A possible solution to resolving a mamzer problem is debated in the mishna based on a halacha learned in the previous mishna about the offspring of a Canaanite maidservant. Rabbi Tarfon explains that if the offspring goes by the mother, then a male mamzer can marry her and have the master free the offspring in which case the offspring would be Jewish and not a mamzer. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Tarfon allows this ab initio. The fourth chapter begins with a description of all the different lineages of the people who came to Israel in the time of Ezra and who were permitted to marry whom. There is a debate between Rava and Abaye about what happened historically. Did Ezra forcibly remove all those with problematic lineage when he went to Israel to ensure that proper records would be kept and people wouldn’t marry in forbidden marriages or did he recommend it and most of them followed of their own free will?
Kiddushin
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Kiddushin
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Kiddushin 69
הָאוֹמֵר לְשִׁפְחָתוֹ: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ בַּת חוֹרִין, וּוְלָדִךְ עֶבֶד״ – הַוָּלָד כְּמוֹתָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִים, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ״.
With regard to one who says to his pregnant Canaanite maidservant: You are hereby a free woman but your offspring shall remain a slave, the offspring is emancipated like her. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. And the Rabbis say: The master’s statement is upheld, because it is stated: “The wife and her children shall be her master’s” (Exodus 21:4).
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רָבָא: אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.
The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: What is the biblical derivation here? How do the Rabbis learn from here that the child of an emancipated maidservant remains a slave in this case? Rava said: The proof from the verse beginning with: “The wife and her children,” is not the source of the opinion of the Rabbis. Rather, this is referring to the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who claims that the children follow their mother, as indicated by this verse. Consequently, if she is emancipated, her offspring do not retain the status of slaves.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: יְכוֹלִין מַמְזֵרִין לִיטָּהֵר. כֵּיצַד? מַמְזֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא שִׁפְחָה, הַוָּלָד – עֶבֶד, שִׁיחְרְרוֹ – נִמְצָא הַבֵּן בֶּן חוֹרִין. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה עֶבֶד מַמְזֵר.
MISHNA: Rabbi Tarfon says: Mamzerim can be purified, so that their offspring will not be mamzerim. How so? With regard to a mamzer who married a Canaanite maidservant, their offspring is a slave. If his master subsequently emancipates him, that son is found to be a freeman, rather than a mamzer. Rabbi Eliezer says: This method is not effective, as this son is a mamzer slave.
גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לְכַתְּחִילָּה קָאָמַר, אוֹ דִיעֲבַד קָאָמַר? תָּא שְׁמַע: אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: טִיהַרְתָּ אֶת הַזְּכָרִים, וְלֹא טִיהַרְתָּ אֶת הַנְּקֵיבוֹת.
GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did Rabbi Tarfon state his halakha ab initio, i.e., a mamzer is permitted to marry a maidservant, or did he state it only after the fact, but he does not permit a mamzer to marry a maidservant ab initio? The Gemara answers: Come and hear proof from a baraita: The other Sages said to Rabbi Tarfon: You have thereby purified the male offspring of a mamzer, but you have not purified the female children of mamzerim, as your solution does not apply to them.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ לְכַתְּחִילָּה קָאָמַר, מַמְזֶרֶת נָמֵי תִּינְּסִיב לְעַבְדָּא! עֶבֶד אֵין לוֹ חַיִיס.
The Gemara explains the apparent proof from this baraita. And if you say that Rabbi Tarfon stated his halakha ab initio and permitted a mamzer to marry a Canaanite maidservant, a mamzeret should also be allowed to marry a Canaanite slave and her child can then be emancipated as well. The Gemara answers: A slave has no lineage. Even if she were to marry a slave, their child would not be considered his, but would be a Jewish mamzer like her. Consequently, this source provides no proof with regard to the Gemara’s question.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּאוּשְׁפִּיזְכָּנֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי מַמְזֵר הֲוָה, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אַקְדֵּמְתָּךְ – טַהַרְתִּינְהוּ לִבְנָךְ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְכַתְּחִילָּה – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דִּיעֲבַד, מַאי נִיהוּ?
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear, as Rabbi Simlai’s host was a mamzer, and Rabbi Simlai said to him: Had I found out about your status earlier, before you married and had children, I would have purified your sons by advising you to marry a Canaanite maidservant, as suggested by Rabbi Tarfon. The Gemara explains the proof: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Tarfon spoke ab initio, it is well that Rabbi Simlai would suggest this. But if you say that he meant only that this method is effective after the fact, what was the advice that Rabbi Simlai would have given his host?
דְּמַנְסֵיב לֵיהּ עֵצָה וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל גְּנוֹב וְאִיזְדַּבַּן בְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי. וּבִשְׁנֵי דְּרַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי עֶבֶד עִבְרִי מִי הֲוָה? וְהָאָמַר מָר: אִין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לְכַתְּחִילָּה קָאָמַר – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Simlai would have advised him by saying: Go steal, and be sold as a Hebrew slave, which would mean you could marry a Canaanite maidservant and your offspring would be slaves. The Gemara asks: But in the days of Rabbi Simlai, was the halakha of a Hebrew slave observed in practice? But didn’t the Master say: The halakha of a Hebrew slave is practiced only when the Jubilee Year is practiced, and Rabbi Simlai lived many years after the observance of the Jubilee Year ceased. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from it that Rabbi Tarfon spoke ab initio, i.e., it is permitted for a mamzer to marry a Canaanite maidservant? The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from the baraita that this is the case. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה עֶבֶד מַמְזֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לוֹ״ – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר פְּסוּלוֹ.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: This son is a mamzer slave. Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? As the verse states with regard to a mamzer: “Even to the tenth generation none of his shall enter the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3), which indicates that in the case of the child of a mamzer and a Canaanite maidservant, one follows his parent with the flawed lineage, and the child is a mamzer.
