Kiddushin, Daf Ayin Het, Part 6

 

Introduction

Today s section deals with R. Yehudah s rule from the mishnah.

 

רבי יהודה אומר נאמנים כדתניא (דברים כא, יז) יכיר יכירנו לאחרים מכאן אמר רבי יהודה נאמן אדם לומר זה בני בכור וכשם שנאמן אדם לומר זה בני בכור כך נאמן אדם לומר זה בן גרושה וזה בן חלוצה וחכמים אומרים אינו נאמן

 

R. Yehudah said: they are believed. As it was taught: He shall acknowledge [the firstborn] (Deuteronomy 21:17) he shall acknowledge him to others. From here R. Yehudah said: A man is believed when he says: This son is my first born. And just as he is believed when he says: This son is my firstborn, so he is also believed when he says, This is the son of a divorced woman ; this is the son of a halutzah. But the Sages say: He is not believed.

 

R. Yehudah uses the word he shall acknowledge as proof that a father is believed to testify concerning the status of his son, whether this is positive (he is the first born) or negative (he is the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah). So too, according to our mishnah, R. Yehudah believes a father to testify that his son is a mamzer. The sages disagree.

 

אמר ליה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא בשלמא לרבי יהודה היינו דכתיב יכיר אלא לרבנן יכיר למה לי בצריך הכירא למאי הלכתא (דברים כא, יז) לתת לו פי שנים

 

R. Nahman b. Yitzchak asked Rava: As for R. Yehudah, it goes well, that is why it is written: he shall acknowledge. But to the rabbis, why do I need he shall acknowledge ?

Where acknowledgment is necessary.

What is the halakhic result [of believing him]? To give the son a double portion.

 

Rabbi Yehudah uses the verse as proof that the father is believed no matter what he testifies about the son s status. But the other rabbis use the verse more in line with the topic of the verse in Deuteronomy. The father is believed to say that his son gets a double portion of inheritance.

 

פשיטא למה לי קרא מגו דאי בעי מיתבא ליה מתנה מי לא יהבי ליה בנכסים שנפלו לאחר מיכן

 

That is obvious, and why do a I need a verse; for if he wanted he could just give it to him?

This refers to property which he [the father] inherits [only] subsequently.

 

A father can always give his money to his son. So it would seem obvious that he can also declare one of his sons to be the first born so that he will get it in the future. To avoid the verse being obvious, the Talmud posits that the father is believed even about future earnings. Although he could not currently give money he does not possess to his son, he is believed to say his son is the first born so that this son would collect a double portion upon the father s death.

 

ולרבי מאיר דאמר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם יכיר למה לי שנפלו לו כשהוא גוסס

 

But according to R. Meir, who holds: One can transmit property that is not yet in the world, why do I need he shall acknowledge ?

Where he inherits it while he was dying.

 

Rabbi Meir does not think that a father can transfer money he does not yet possess to his son. So then why do I need the verse? The verse refers to a case where the father was about to die. At such a point, the halakhah holds that a person cannot transfer his money. However, if he has the money, he can acknowledge which of his sons will inherit a double portion.