Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 18, 2016 | 讬壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Kiddushin 68

Study Guide Kiddushin 68. How was it determined that all children born from forbidden relations that are obligated by karet or death by the court are mamzerim. 聽The gemara questions why we learn it all from one’s wife’s sister (that the child would be a mamzer) and not from a nidda (the child would not be a mamzer). 聽Those born from forbidden relationship that are only a negative commandment (but not punishable by karet or death by the court are not mamzerim and a betrothal would be considered a betrothal. 聽This is learned from a verse. 聽Three alternative readings of that verse are brought in order to explain Rabbi Akiva’s unique opinions that the child would be a mamzer in those cases. 聽Derivations are brought to teach that the child born from a maidservant and a non Jewish woman are considered not Jewish.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗驻讬诇讜 谞讚讛 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讗 注诇 讛谞讚讛 讜注诇 讛住讜讟讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 谞讚转讛 转讛讗 讘讛 讛讜讬讛

then even if he betrothed a menstruating woman as well, his betrothal should not be effective and the offspring should be a mamzer, as a menstruating woman is included in the list in that chapter of those with whom sexual intercourse is forbidden. If so, why did Abaye say: All concede with regard to one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman or with a sota, a woman forbidden to her husband on suspicion of being unfaithful to him, that the offspring is not a mamzer? 岣zkiyya said: In the case of a menstruating woman, the verse states: 鈥淎nd her impurity be [ut鈥檋i] upon him鈥 (Leviticus 15:24), from which it is derived that even at the time of her impurity, the type of becoming [havaya] stated with regard to betrothal (see Deuteronomy 24:2) should apply to her. The Gemara is interpreting the connection between the words ut鈥檋i and havaya, as both share the same Hebrew root.

诪讻讚讬 讗讬讻讗 诇讗拽讜砖讛 诇谞讚讛 讜讗讬讻讗 诇讗拽讜砖讛 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚诪拽砖转 诇讛讜 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讗拽砖讛 诇谞讚讛 拽讜诇讗 讜讞讜诪专讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: After all, there is the possibility of juxtaposing all other forbidden relatives to a menstruating woman, and there is also the possibility of juxtaposing them to a wife鈥檚 sister. What did you see that you juxtaposed them to a wife鈥檚 sister? Why not juxtapose them instead to a menstruating woman? The Gemara answers: When there is an option of juxtaposing a case in a manner that leads to a leniency, or juxtaposing it to a halakha that entails a stringency, we juxtapose it in a fashion that leads to a stringency.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讘诪讛 讜诪讛 讬讘诪讛 砖讛讬讗 讘诇讗讜 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讜讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讗专 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 谞诪讬

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said that there is a different source for the halakha that betrothal is ineffective with forbidden relatives: This principle is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a yevama: Just as a yevama, before she is released from the yavam through 岣litza, is forbidden by a mere prohibition, which entails lashes, and yet betrothal is not effective with her, with regard to those people with whom sexual intercourse renders one liable to receive the death penalty or liable to be punished with karet, is it not all the more so the case that betrothal should not be effective in these cases? The Gemara asks: If so, meaning that this is the source, one should also derive that betrothal is ineffective with any other people with whom one is only liable for violating a prohibition of engaging in intercourse, by means of the same analogy.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉 诇讗讬砖 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讛讗讞转 讗讛讜讘讛 讜讛讗讞转 砖谞讜讗讛 讜讻讬 讬砖 砖谞讜讗讛 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讗讛讜讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 讗诇讗 讗讛讜讘讛 讗讛讜讘讛 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬讛 砖谞讜讗讛 砖谞讜讗讛 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬讛 讜拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉

Rav Pappa says: It is written explicitly in the Torah that a man can betroth women with whom he is liable for violating ordinary prohibitions of intercourse. The Torah states in a different context: 鈥淚f a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15). Rav Pappa asks rhetorically: But is there one who is hated before the Omnipresent and one who is beloved before the Omnipresent? Rather, 鈥渂eloved鈥 means beloved in her marriage, i.e., her marriage is permitted; 鈥渉ated鈥 means hated in her marriage, i.e., her marriage involves the violation of a prohibition. And despite the fact that the latter marriage is between a man and a woman who are forbidden to one another, their union still has the status of a marriage, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淚f a man has two wives,鈥 i.e., he is married to both of them.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Betrothal does not take effect even with those women with whom one is only liable for violating a prohibition of engaging in intercourse, with regard to what case does he establish the verse: 鈥淚f a man has two wives鈥? The Gemara answers: He explains that this verse is referring to a widow married to a High Priest, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Simai.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛讻诇 讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讜砖讛 诪诪讝专 讞讜抓 诪讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讞讬诇讜诇讬诐 注讜砖讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 诪诪讝专讜转

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: From all relationships that involve prohibitions, Rabbi Akiva would render the offspring a mamzer, except for the marriage of a widow to a High Priest, as the Torah said: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane [ye岣llel]鈥 (Leviticus 21:15), which teaches that he renders them profane [岣llulim], i.e., his children from this marriage are 岣lalim, but he does not render them labeled with mamzer status.

讜诇专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讚讗诪专 讘讜讗讜 讜谞爪讜讜讞 注诇 注拽讬讘讗 讘谉 讬讜住祝 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讬讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讗讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 拽讗转讬 砖驻讬专

The Gemara asks: And what can be said according to the opinion of Rabbi Yeshevav, who says: Come, let us shout at Akiva ben Yosef, who would say: In every case where a Jew may not engage in intercourse with a particular woman, and he does so, the offspring that results from this union is a mamzer, even the child of a widow and a High Priest? This works out well even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yeshevav if he comes to exclude the reason of Rabbi Simai, i.e., if he means to take issue with the ruling of Rabbi Akiva in the specific case mentioned by Rabbi Simai, that of a widow married to a High Priest, then Rabbi Yeshevav too concedes that according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, betrothal does take effect in a case where a positive mitzva is violated by the betrothal. Accordingly, one can establish the phrase 鈥渁nd the one hated鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15) as referring to those whose marriage entailed the violation of a positive mitzva.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛

But if he states a reasoning of his own, i.e., he states an independent statement critical of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 ruling that the child of any illicit union is a mamzer, and it is a categorical statement that applies to all illicit unions, even those liable for violating a positive mitzva, i.e., Rabbi Akiva holds that even the offspring of this relationship is a mamzer, with regard to what case does he interpret the 鈥渉ated鈥 woman of the above verse?

讘讘注讜诇讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 注砖讛 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yeshevav would say that the verse is referring to a non-virgin married to a High Priest, as there is a positive mitzva that a High Priest should marry a virgin. The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the previous ones? If Rabbi Yeshevav holds that a child born of any act of intercourse prohibited by a positive mitzva is a mamzer, the marriage of a non-virgin to a High Priest likewise involves the violation of a positive mitzva. The Gemara answers: Because it is a positive mitzva that is not equally applicable to all, and since this command applies only to a High Priest and not to other Jews, its violation is considered less severe than that of other positive mitzvot.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讚诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 谞讜拽诪讗 讘讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion, rather than establishing the verse: 鈥淚f a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), as referring to those who are liable for violating prohibitions, let them establish it as referring to those liable for violating a positive mitzva. In other words, betrothal should not be effective if it involves the violation of a prohibition. And as for the 鈥渉ated鈥 woman whose marriage is nevertheless valid, mentioned in that verse, this is referring to one whose engaging in sexual intercourse violates a positive mitzva.

讛谞讬 讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 讘诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬 砖转讬讛谉 诪爪专讬讜转 砖转讬讛谉 砖谞讜讗讜转 讗讬 讗讞转 诪爪专讬转 讜讗讞转 讬砖专讗诇讬转 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 诪注诐 讗讞讚 讘注讬谞谉 讗讬 讘注讜诇讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讬 讻转讬讘 转讛讬讬谉 诇讻讛谉