וְרַבָּנַן: הַהוּא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא מַמְזֶרֶת. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם״ כְּתִיב, אֲתָא ״לוֹ״ אַפְּקֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Tarfon, respond to this claim? Rabbi Tarfon maintains that this verse is referring to a Jew of unflawed lineage who married a mamzeret. It might enter your mind to say that as it is written: “By their families, by their fathers’ houses” (Numbers 4:2), the child should follow his father’s lineage rather than that of his mother. Therefore, the term “of his” in the previously cited verse comes to exclude him from his father’s lineage, as it indicates that his lineage follows his mother when she is a mamzeret.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב ״לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם״ אֲתָא ״לוֹ״ אַפְּקֵיהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ״, אֲתָא ״לוֹ״ אַפְּקֵיהּ. וְרַבָּנַן: כׇּל וָלָד בִּמְעֵי שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית כְּוָלָד בִּמְעֵי בְּהֵמָה דָּמֵי.
And how does Rabbi Eliezer respond to this claim? Is it not the case that even though the Torah wrote: “By their families, by their fathers’ houses,” nevertheless, the term “of his” comes and excludes him? Here too, although it is written: “The wife and her children shall be her master’s” (Exodus 21:4), from which it is derived that the child of a Canaanite maidservant is like her, nevertheless the term “of his” comes and excludes him. And how do the Rabbis, Rabbi Tarfon, respond to this claim? They say: Any offspring in the womb of a Canaanite maidservant is considered like the offspring in an animal’s womb. Consequently, her children do not inherit the father’s status, even if his is the flawed lineage.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָאוֹמֵר
עֲשָׂרָה יוּחֲסִים עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל: כָּהֲנֵי, לְוִיֵּי, יִשְׂרְאֵלֵי, חֲלָלֵי, גֵּירֵי, וַחֲרוֹרֵי, מַמְזֵירֵי, נְתִינֵי, שְׁתוּקֵי, וַאֲסוּפֵי.
MISHNA: There were ten categories of lineage, with varying restrictions on marriage, among the Jews who ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael with Ezra before the building of the Second Temple. They are as follows: Priests; Levites; Israelites; priests disqualified due to flawed lineage [ḥalalim]; converts, and emancipated slaves; mamzerim; Gibeonites, i.e., the descendants of the Gibeonites who converted in the time of Joshua; children of unknown paternity [shetuki]; and foundlings.
כָּהֲנֵי לְוִיֵּי וְיִשְׂרְאֵלֵי – מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. לְוִיֵּי יִשְׂרְאֵלֵי חֲלָלֵי גֵּירֵי וַחֲרוֹרִי – מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה.
The mishna proceeds to detail their halakhot: With regard to priests, Levites, and Israelites, it is permitted for men and women in these categories to marry one another. With regard to Levites who are not priests, Israelites, ḥalalim, converts, and emancipated slaves, it is permitted for men and women in these categories to marry one another.
גִּירֵי וַחֲרוֹרֵי מַמְזֵירֵי וּנְתִינֵי שְׁתוּקֵי וַאֲסוּפֵי – כּוּלָּם מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵם: שְׁתוּקִי כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מַכִּיר אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אֶת אָבִיו, אֲסוּפִי – כֹּל שֶׁנֶּאֱסָף מִן הַשּׁוּק, וְאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר לֹא אֶת אָבִיו וְלֹא אִמּוֹ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל הָיָה קוֹרֵא לַשְּׁתוּקִי: ״בְּדוּקִי״.
With regard to converts, and emancipated slaves, mamzerim, and Gibeonites, children of unknown paternity [shetuki], and foundlings, it is permitted for all of the men and women in these categories to marry one another. And these are the last two categories: A shetuki is any person who knows the identity of his mother but does not know the identity of his father. A foundling is anyone who was collected from the marketplace and doesn’t know the identity of his parents, neither that of his father nor that of his mother. These two categories are people whose status is uncertain; they may be mamzerim. Abba Shaul would call a shetuki by the label of beduki.
גְּמָ׳ עֲשָׂרָה יוּחֲסִין עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל. מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל״? נִיתְנֵי ״הָלְכוּ לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל״! מִילְּתָא אַגַּב אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ גָּבוֹהַּ מִכׇּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל גְּבוֹהָה מִכׇּל הָאֲרָצוֹת.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: There were ten categories of lineage among the Jews who ascended from Babylonia. The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna specifically teach the phrase: Ascended from Babylonia? Why was it important for the tanna to specify their place of origin? Let him teach that they went to Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers: He teaches us a matter in passing, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord, your God, shall choose” (Deuteronomy 17:8). This teaches that the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael, which is why the verse speaks of ascending from the cities of Eretz Yisrael to the Temple. And it teaches that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all of the lands.
בִּשְׁלָמָא בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ גָּבוֹהַּ מִכׇּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב:
The Gemara asks: Granted, the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael. This is derived from that which is written:
״דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ״, אֶלָּא אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל גְּבוֹהָה מִכׇּל אֲרָצוֹת מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״לָכֵן הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים נְאֻם ה׳ וְלֹא יֹאמְרוּ עוֹד חַי ה׳ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָה אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם. כִּי אִם חַי ה׳ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָה וַאֲשֶׁר הֵבִיא אֶת זֶרַע בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ צָפוֹנָה וּמִכֹּל הָאֲרָצוֹת אֲשֶׁר הִדַּחְתִּים שָׁם״.
“Matters of controversy within your gates, and you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord, your God, shall choose” (Deuteronomy 17:8), indicating that the Temple, the place that God chose, is higher than all other cities in Eretz Yisrael. But from where do we derive the claim that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all other lands? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “Therefore behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when they shall no more say: As the Lord lives, Who brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, but: As the Lord lives, Who brought up and Who led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries where I had driven them” (Jeremiah 23:7–8). The phrase “Who brought up” indicates that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the other lands from where God will bring the Jewish people.
מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל״? נִתְנֵי ״עָלוּ לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל״! מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא עָלָה עֶזְרָא מִבָּבֶל עַד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ כְּסוֹלֶת נְקִיָּה וְעָלָה.
The Gemara asks: If that is what the mishna wants to teach, why does the tanna specifically teach: Ascended from Babylonia? Let him teach: Ascended to Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers that the wording of the mishna supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia until he made it like fine flour, free of bran, i.e., he ensured that the lineage of those remaining was unsullied, and selected all of those in Babylonia who were of questionable lineage, and then he ascended with them to Eretz Yisrael.
אִיתְּמַר אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: ״עָלוּ״ – מֵאֵילֵיהֶם, תְּנַן. וְרָבָא אָמַר: ״הֶעֱלוּם״ תְּנַן. וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא עָלָה עֶזְרָא מִבָּבֶל עַד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ כְּסוֹלֶת נְקִיָּה וְעָלָה.
§ It was stated that amora’im had a dispute with regard to this matter. Abaye said: We learned in the mishna that there were ten categories of lineage among the Jews who ascended, meaning that they ascended of their own accord. And Rava said: We learned: Ezra brought them up, against their will. The Gemara explains: And they disagree about the statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia until he made it like fine flour, and only then he ascended.
אַבָּיֵי – לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. רָבָא – אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: אַפְרוֹשֵׁי אַפְרוֹשִׁינְהוּ וּמִנַּפְשַׁיְיהוּ סְלִיקוּ, וּמָר סָבַר: בְּעַל כֻּרְחַיְיהוּ אַסּוֹקִינְהוּ.
Abaye does not accept the statement of Rabbi Elazar, since he maintains that they ascended of their own free will, whereas Rava does accept the statement of Rabbi Elazar. Or, if you wish, say that everyone accepts the statement of Rabbi Elazar, and here they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Abaye, holds that Ezra first separated the members of the community with flawed lineage, and they subsequently ascended to Eretz Yisrael out of their own desire. And one Sage, Rava, holds that he brought them up against their will.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: ״עָלוּ״, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל אֲרָצוֹת עִיסָּה לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עִיסָּה לְבָבֶל. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: ״הֶעֱלוּם״, מִידָּע יַדְעִינְהוּ! נְהִי דְּיָדְעִי לְהָהוּא דָּרָא, לְדָרָא אַחֲרִינֵי לָא יָדְעִי.
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that the mishna means that they ascended of their own accord, without any distinction between the types of people who came, this is the reason that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The lineage of residents of all lands is muddled compared to that of Eretz Yisrael, and the lineage of residents of Eretz Yisrael is muddled compared to that of Babylonia. As the people came of their own accord, there was a lack of oversight concerning who married whom. But according to the one who says that he brought them up, and Ezra identified and selected all those who came with him, the Sages of the time knew the lineage of all who came and would have been careful not to allow any forbidden marriages, so why is the lineage of residents of Eretz Yisrael considered to be muddled compared to that of Babylonia? The Gemara answers: Though the status of those who came was known to that generation, it was not known to other later generations.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״עָלוּ״, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וָאֶקְבְּצֵם אֶל הַנָּהָר הַבָּא עַל אַחֲוָה וַנַּחֲנֶה שָׁם יָמִים שְׁלֹשָׁה וָאָבִינָה בָעָם וּבַכֹּהֲנִים וּמִבְּנֵי לֵוִי לֹא מָצָאתִי שָׁם״.
The Gemara asks another question: Granted, according to the one who says that they ascended of their own accord, this is the meaning of the verse that is written in the book of Ezra: “And I gathered them together to the river that runs to Ahava, and we camped there for three days; and I viewed the people and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi” (Ezra 8:15), as it was necessary for Ezra to clarify the identity of the people traveling to Eretz Yisrael.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״הֶעֱלוּם״, הָא מִיזְהָר זְהִירִי? נְהִי דְּאִיזְּהוּר בִּפְסוּלִים, בִּכְשֵׁירִים לָא אִיזְדְּהוּר.
But according to the one who says that he brought them up, they were careful to classify the lineage of the people before they left for Eretz Yisrael, so why was it necessary for him to clarify the matter by the riverside? The Gemara answers: Though they were careful with regard to people of flawed lineage before they left for Eretz Yisrael, with regard to people of unflawed lineage they were not careful to clarify the precise lineage of each of them earlier, and they did this by the riverside.
כָּהֲנֵי לְוִיֵּי וְיִשְׂרְאֵלֵי. מְנָלַן דִּסְלִיקוּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּשְׁבוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם וּמִן הָעָם וְהַמְשֹׁרְרִים וְהַשּׁוֹעֲרִים וְהַנְּתִינִים בְּעָרֵיהֶם וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעָרֵיהֶם״.
§ The mishna included in its list of types of lineage priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that they ascended? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the gatekeepers, and the Gibeonites dwelt in their cities, and all of Israel in their cities” (Ezra 2:70). The verse specifies priests, Levites, and all of Israel.
חֲלָלֵי גֵּירֵי וַחֲרוֹרֵי. חֲלָלֵי מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גְּדוֹלָה חֲזָקָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִבְּנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי חֳבַיָּה בְּנֵי הַקּוֹץ בְּנֵי בַרְזִלַּי אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִבְּנוֹת בַּרְזִלַּי הַגִּלְעָדִי אִשָּׁה וַיִּקָּרֵא עַל שְׁמָם. אֵלֶּה בִּקְשׁוּ כְתָבָם הַמִּתְיַחְשִׂים וְלֹא נִמְצָאוּ וַיְגֹאֲלוּ מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה. וַיֹּאמֶר הַתִּרְשָׁתָא לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים עַד עֲמֹד כֹּהֵן לְאוּרִים וּלְתֻמִּים״.
