Kiddushin - Daf 79
- קידשה אביה בדרך וקידשה עצמה בעיר והרי היא בוגרת
The Gemara says: קידשה אביה בדרך – If [a girl’s] father married her off on the road, וקידשה עצמה בעיר and she later accepted kiddushin herself in the city, והרי היא בוגרת – and now she is found to be a bogeress (a full adult), Rav says: הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו – Behold, she is a bogeress before us, and is assumed to have been so before the father’s kiddushin, so it is invalid (and her own is valid). Shmuel says: חיישינן לקידושי שניהם – We are concerned for both marriages, because we are unsure when she became a bogeress. The Gemara clarifies that these marriages were accepted the day that six months after naarus are completed, when she becomes a bogeress. Rav says: מדהשתא בוגרת בצפרא נמי בוגרת – since she is a bogeress now, we assume in the morning, too, she was a bogeress, and Shmuel says: השתא הוא דאייתי סימנים – perhaps she only developed signs of bagrus now.
- מקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר: תרתי לריעותא
Shmuel is challenged from a Mishnah: מקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר – If a mikveh was measured and found lacking (forty se’ah), all tamei utensils which were immersed in it (and any foods prepared in them) are tamei, even if the uncertainty occurred in a רשות הרבים – public domain, where uncertainties are normally ruled tahor. This proves that the currently deficient mikveh is assumed with certainty to have been deficient earlier!? The Gemara explains that regarding mikveh, we say: העמד טמא על חזקתו ואימר לא טבל – keep the tamei utensil on its last-known presumption, and say it was not legally immersed (i.e., the mikveh was already deficient). Although the mikveh itself had a chazakah that it contained forty se’ah and should be presumed unchanged until it was found deficient, הרי חסר לפניך – behold, it is deficient before you, which suggests that it was deficient since it was last checked. The Gemara asks that the “bogeress before you” should also be assumed to have been so earlier and concludes: התם תרתי לריעותא – [regarding mikveh], there are two weaknesses against assuming a later deficiency (the utensils’ earlier tamei status, and the mikveh’s current deficient status); הכא חדא לריעותא – [regarding the bogeress], there is only one weakness against assuming a later change to bagrus (her current status of bagrus), so it remains an uncertainty. A similar discussion follows regarding a barrel of wine (used for separating terumah) which was discovered to be vinegar.
- When one must prove his wife’s or children’s lineage
The next Mishnah states that one who went overseas with his wife, and returns with his wife and children and says, אשה שיצאת עמי למדינת הים הרי היא זו ואלו בניה – the wife who went overseas with me is this one, and these are her children from me, he does not need to prove her genealogical fitness (since it was proven at their marriage), nor of the children, since they are assumed to be theirs. If he returns with only children (saying that his wife died), he must prove the children are from his wife. If he returns with a different wife and children, he must prove the wife’s lineage, but not the children’s (since they are presumed to be theirs). If he returns with only children and says they are from a second wife, he must prove both her lineage, and that these children are hers. The Gemara explains: וכולן בכרוכים אחריה – all [cases that children are assumed hers] are where they are clinging to her. A Baraisa adds that proof must be brought for her grown children (who do not cling to her), and that if there is a second wife (and the first died), we cannot assume children are hers because they cling to her (because she may have raised them).
