Kiddushin, Daf Ayin Gimmel, Part 6

 

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

אסופי הא דאמרן

 

R. Hisda said: Three are believed immediately and these are they: a foundling, a midwife, and she who exempts her companions [from the suspicion of uncleanness].

A foundling, as was stated.

 

Yesterday we learned that if the biological parents of an abandoned child testify that they are his parents before he has even been gathered in from the marketplace, they are believed. R. Hisda now finds three other cases where a person is believed if they testify immediately but not believed if they testify later.

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

 

A midwife, as was taught: A midwife is believed when she states: This one came out first and this one came out second. When was this stated? [Only] if she did not go out and return; but if she went out and then returned, she is not believed.

R. Eliezer said: If she was known to have been at her post, she is believed; if not, she is not believed.

What is the difference between the two? They differ where she turned her face away.

 

The midwife is believed to say which child came out first only if she was there to see both births and kept her eye on both kids. The importance of this is related to the rights of the firstborn to receive a double portion in the inheritance. It could also be relevant in cases of pidyon haben if one is a boy and one is a girl. According to the first opinion, as long as she did not go out of the room, she is believed. R. Eliezer, according to the talmudic explanation of his words, is slightly stricter. If she so much as turns her face away she might confuse the children and she cannot be believed as to which is first.

 

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

 

One who exempts her companions, what is the case? As we taught: If three women were sleeping in one bed, and blood was found under one of them, they are all impure.

If one examined herself and was found to be impure, she is impure, while the others are pure. R. Hisda: [That means] that she examined herself within the period of time to menstruate.

 

If one woman says that the menstrual blood was hers, she is believed and the others remain pure. R. Hisda says she must examine herself within the period of time necessary to begin menstruating, meaning immediately. But if she examines herself later, it could be that she began to menstruate only later and the blood came from one of the other women.

 

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

 

Our Rabbis taught: A midwife is believed when she says, This one is a priest, this one is a Levite, this one a natin, this one a mamzer. When is that stated? Only if no protest is raised: but if a protest is raised, she is not believed.

 

A midwife is believed to testify which baby belongs to which mother. Beyond the ramifications of which one goes home with which family, there are ramifications as to the lineage of the child. However, this is true only if there is no protest. The Talmud will now explain how many must protest for it to be valid.

 

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

 

What kind of a protest? If we say, a protest by one person, did not R. Yohanan say: There is no valid protest made by less than two? Hence it means a protest by two.

 

For the protest to be valid, we need two witnesses to say that she made a mistake. Two would override her testimony.

 

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 want you can say [that] after all that it was a protest by one.

And when R. Yohanan said: There is no valid protest made by less than two, he was referring to a case where we have a presumption of fitness; but if there is no presumption of fitness, even one is believed.

 

According to this explanation, the protest can be made even by one person. The requirement for two is only in a case where a presumption of fitness is overridden. In this case, the child has not yet been known to have a presumption of fitness and therefore, even the protest of one, could override her words.