The mishna further states that ḥalalim, converts, and emancipated slaves ascended from Babylonia. The Gemara clarifies: From where do we derive that ḥalalim ascended? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Great is the importance of a presumptive status, as it is stated: “And of the children of the priests: The children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name. These sought the registry of their genealogy, but it was not found. Therefore, they were deemed polluted and put out from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said to them that they should not eat of the offerings of the most sacred order until there arose a priest with the Urim VeTummim” (Ezra 2:61–63).
וְאָמַר לָהֶם: הֲרֵי אַתֶּם בְּחֶזְקַתְכֶם. בַּמֶּה הֱיִיתֶם אוֹכְלִים בַּגּוֹלָה, בְּקׇדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל? אַף כָּאן נָמֵי, בְּקׇדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל.
The baraita continues: This shows that there was uncertainty whether specific descendants of priests were fit for the priesthood or were ḥalalim, and Ezra said to them: You have retained your presumptive status. In other words, despite their failure to provide proof that they were fit priests, they maintained their prior status. Ezra said: Of what priestly gifts did you partake when you were in exile? You partook only of the consecrated gifts of the boundaries, i.e., from teruma, which may be eaten anywhere. Here too, in Eretz Yisrael, you may partake only of the consecrated gifts of the boundaries. You may not, however, partake of anything that must be eaten inside Jerusalem, as indicated by the verse “They should not eat of the offerings of the most sacred order.” In any event, since the verse writes that they were “put out from the priesthood,” it can be seen that there were ḥalalim who came with Ezra to Eretz Yisrael.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מַעֲלִים מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין? הָנֵי דַּאֲכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה אָתוּ לְאַסּוֹקִינְהוּ! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּרִיעַ חֶזְקָתַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that one elevates a priest to lineage, i.e., one attributes the lineage of a priest to an individual on the basis of observing him partaking of teruma, how could they be allowed to partake of teruma? Those who partake of teruma will subsequently be elevated to the full status of priests. The Gemara answers: There it is different, as their presumptive status had been weakened. Since they did not partake of offerings, as did all other priests, all knew that they were not regular priests.
וְאֶלָּא מַאי גְּדוֹלָה חֲזָקָה? דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא אֲכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה דְרַבָּנַן, וּלְבַסּוֹף אֲכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה דְאוֹרָיְיתָא.
The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s claim that great is a presumptive status? They received nothing extra by virtue of this presumption. The Gemara responds: They have gained in that initially they would partake of teruma only of Babylonian produce, which is teruma by rabbinic law, and afterward they would partake of produce that is teruma by Torah law. The separation of teruma in Eretz Yisrael is a Torah obligation, and the produce is fully consecrated.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי בִּדְרַבָּנַן – אֲכוּל, בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא – לָא אֲכוּל, וְכִי מַסְּקִינַן מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין – מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מִדְּרַבָּנַן לָא מַסְּקִינַן.
The Gemara offers an additional defense of the opinion that one elevates a priest to lineage based on observing him partake of teruma: And if you wish, say: Actually, now also, in Eretz Yisrael, they would partake only of produce that is teruma by rabbinic law, such as vegetables, while they would not partake of produce that is teruma by Torah law, such as grains. And when we elevate a priest to lineage on the basis of observing him partake of teruma, that is only when he was observed partaking of produce that is teruma by Torah law, but if someone partakes of produce that is teruma by rabbinic law, we do not elevate him. Therefore, they could continue partaking of teruma based on their presumptive status, and there is no concern that they might be elevated to the status of full-fledged priests.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי גְּדוֹלָה חֲזָקָה? דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לֵיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה דְאוֹרָיְיתָא, לְבַסּוֹף – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה דְאוֹרָיְיתָא, בִּדְרַבָּנַן – אֲכוּל, בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא – לָא אֲכוּל.
The Gemara asks: If so, the question remains: What is meant by the phrase: Great is a presumptive status? The Gemara answers: It means that initially, there was no reason to decree and prohibit them from partaking of produce that was teruma by rabbinic law due to the possibility that they may partake of produce that is teruma by Torah law, as there was no produce that was teruma by Torah law in Babylonia. Afterward, when they came to Eretz Yisrael, although there was reason to decree and prohibit them from partaking of produce that was teruma by rabbinic law due to the possibility that they may partake of produce that was teruma by Torah law, as that kind of teruma was also present, their presumptive status was nevertheless strong enough to allow them to continue to partake of produce that was teruma by rabbinic law, although they could not eat produce that is teruma by Torah law.
וְהָכְתִיב ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַתִּרְשָׁתָא לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים״ – בְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים הוּא דְּלֹא יֹאכְל[וּ], הָא כֹּל מִידֵּי נֵיכוֹל!
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And the Tirshatha said to them that they should not eat of the offerings of the most sacred order [kodesh hakodashim]” (Ezra 2:63)? This indicates that it is from the offerings of the most sacred order that they may not eat, but anything else, i.e., offerings not of the most sacred order, they may eat, including produce that is teruma by Torah law.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: לָא מִידֵּי דְּמִיקְּרֵי קֹדֶשׁ, וְלָא מִידֵּי דְּמִיקְּרֵי קָדָשִׁים. לָא מִידֵּי דְּמִיקְּרֵי קֹדֶשׁ – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״, וְלָא מִידֵּי דְּמִיקְּרֵי קָדָשִׁים, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר הִיא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״בַּמּוּרָם מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים
The Gemara answers: This is what the Tirshatha is saying: They may not partake of anything that is called sacred [kodesh], nor anything that is called most sacred [kodashim]. The Gemara clarifies. The words not anything that is called sacred are referring to teruma, as it is written with regard to teruma: “No non-priest may eat of the sacred” (Leviticus 22:10). And the words nor anything that is called most sacred are referring to offerings, as the verse states: “And a daughter of a priest, if she is married to a non-priest, she may not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred things” (Leviticus 22:12). And the Master says: What is the meaning of “that which is set apart from the sacred things”? It means from the portions separated from the offerings, i.e., the breast and thigh of a peace-offering,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
See video
Raanana, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Berlin, Germany
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
Kiddushin 69
הָאוֹמֵר לְשִׁפְחָתוֹ: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ בַּת חוֹרִין, וּוְלָדִךְ עֶבֶד״ – הַוָּלָד כְּמוֹתָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִים, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ״.
With regard to one who says to his pregnant Canaanite maidservant: You are hereby a free woman but your offspring shall remain a slave, the offspring is emancipated like her. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. And the Rabbis say: The master’s statement is upheld, because it is stated: “The wife and her children shall be her master’s” (Exodus 21:4).
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רָבָא: אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.
The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: What is the biblical derivation here? How do the Rabbis learn from here that the child of an emancipated maidservant remains a slave in this case? Rava said: The proof from the verse beginning with: “The wife and her children,” is not the source of the opinion of the Rabbis. Rather, this is referring to the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who claims that the children follow their mother, as indicated by this verse. Consequently, if she is emancipated, her offspring do not retain the status of slaves.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: יְכוֹלִין מַמְזֵרִין לִיטָּהֵר. כֵּיצַד? מַמְזֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא שִׁפְחָה, הַוָּלָד – עֶבֶד, שִׁיחְרְרוֹ – נִמְצָא הַבֵּן בֶּן חוֹרִין. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה עֶבֶד מַמְזֵר.
MISHNA: Rabbi Tarfon says: Mamzerim can be purified, so that their offspring will not be mamzerim. How so? With regard to a mamzer who married a Canaanite maidservant, their offspring is a slave. If his master subsequently emancipates him, that son is found to be a freeman, rather than a mamzer. Rabbi Eliezer says: This method is not effective, as this son is a mamzer slave.
גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לְכַתְּחִילָּה קָאָמַר, אוֹ דִיעֲבַד קָאָמַר? תָּא שְׁמַע: אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: טִיהַרְתָּ אֶת הַזְּכָרִים, וְלֹא טִיהַרְתָּ אֶת הַנְּקֵיבוֹת.
GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did Rabbi Tarfon state his halakha ab initio, i.e., a mamzer is permitted to marry a maidservant, or did he state it only after the fact, but he does not permit a mamzer to marry a maidservant ab initio? The Gemara answers: Come and hear proof from a baraita: The other Sages said to Rabbi Tarfon: You have thereby purified the male offspring of a mamzer, but you have not purified the female children of mamzerim, as your solution does not apply to them.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ לְכַתְּחִילָּה קָאָמַר, מַמְזֶרֶת נָמֵי תִּינְּסִיב לְעַבְדָּא! עֶבֶד אֵין לוֹ חַיִיס.
The Gemara explains the apparent proof from this baraita. And if you say that Rabbi Tarfon stated his halakha ab initio and permitted a mamzer to marry a Canaanite maidservant, a mamzeret should also be allowed to marry a Canaanite slave and her child can then be emancipated as well. The Gemara answers: A slave has no lineage. Even if she were to marry a slave, their child would not be considered his, but would be a Jewish mamzer like her. Consequently, this source provides no proof with regard to the Gemara’s question.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּאוּשְׁפִּיזְכָּנֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי מַמְזֵר הֲוָה, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אַקְדֵּמְתָּךְ – טַהַרְתִּינְהוּ לִבְנָךְ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְכַתְּחִילָּה – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דִּיעֲבַד, מַאי נִיהוּ?
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear, as Rabbi Simlai’s host was a mamzer, and Rabbi Simlai said to him: Had I found out about your status earlier, before you married and had children, I would have purified your sons by advising you to marry a Canaanite maidservant, as suggested by Rabbi Tarfon. The Gemara explains the proof: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Tarfon spoke ab initio, it is well that Rabbi Simlai would suggest this. But if you say that he meant only that this method is effective after the fact, what was the advice that Rabbi Simlai would have given his host?
דְּמַנְסֵיב לֵיהּ עֵצָה וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל גְּנוֹב וְאִיזְדַּבַּן בְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי. וּבִשְׁנֵי דְּרַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי עֶבֶד עִבְרִי מִי הֲוָה? וְהָאָמַר מָר: אִין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לְכַתְּחִילָּה קָאָמַר – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Simlai would have advised him by saying: Go steal, and be sold as a Hebrew slave, which would mean you could marry a Canaanite maidservant and your offspring would be slaves. The Gemara asks: But in the days of Rabbi Simlai, was the halakha of a Hebrew slave observed in practice? But didn’t the Master say: The halakha of a Hebrew slave is practiced only when the Jubilee Year is practiced, and Rabbi Simlai lived many years after the observance of the Jubilee Year ceased. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from it that Rabbi Tarfon spoke ab initio, i.e., it is permitted for a mamzer to marry a Canaanite maidservant? The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from the baraita that this is the case. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה עֶבֶד מַמְזֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לוֹ״ – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר פְּסוּלוֹ.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: This son is a mamzer slave. Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? As the verse states with regard to a mamzer: “Even to the tenth generation none of his shall enter the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3), which indicates that in the case of the child of a mamzer and a Canaanite maidservant, one follows his parent with the flawed lineage, and the child is a mamzer.
וְרַבָּנַן: הַהוּא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא מַמְזֶרֶת. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם״ כְּתִיב, אֲתָא ״לוֹ״ אַפְּקֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Tarfon, respond to this claim? Rabbi Tarfon maintains that this verse is referring to a Jew of unflawed lineage who married a mamzeret. It might enter your mind to say that as it is written: “By their families, by their fathers’ houses” (Numbers 4:2), the child should follow his father’s lineage rather than that of his mother. Therefore, the term “of his” in the previously cited verse comes to exclude him from his father’s lineage, as it indicates that his lineage follows his mother when she is a mamzeret.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב ״לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם״ אֲתָא ״לוֹ״ אַפְּקֵיהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ״, אֲתָא ״לוֹ״ אַפְּקֵיהּ. וְרַבָּנַן: כׇּל וָלָד בִּמְעֵי שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית כְּוָלָד בִּמְעֵי בְּהֵמָה דָּמֵי.
And how does Rabbi Eliezer respond to this claim? Is it not the case that even though the Torah wrote: “By their families, by their fathers’ houses,” nevertheless, the term “of his” comes and excludes him? Here too, although it is written: “The wife and her children shall be her master’s” (Exodus 21:4), from which it is derived that the child of a Canaanite maidservant is like her, nevertheless the term “of his” comes and excludes him. And how do the Rabbis, Rabbi Tarfon, respond to this claim? They say: Any offspring in the womb of a Canaanite maidservant is considered like the offspring in an animal’s womb. Consequently, her children do not inherit the father’s status, even if his is the flawed lineage.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָאוֹמֵר
עֲשָׂרָה יוּחֲסִים עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל: כָּהֲנֵי, לְוִיֵּי, יִשְׂרְאֵלֵי, חֲלָלֵי, גֵּירֵי, וַחֲרוֹרֵי, מַמְזֵירֵי, נְתִינֵי, שְׁתוּקֵי, וַאֲסוּפֵי.
MISHNA: There were ten categories of lineage, with varying restrictions on marriage, among the Jews who ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael with Ezra before the building of the Second Temple. They are as follows: Priests; Levites; Israelites; priests disqualified due to flawed lineage [ḥalalim]; converts, and emancipated slaves; mamzerim; Gibeonites, i.e., the descendants of the Gibeonites who converted in the time of Joshua; children of unknown paternity [shetuki]; and foundlings.
כָּהֲנֵי לְוִיֵּי וְיִשְׂרְאֵלֵי – מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. לְוִיֵּי יִשְׂרְאֵלֵי חֲלָלֵי גֵּירֵי וַחֲרוֹרִי – מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה.
The mishna proceeds to detail their halakhot: With regard to priests, Levites, and Israelites, it is permitted for men and women in these categories to marry one another. With regard to Levites who are not priests, Israelites, ḥalalim, converts, and emancipated slaves, it is permitted for men and women in these categories to marry one another.
גִּירֵי וַחֲרוֹרֵי מַמְזֵירֵי וּנְתִינֵי שְׁתוּקֵי וַאֲסוּפֵי – כּוּלָּם מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵם: שְׁתוּקִי כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מַכִּיר אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אֶת אָבִיו, אֲסוּפִי – כֹּל שֶׁנֶּאֱסָף מִן הַשּׁוּק, וְאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר לֹא אֶת אָבִיו וְלֹא אִמּוֹ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל הָיָה קוֹרֵא לַשְּׁתוּקִי: ״בְּדוּקִי״.
With regard to converts, and emancipated slaves, mamzerim, and Gibeonites, children of unknown paternity [shetuki], and foundlings, it is permitted for all of the men and women in these categories to marry one another. And these are the last two categories: A shetuki is any person who knows the identity of his mother but does not know the identity of his father. A foundling is anyone who was collected from the marketplace and doesn’t know the identity of his parents, neither that of his father nor that of his mother. These two categories are people whose status is uncertain; they may be mamzerim. Abba Shaul would call a shetuki by the label of beduki.
גְּמָ׳ עֲשָׂרָה יוּחֲסִין עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל. מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל״? נִיתְנֵי ״הָלְכוּ לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל״! מִילְּתָא אַגַּב אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ גָּבוֹהַּ מִכׇּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל גְּבוֹהָה מִכׇּל הָאֲרָצוֹת.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: There were ten categories of lineage among the Jews who ascended from Babylonia. The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna specifically teach the phrase: Ascended from Babylonia? Why was it important for the tanna to specify their place of origin? Let him teach that they went to Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers: He teaches us a matter in passing, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord, your God, shall choose” (Deuteronomy 17:8). This teaches that the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael, which is why the verse speaks of ascending from the cities of Eretz Yisrael to the Temple. And it teaches that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all of the lands.
בִּשְׁלָמָא בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ גָּבוֹהַּ מִכׇּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב:
The Gemara asks: Granted, the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael. This is derived from that which is written:
״דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ״, אֶלָּא אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל גְּבוֹהָה מִכׇּל אֲרָצוֹת מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״לָכֵן הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים נְאֻם ה׳ וְלֹא יֹאמְרוּ עוֹד חַי ה׳ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָה אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם. כִּי אִם חַי ה׳ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָה וַאֲשֶׁר הֵבִיא אֶת זֶרַע בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ צָפוֹנָה וּמִכֹּל הָאֲרָצוֹת אֲשֶׁר הִדַּחְתִּים שָׁם״.
“Matters of controversy within your gates, and you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord, your God, shall choose” (Deuteronomy 17:8), indicating that the Temple, the place that God chose, is higher than all other cities in Eretz Yisrael. But from where do we derive the claim that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all other lands? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “Therefore behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when they shall no more say: As the Lord lives, Who brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, but: As the Lord lives, Who brought up and Who led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries where I had driven them” (Jeremiah 23:7–8). The phrase “Who brought up” indicates that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the other lands from where God will bring the Jewish people.
מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל״? נִתְנֵי ״עָלוּ לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל״! מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא עָלָה עֶזְרָא מִבָּבֶל עַד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ כְּסוֹלֶת נְקִיָּה וְעָלָה.
The Gemara asks: If that is what the mishna wants to teach, why does the tanna specifically teach: Ascended from Babylonia? Let him teach: Ascended to Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers that the wording of the mishna supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia until he made it like fine flour, free of bran, i.e., he ensured that the lineage of those remaining was unsullied, and selected all of those in Babylonia who were of questionable lineage, and then he ascended with them to Eretz Yisrael.
אִיתְּמַר אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: ״עָלוּ״ – מֵאֵילֵיהֶם, תְּנַן. וְרָבָא אָמַר: ״הֶעֱלוּם״ תְּנַן. וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא עָלָה עֶזְרָא מִבָּבֶל עַד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ כְּסוֹלֶת נְקִיָּה וְעָלָה.
§ It was stated that amora’im had a dispute with regard to this matter. Abaye said: We learned in the mishna that there were ten categories of lineage among the Jews who ascended, meaning that they ascended of their own accord. And Rava said: We learned: Ezra brought them up, against their will. The Gemara explains: And they disagree about the statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia until he made it like fine flour, and only then he ascended.
אַבָּיֵי – לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. רָבָא – אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: אַפְרוֹשֵׁי אַפְרוֹשִׁינְהוּ וּמִנַּפְשַׁיְיהוּ סְלִיקוּ, וּמָר סָבַר: בְּעַל כֻּרְחַיְיהוּ אַסּוֹקִינְהוּ.
Abaye does not accept the statement of Rabbi Elazar, since he maintains that they ascended of their own free will, whereas Rava does accept the statement of Rabbi Elazar. Or, if you wish, say that everyone accepts the statement of Rabbi Elazar, and here they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Abaye, holds that Ezra first separated the members of the community with flawed lineage, and they subsequently ascended to Eretz Yisrael out of their own desire. And one Sage, Rava, holds that he brought them up against their will.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: ״עָלוּ״, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל אֲרָצוֹת עִיסָּה לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עִיסָּה לְבָבֶל. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: ״הֶעֱלוּם״, מִידָּע יַדְעִינְהוּ! נְהִי דְּיָדְעִי לְהָהוּא דָּרָא, לְדָרָא אַחֲרִינֵי לָא יָדְעִי.
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that the mishna means that they ascended of their own accord, without any distinction between the types of people who came, this is the reason that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The lineage of residents of all lands is muddled compared to that of Eretz Yisrael, and the lineage of residents of Eretz Yisrael is muddled compared to that of Babylonia. As the people came of their own accord, there was a lack of oversight concerning who married whom. But according to the one who says that he brought them up, and Ezra identified and selected all those who came with him, the Sages of the time knew the lineage of all who came and would have been careful not to allow any forbidden marriages, so why is the lineage of residents of Eretz Yisrael considered to be muddled compared to that of Babylonia? The Gemara answers: Though the status of those who came was known to that generation, it was not known to other later generations.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״עָלוּ״, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וָאֶקְבְּצֵם אֶל הַנָּהָר הַבָּא עַל אַחֲוָה וַנַּחֲנֶה שָׁם יָמִים שְׁלֹשָׁה וָאָבִינָה בָעָם וּבַכֹּהֲנִים וּמִבְּנֵי לֵוִי לֹא מָצָאתִי שָׁם״.
The Gemara asks another question: Granted, according to the one who says that they ascended of their own accord, this is the meaning of the verse that is written in the book of Ezra: “And I gathered them together to the river that runs to Ahava, and we camped there for three days; and I viewed the people and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi” (Ezra 8:15), as it was necessary for Ezra to clarify the identity of the people traveling to Eretz Yisrael.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״הֶעֱלוּם״, הָא מִיזְהָר זְהִירִי? נְהִי דְּאִיזְּהוּר בִּפְסוּלִים, בִּכְשֵׁירִים לָא אִיזְדְּהוּר.
But according to the one who says that he brought them up, they were careful to classify the lineage of the people before they left for Eretz Yisrael, so why was it necessary for him to clarify the matter by the riverside? The Gemara answers: Though they were careful with regard to people of flawed lineage before they left for Eretz Yisrael, with regard to people of unflawed lineage they were not careful to clarify the precise lineage of each of them earlier, and they did this by the riverside.
כָּהֲנֵי לְוִיֵּי וְיִשְׂרְאֵלֵי. מְנָלַן דִּסְלִיקוּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּשְׁבוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם וּמִן הָעָם וְהַמְשֹׁרְרִים וְהַשּׁוֹעֲרִים וְהַנְּתִינִים בְּעָרֵיהֶם וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעָרֵיהֶם״.
§ The mishna included in its list of types of lineage priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that they ascended? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the gatekeepers, and the Gibeonites dwelt in their cities, and all of Israel in their cities” (Ezra 2:70). The verse specifies priests, Levites, and all of Israel.
חֲלָלֵי גֵּירֵי וַחֲרוֹרֵי. חֲלָלֵי מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גְּדוֹלָה חֲזָקָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִבְּנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי חֳבַיָּה בְּנֵי הַקּוֹץ בְּנֵי בַרְזִלַּי אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִבְּנוֹת בַּרְזִלַּי הַגִּלְעָדִי אִשָּׁה וַיִּקָּרֵא עַל שְׁמָם. אֵלֶּה בִּקְשׁוּ כְתָבָם הַמִּתְיַחְשִׂים וְלֹא נִמְצָאוּ וַיְגֹאֲלוּ מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה. וַיֹּאמֶר הַתִּרְשָׁתָא לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים עַד עֲמֹד כֹּהֵן לְאוּרִים וּלְתֻמִּים״.
The mishna further states that ḥalalim, converts, and emancipated slaves ascended from Babylonia. The Gemara clarifies: From where do we derive that ḥalalim ascended? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Great is the importance of a presumptive status, as it is stated: “And of the children of the priests: The children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name. These sought the registry of their genealogy, but it was not found. Therefore, they were deemed polluted and put out from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said to them that they should not eat of the offerings of the most sacred order until there arose a priest with the Urim VeTummim” (Ezra 2:61–63).
