתה ואלו בניה צריך להביא ראיה על האשה ועל הבנים

And [the final ruling is:] The law is as Rab. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN EMIGRATED OVERSEAS TOGETHER WITH HIS WIFE, AND THEN HE, HIS WIFE, AND HIS CHILDREN RETURNED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was childless when he emigrated.');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבה בר רב הונא וכולן בכרוכים אחריה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the former is of pure birth, since her pedigree was already investigated when he married her, as supra 76a, or that the latter are her children (Rashi) . Tosaf.: He need not prove that the children are both his and hers.');">¹⁴</span> [IF HE DECLARES.] SHE DIED [ABROAD] AND THESE ARE HER CHILDREN,' HE MUST BRING PROOF OF THE CHILDREN, BUT NOT OF THE WOMAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: he must prove that the children are of that woman, but not that she was of good birth.');">¹⁵</span>

תנו רבנן אשה נשאתי במדינת הים מביא ראיה על האשה וא"צ להביא ראיה על הבנים ומביא ראיה על הגדולים ואין צריך להביא ראיה על הקטנים במה דברים אמורים באשה אחת אבל בשתי נשים מביא ראיה על האשה ועל הבנים על הגדולים ועל הקטנים

[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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she is of good birth.');">¹⁶</span> BUT NOT OF THE CHILDREN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they are from this woman.');">¹⁷</span>

אמר ריש לקיש

[IF HE SAID,] 'SHE DIED, AND THESE ARE HER CHILDREN: HE MUST BRING PROOF OF THE WOMAN AND OF THE CHILDREN. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Rabbah son of R'Huna said: And in all cases it means that they cling to her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The children are minors, who cling to this woman. Then her motherhood does not require proof.');">¹⁸</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who cling to her.');">¹⁹</span> Now, when is this said? In the case of one wife. But in the case of two wives,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He affirms that he married two wives, of whom one died, while these are the children of the survivor.');">²⁰</span> he must bring proof about the woman and about the children whether adults or minors.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clinging of the young children does not prove her parentage, since she may be their foster-mother.');">²¹</span> Resh Lakish said: