Kiddushin, Daf Peh, Part 1

 

Introduction

The Talmud begins to deal with the mishnah about a man who returns from abroad with his wife and children how do we know they are her children?

 

גמ׳ אמר רבה בר רב הונא וכולן בכרוכים אחריה

 

GEMARA. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: And in all cases it means that they cling to her.

 

When the mishnah ruled that the father need not prove the lineage of the children it referred to a case where they were clinging to his wife. In such a case, we can be sure who the mother is.

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

 

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 adult children, but not about the minors.

 

As the mishnah stated, if he says he married a woman overseas, he must bring proof about the lineage of the wife, but we can assume the children are hers. This baraita limits this to minor children. He must bring proof about the older children, who are assumedly not clinging to her and therefore might not be hers.

 

במה דברים אמורים באשה אחת אבל בשתי נשים מביא ראיה על האשה ועל הבנים על הגדולים ועל הקטנים

 

About what was this said? In the case of one wife. But in the case of two wives, he must bring proof about the woman and about the children whether adults or minors.

 

But if he went abroad and married two women and one of them died and now he is returning with the other, he must bring proof that this wife has valid lineage and he must also bring proof about all of the children. For even if the younger children are clinging to her, we cannot be certain that they are her children.

 

אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא בקדשי הגבול אבל ביוחסין לא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו ביוחסין

Resh Lakish said: This was taught only in respect of holy food eaten outside of Jerusalem, but not in respect of genealogy.

But R. Yohanan said: Even in respect of genealogy.

 

The amoraim dispute what is at stake in assuming that children clinging to a woman are her biological children. Resh Lakish rules that this is sufficient to allow them to eat terumah if the father is a Kohen. But it is not sufficient to allow them to marry a person of proper lineage. R. Yohanan says that this is a full assumption, one that allows them to both eat terumah (if the father is a Kohen) and marry priests. The fact that they are clinging to her creates a hazakah, a presumption, that they are hers.