וְאָמַר לָהֶם: הֲרֵי אַתֶּם בְּחֶזְקַתְכֶם. בַּמֶּה הֱיִיתֶם אוֹכְלִים בַּגּוֹלָה, בְּקׇדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל? אַף כָּאן נָמֵי, בְּקׇדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל.
The baraita continues: This shows that there was uncertainty whether specific descendants of priests were fit for the priesthood or were ḥalalim, and Ezra said to them: You have retained your presumptive status. In other words, despite their failure to provide proof that they were fit priests, they maintained their prior status. Ezra said: Of what priestly gifts did you partake when you were in exile? You partook only of the consecrated gifts of the boundaries, i.e., from teruma, which may be eaten anywhere. Here too, in Eretz Yisrael, you may partake only of the consecrated gifts of the boundaries. You may not, however, partake of anything that must be eaten inside Jerusalem, as indicated by the verse “They should not eat of the offerings of the most sacred order.” In any event, since the verse writes that they were “put out from the priesthood,” it can be seen that there were ḥalalim who came with Ezra to Eretz Yisrael.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מַעֲלִים מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין? הָנֵי דַּאֲכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה אָתוּ לְאַסּוֹקִינְהוּ! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּרִיעַ חֶזְקָתַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that one elevates a priest to lineage, i.e., one attributes the lineage of a priest to an individual on the basis of observing him partaking of teruma, how could they be allowed to partake of teruma? Those who partake of teruma will subsequently be elevated to the full status of priests. The Gemara answers: There it is different, as their presumptive status had been weakened. Since they did not partake of offerings, as did all other priests, all knew that they were not regular priests.
וְאֶלָּא מַאי גְּדוֹלָה חֲזָקָה? דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא אֲכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה דְרַבָּנַן, וּלְבַסּוֹף אֲכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה דְאוֹרָיְיתָא.
The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s claim that great is a presumptive status? They received nothing extra by virtue of this presumption. The Gemara responds: They have gained in that initially they would partake of teruma only of Babylonian produce, which is teruma by rabbinic law, and afterward they would partake of produce that is teruma by Torah law. The separation of teruma in Eretz Yisrael is a Torah obligation, and the produce is fully consecrated.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי בִּדְרַבָּנַן – אֲכוּל, בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא – לָא אֲכוּל, וְכִי מַסְּקִינַן מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין – מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מִדְּרַבָּנַן לָא מַסְּקִינַן.
The Gemara offers an additional defense of the opinion that one elevates a priest to lineage based on observing him partake of teruma: And if you wish, say: Actually, now also, in Eretz Yisrael, they would partake only of produce that is teruma by rabbinic law, such as vegetables, while they would not partake of produce that is teruma by Torah law, such as grains. And when we elevate a priest to lineage on the basis of observing him partake of teruma, that is only when he was observed partaking of produce that is teruma by Torah law, but if someone partakes of produce that is teruma by rabbinic law, we do not elevate him. Therefore, they could continue partaking of teruma based on their presumptive status, and there is no concern that they might be elevated to the status of full-fledged priests.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי גְּדוֹלָה חֲזָקָה? דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לֵיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה דְאוֹרָיְיתָא, לְבַסּוֹף – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה דְאוֹרָיְיתָא, בִּדְרַבָּנַן – אֲכוּל, בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא – לָא אֲכוּל.
The Gemara asks: If so, the question remains: What is meant by the phrase: Great is a presumptive status? The Gemara answers: It means that initially, there was no reason to decree and prohibit them from partaking of produce that was teruma by rabbinic law due to the possibility that they may partake of produce that is teruma by Torah law, as there was no produce that was teruma by Torah law in Babylonia. Afterward, when they came to Eretz Yisrael, although there was reason to decree and prohibit them from partaking of produce that was teruma by rabbinic law due to the possibility that they may partake of produce that was teruma by Torah law, as that kind of teruma was also present, their presumptive status was nevertheless strong enough to allow them to continue to partake of produce that was teruma by rabbinic law, although they could not eat produce that is teruma by Torah law.
וְהָכְתִיב ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַתִּרְשָׁתָא לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים״ – בְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים הוּא דְּלֹא יֹאכְל[וּ], הָא כֹּל מִידֵּי נֵיכוֹל!
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And the Tirshatha said to them that they should not eat of the offerings of the most sacred order [kodesh hakodashim]” (Ezra 2:63)? This indicates that it is from the offerings of the most sacred order that they may not eat, but anything else, i.e., offerings not of the most sacred order, they may eat, including produce that is teruma by Torah law.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: לָא מִידֵּי דְּמִיקְּרֵי קֹדֶשׁ, וְלָא מִידֵּי דְּמִיקְּרֵי קָדָשִׁים. לָא מִידֵּי דְּמִיקְּרֵי קֹדֶשׁ – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״, וְלָא מִידֵּי דְּמִיקְּרֵי קָדָשִׁים, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר הִיא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״בַּמּוּרָם מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים
The Gemara answers: This is what the Tirshatha is saying: They may not partake of anything that is called sacred [kodesh], nor anything that is called most sacred [kodashim]. The Gemara clarifies. The words not anything that is called sacred are referring to teruma, as it is written with regard to teruma: “No non-priest may eat of the sacred” (Leviticus 22:10). And the words nor anything that is called most sacred are referring to offerings, as the verse states: “And a daughter of a priest, if she is married to a non-priest, she may not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred things” (Leviticus 22:12). And the Master says: What is the meaning of “that which is set apart from the sacred things”? It means from the portions separated from the offerings, i.e., the breast and thigh of a peace-offering,