The Gemara responds: These cases where they are liable for violating a positive mitzva, what are they? If you say that both wives are Egyptian converts, they are both hated, as both marriages are prohibited. If you claim that one is an Egyptian woman and the other a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage, this cannot be the case, as we require 鈥渢wo wives鈥 from the same nation, since the Torah equates the two women. If the hated one is a non-virgin married to a High Priest, this too is problematic, as, is it written: If a priest has two wives? The verse merely says: 鈥淚f a man has two wives.鈥 Consequently, the verse cannot be interpreted as referring to those who are liable for violating a positive mitzva.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘注诇 讻讜专讞讬讱 砖讘拽讬讛 诇拽专讗 讚讛讜讬 讚讞讬拽 讜诪讜拽讬 讗谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that betrothal that involves a prohibition does not take effect, this verse can be referring only to a non-virgin who marries a High Priest, or marriage to a female Egyptian convert, which involve the violation of positive mitzvot. Can the verse really be interpreted as concerning such unlikely cases? The Gemara answers: You are forced to leave this verse aside, as it establishes itself as dealing with a difficult case. In other words, as Rabbi Akiva claims that betrothal is ineffective if any prohibition is involved, he has no choice but to explain the verse that says: 鈥淚f a man has two wives,鈥 in this forced manner.

讜讻诇 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讻讜壮 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 砖讘讜 诇讻诐 驻讛 注诐 讛讞诪讜专 注诐 讛讚讜诪讛 诇讞诪讜专 讗砖讻讞谉 讚诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讚讜砖讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And in any case where a woman cannot join in betrothal with him or with others, the offspring is like her. This ruling refers specifically to a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that betrothal with a Canaanite maidservant is ineffective? Rav Huna says: The verse states that Abraham commanded his slaves: 鈥淵ou abide here with [im] the donkey鈥 (Genesis 22:5), which alludes to the fact that his slaves belong to a nation [am] similar to a donkey; just as betrothal is ineffective with animals, it is likewise ineffective with Canaanite maidservants. The Gemara comments: We have found that betrothal is ineffective with a Canaanite maidservant;

讜诇讚讛 讻诪讜转讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚谞讬讛

from where do we derive that her offspring is like her? The Gemara answers: As the verse states with regard to a Hebrew slave who marries a Canaanite maidservant: 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 21:4). This indicates that the offspring of a Canaanite maidservant and a Hebrew slave are slaves, as she is.

谞讻专讬转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转转讞转谉 讘诐 讗砖讻讞谞讗 讚诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讜诇讚讛 讻诪讜转讛 诪谞诇谉

搂 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that betrothal with a gentile woman is ineffective? The verse states: 鈥淣either shall you make marriages with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:3), which teaches that marrying gentile women is halakhically meaningless. The Gemara asks: We have found that betrothal is ineffective with her; from where do we derive that her offspring is like her?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬住讬专 讗转 讘谞讱 诪讗讞专讬 讘谞讱 讛讘讗 诪讬砖专讗诇讬转 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬转 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讗诇讗 讘谞讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: As the verse states with regard to the same issue: 鈥淵our daughter you shall not give to his son鈥for he will turn away your son from following Me鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:3鈥4). Since the verse is concerned that after one鈥檚 daughter marries a gentile, the father will lead his children away from the service of God, this indicates that your son, i.e., your grandson, from a Jewish woman is called 鈥測our son鈥 by the Torah, but your son from a gentile woman is not called your son, but her son.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘谉 讘转讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 谞讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

Ravina said: Learn from it that the son of your daughter, born to a gentile, is called your son in all regards. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Ravina holds that with regard to a gentile or a Canaanite slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer? One can infer from the fact that the offspring of this union is called 鈥測our son鈥 that he is a Jew, and therefore the principle stated in the mishna should apply: If a woman cannot join in betrothal with someone, their child is a mamzer.

谞讛讬 讚讻砖专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专 诇讗 讛讜讬 驻住讜诇 诪讬拽专讬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Although he is not a fit offspring, he is also not a mamzer. Rather, he is merely called disqualified. Since betrothal is inapplicable to a gentile, a gentile is not included in the category of someone with whom a Jewish woman cannot personally join in betrothal, as no Jewish women can be betrothed to him. Nevertheless, as their child鈥檚 birth is the result of a transgression, he is considered disqualified.

讛讛讜讗 讘砖讘注讛 讙讜讬诐 讻转讬讘 砖讗专 讗讜诪讜转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬住讬专 讗转 讘谞讱 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讛诪住讬专讬诐

The Gemara asks a question with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement. That verse: 鈥淣either shall you make marriages with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:3), is written with regard to the seven nations of Canaan. From where do we derive that betrothal does not take effect with the other nations? The Gemara answers: The verse states as a reason for prohibiting intermarriages: 鈥淔or he will turn away your son from following Me,鈥 which serves to include all those who might turn a child away, no matter from which nation.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who expounds the reason for the mitzvot of the verse and rules accordingly. Since the reason is that the gentile might turn away the son鈥檚 heart, there should be no distinction between the Canaanite nations and other gentiles. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not expound the reason for the mitzvot of the verse and rule accordingly, since the verse mentions only the Canaanite nations, what is the reason, the source for the prohibition, with regard to the other nations?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讞专 讻谉 转讘讜讗 讗诇讬讛 讜讘注诇转讛 讜讙讜壮 诪讻诇诇 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to a beautiful captive woman: 鈥淎nd after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:13). One can derive from here by inference that at the outset, before she became a Jew, betrothal would not take effect with her, despite the fact that he had already brought her into his house, and according to some opinions, had even engaged in sexual intercourse with her.

讗砖讻讞谉 讚诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜诇讚讛 讻诪讜转讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉 诇讗讬砖 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讻讬 转讛讬讬谞讛 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讻讬 转讛讬讬谞讛 诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜

The Gemara asks another question: We found a source for the halakha that betrothal is ineffective with her; from where do we derive that her child is like her? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淚f a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated, and they have borne him children鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), from which it is derived: Anywhere that we read: 鈥淚f he has,鈥 i.e., that a woman can be betrothed, we also read: 鈥淎nd they have borne him,鈥 meaning that their children follow his lineage. And anywhere that we do not read: 鈥淚f he has,鈥 we likewise do not read: 鈥淎nd they have borne him,鈥 as the offspring inherit their mother鈥檚 status.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖驻讞讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚谞讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, one should learn from here with regard to a Canaanite maidservant too, that her child is like her, which means that the earlier proof from the verse: 鈥淭he wife and her children鈥 (Exodus 21:4), is not necessary. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; this source also teaches the halakha that the offspring of a maidservant is like her. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the verse 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥? This verse apparently teaches nothing new with regard to the halakhot of lineage. The Gemara answers: It is required for that which is taught in a baraita:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 68

讗驻讬诇讜 谞讚讛 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讗 注诇 讛谞讚讛 讜注诇 讛住讜讟讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 谞讚转讛 转讛讗 讘讛 讛讜讬讛

then even if he betrothed a menstruating woman as well, his betrothal should not be effective and the offspring should be a mamzer, as a menstruating woman is included in the list in that chapter of those with whom sexual intercourse is forbidden. If so, why did Abaye say: All concede with regard to one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman or with a sota, a woman forbidden to her husband on suspicion of being unfaithful to him, that the offspring is not a mamzer? 岣zkiyya said: In the case of a menstruating woman, the verse states: 鈥淎nd her impurity be [ut鈥檋i] upon him鈥 (Leviticus 15:24), from which it is derived that even at the time of her impurity, the type of becoming [havaya] stated with regard to betrothal (see Deuteronomy 24:2) should apply to her. The Gemara is interpreting the connection between the words ut鈥檋i and havaya, as both share the same Hebrew root.

诪讻讚讬 讗讬讻讗 诇讗拽讜砖讛 诇谞讚讛 讜讗讬讻讗 诇讗拽讜砖讛 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚诪拽砖转 诇讛讜 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讗拽砖讛 诇谞讚讛 拽讜诇讗 讜讞讜诪专讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: After all, there is the possibility of juxtaposing all other forbidden relatives to a menstruating woman, and there is also the possibility of juxtaposing them to a wife鈥檚 sister. What did you see that you juxtaposed them to a wife鈥檚 sister? Why not juxtapose them instead to a menstruating woman? The Gemara answers: When there is an option of juxtaposing a case in a manner that leads to a leniency, or juxtaposing it to a halakha that entails a stringency, we juxtapose it in a fashion that leads to a stringency.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讘诪讛 讜诪讛 讬讘诪讛 砖讛讬讗 讘诇讗讜 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讜讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讗专 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 谞诪讬

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said that there is a different source for the halakha that betrothal is ineffective with forbidden relatives: This principle is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a yevama: Just as a yevama, before she is released from the yavam through 岣litza, is forbidden by a mere prohibition, which entails lashes, and yet betrothal is not effective with her, with regard to those people with whom sexual intercourse renders one liable to receive the death penalty or liable to be punished with karet, is it not all the more so the case that betrothal should not be effective in these cases? The Gemara asks: If so, meaning that this is the source, one should also derive that betrothal is ineffective with any other people with whom one is only liable for violating a prohibition of engaging in intercourse, by means of the same analogy.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉 诇讗讬砖 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讛讗讞转 讗讛讜讘讛 讜讛讗讞转 砖谞讜讗讛 讜讻讬 讬砖 砖谞讜讗讛 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讗讛讜讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 讗诇讗 讗讛讜讘讛 讗讛讜讘讛 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬讛 砖谞讜讗讛 砖谞讜讗讛 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬讛 讜拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉

Rav Pappa says: It is written explicitly in the Torah that a man can betroth women with whom he is liable for violating ordinary prohibitions of intercourse. The Torah states in a different context: 鈥淚f a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15). Rav Pappa asks rhetorically: But is there one who is hated before the Omnipresent and one who is beloved before the Omnipresent? Rather, 鈥渂eloved鈥 means beloved in her marriage, i.e., her marriage is permitted; 鈥渉ated鈥 means hated in her marriage, i.e., her marriage involves the violation of a prohibition. And despite the fact that the latter marriage is between a man and a woman who are forbidden to one another, their union still has the status of a marriage, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淚f a man has two wives,鈥 i.e., he is married to both of them.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Betrothal does not take effect even with those women with whom one is only liable for violating a prohibition of engaging in intercourse, with regard to what case does he establish the verse: 鈥淚f a man has two wives鈥? The Gemara answers: He explains that this verse is referring to a widow married to a High Priest, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Simai.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛讻诇 讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讜砖讛 诪诪讝专 讞讜抓 诪讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讞讬诇讜诇讬诐 注讜砖讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 诪诪讝专讜转

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: From all relationships that involve prohibitions, Rabbi Akiva would render the offspring a mamzer, except for the marriage of a widow to a High Priest, as the Torah said: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane [ye岣llel]鈥 (Leviticus 21:15), which teaches that he renders them profane [岣llulim], i.e., his children from this marriage are 岣lalim, but he does not render them labeled with mamzer status.

讜诇专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讚讗诪专 讘讜讗讜 讜谞爪讜讜讞 注诇 注拽讬讘讗 讘谉 讬讜住祝 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讬讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讗讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 拽讗转讬 砖驻讬专

The Gemara asks: And what can be said according to the opinion of Rabbi Yeshevav, who says: Come, let us shout at Akiva ben Yosef, who would say: In every case where a Jew may not engage in intercourse with a particular woman, and he does so, the offspring that results from this union is a mamzer, even the child of a widow and a High Priest? This works out well even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yeshevav if he comes to exclude the reason of Rabbi Simai, i.e., if he means to take issue with the ruling of Rabbi Akiva in the specific case mentioned by Rabbi Simai, that of a widow married to a High Priest, then Rabbi Yeshevav too concedes that according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, betrothal does take effect in a case where a positive mitzva is violated by the betrothal. Accordingly, one can establish the phrase 鈥渁nd the one hated鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15) as referring to those whose marriage entailed the violation of a positive mitzva.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛

But if he states a reasoning of his own, i.e., he states an independent statement critical of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 ruling that the child of any illicit union is a mamzer, and it is a categorical statement that applies to all illicit unions, even those liable for violating a positive mitzva, i.e., Rabbi Akiva holds that even the offspring of this relationship is a mamzer, with regard to what case does he interpret the 鈥渉ated鈥 woman of the above verse?

讘讘注讜诇讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 注砖讛 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yeshevav would say that the verse is referring to a non-virgin married to a High Priest, as there is a positive mitzva that a High Priest should marry a virgin. The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the previous ones? If Rabbi Yeshevav holds that a child born of any act of intercourse prohibited by a positive mitzva is a mamzer, the marriage of a non-virgin to a High Priest likewise involves the violation of a positive mitzva. The Gemara answers: Because it is a positive mitzva that is not equally applicable to all, and since this command applies only to a High Priest and not to other Jews, its violation is considered less severe than that of other positive mitzvot.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讚诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 谞讜拽诪讗 讘讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion, rather than establishing the verse: 鈥淚f a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), as referring to those who are liable for violating prohibitions, let them establish it as referring to those liable for violating a positive mitzva. In other words, betrothal should not be effective if it involves the violation of a prohibition. And as for the 鈥渉ated鈥 woman whose marriage is nevertheless valid, mentioned in that verse, this is referring to one whose engaging in sexual intercourse violates a positive mitzva.

讛谞讬 讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 讘诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬 砖转讬讛谉 诪爪专讬讜转 砖转讬讛谉 砖谞讜讗讜转 讗讬 讗讞转 诪爪专讬转 讜讗讞转 讬砖专讗诇讬转 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 诪注诐 讗讞讚 讘注讬谞谉 讗讬 讘注讜诇讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讬 讻转讬讘 转讛讬讬谉 诇讻讛谉

The Gemara responds: These cases where they are liable for violating a positive mitzva, what are they? If you say that both wives are Egyptian converts, they are both hated, as both marriages are prohibited. If you claim that one is an Egyptian woman and the other a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage, this cannot be the case, as we require 鈥渢wo wives鈥 from the same nation, since the Torah equates the two women. If the hated one is a non-virgin married to a High Priest, this too is problematic, as, is it written: If a priest has two wives? The verse merely says: 鈥淚f a man has two wives.鈥 Consequently, the verse cannot be interpreted as referring to those who are liable for violating a positive mitzva.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘注诇 讻讜专讞讬讱 砖讘拽讬讛 诇拽专讗 讚讛讜讬 讚讞讬拽 讜诪讜拽讬 讗谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that betrothal that involves a prohibition does not take effect, this verse can be referring only to a non-virgin who marries a High Priest, or marriage to a female Egyptian convert, which involve the violation of positive mitzvot. Can the verse really be interpreted as concerning such unlikely cases? The Gemara answers: You are forced to leave this verse aside, as it establishes itself as dealing with a difficult case. In other words, as Rabbi Akiva claims that betrothal is ineffective if any prohibition is involved, he has no choice but to explain the verse that says: 鈥淚f a man has two wives,鈥 in this forced manner.

讜讻诇 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讻讜壮 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 砖讘讜 诇讻诐 驻讛 注诐 讛讞诪讜专 注诐 讛讚讜诪讛 诇讞诪讜专 讗砖讻讞谉 讚诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讚讜砖讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And in any case where a woman cannot join in betrothal with him or with others, the offspring is like her. This ruling refers specifically to a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that betrothal with a Canaanite maidservant is ineffective? Rav Huna says: The verse states that Abraham commanded his slaves: 鈥淵ou abide here with [im] the donkey鈥 (Genesis 22:5), which alludes to the fact that his slaves belong to a nation [am] similar to a donkey; just as betrothal is ineffective with animals, it is likewise ineffective with Canaanite maidservants. The Gemara comments: We have found that betrothal is ineffective with a Canaanite maidservant;

讜诇讚讛 讻诪讜转讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚谞讬讛

from where do we derive that her offspring is like her? The Gemara answers: As the verse states with regard to a Hebrew slave who marries a Canaanite maidservant: 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 21:4). This indicates that the offspring of a Canaanite maidservant and a Hebrew slave are slaves, as she is.

谞讻专讬转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转转讞转谉 讘诐 讗砖讻讞谞讗 讚诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讜诇讚讛 讻诪讜转讛 诪谞诇谉

搂 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that betrothal with a gentile woman is ineffective? The verse states: 鈥淣either shall you make marriages with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:3), which teaches that marrying gentile women is halakhically meaningless. The Gemara asks: We have found that betrothal is ineffective with her; from where do we derive that her offspring is like her?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬住讬专 讗转 讘谞讱 诪讗讞专讬 讘谞讱 讛讘讗 诪讬砖专讗诇讬转 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬转 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讗诇讗 讘谞讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: As the verse states with regard to the same issue: 鈥淵our daughter you shall not give to his son鈥for he will turn away your son from following Me鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:3鈥4). Since the verse is concerned that after one鈥檚 daughter marries a gentile, the father will lead his children away from the service of God, this indicates that your son, i.e., your grandson, from a Jewish woman is called 鈥測our son鈥 by the Torah, but your son from a gentile woman is not called your son, but her son.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘谉 讘转讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 谞讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

Ravina said: Learn from it that the son of your daughter, born to a gentile, is called your son in all regards. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Ravina holds that with regard to a gentile or a Canaanite slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer? One can infer from the fact that the offspring of this union is called 鈥測our son鈥 that he is a Jew, and therefore the principle stated in the mishna should apply: If a woman cannot join in betrothal with someone, their child is a mamzer.

谞讛讬 讚讻砖专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专 诇讗 讛讜讬 驻住讜诇 诪讬拽专讬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Although he is not a fit offspring, he is also not a mamzer. Rather, he is merely called disqualified. Since betrothal is inapplicable to a gentile, a gentile is not included in the category of someone with whom a Jewish woman cannot personally join in betrothal, as no Jewish women can be betrothed to him. Nevertheless, as their child鈥檚 birth is the result of a transgression, he is considered disqualified.

讛讛讜讗 讘砖讘注讛 讙讜讬诐 讻转讬讘 砖讗专 讗讜诪讜转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬住讬专 讗转 讘谞讱 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讛诪住讬专讬诐

The Gemara asks a question with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement. That verse: 鈥淣either shall you make marriages with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:3), is written with regard to the seven nations of Canaan. From where do we derive that betrothal does not take effect with the other nations? The Gemara answers: The verse states as a reason for prohibiting intermarriages: 鈥淔or he will turn away your son from following Me,鈥 which serves to include all those who might turn a child away, no matter from which nation.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who expounds the reason for the mitzvot of the verse and rules accordingly. Since the reason is that the gentile might turn away the son鈥檚 heart, there should be no distinction between the Canaanite nations and other gentiles. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not expound the reason for the mitzvot of the verse and rule accordingly, since the verse mentions only the Canaanite nations, what is the reason, the source for the prohibition, with regard to the other nations?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讞专 讻谉 转讘讜讗 讗诇讬讛 讜讘注诇转讛 讜讙讜壮 诪讻诇诇 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to a beautiful captive woman: 鈥淎nd after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:13). One can derive from here by inference that at the outset, before she became a Jew, betrothal would not take effect with her, despite the fact that he had already brought her into his house, and according to some opinions, had even engaged in sexual intercourse with her.

讗砖讻讞谉 讚诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜诇讚讛 讻诪讜转讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉 诇讗讬砖 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讻讬 转讛讬讬谞讛 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讻讬 转讛讬讬谞讛 诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜

The Gemara asks another question: We found a source for the halakha that betrothal is ineffective with her; from where do we derive that her child is like her? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淚f a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated, and they have borne him children鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), from which it is derived: Anywhere that we read: 鈥淚f he has,鈥 i.e., that a woman can be betrothed, we also read: 鈥淎nd they have borne him,鈥 meaning that their children follow his lineage. And anywhere that we do not read: 鈥淚f he has,鈥 we likewise do not read: 鈥淎nd they have borne him,鈥 as the offspring inherit their mother鈥檚 status.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖驻讞讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚谞讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, one should learn from here with regard to a Canaanite maidservant too, that her child is like her, which means that the earlier proof from the verse: 鈥淭he wife and her children鈥 (Exodus 21:4), is not necessary. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; this source also teaches the halakha that the offspring of a maidservant is like her. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the verse 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥? This verse apparently teaches nothing new with regard to the halakhot of lineage. The Gemara answers: It is required for that which is taught in a baraita:

Scroll To Top