Today's Daf Yomi
May 19, 2016 | י״א באייר תשע״ו
-
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Kiddushin 69
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 Caananaite maidservant. If her offspring goes by her, then a male mamzer can marry her and have the master free the offspring in which case the offspring would be Jewish. The gemara derives that according to the opinion that allows this, it is permitted ab initio. And that opinion is accepted in halacha. However, nowadays in the absence of Caananite maidservants, this solution is not possible. The fourth perek begins with a description of all the differnet lineages of the people that came to Israel in the time of Ezra and who is allowed to marry who. There is a debate between Rava and Abaye about what happened historically. Did Ezra forceably 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.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
האומר לשפחתו הרי את בת חורין וולדך עבד הולד כמותה דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי וחכמים אומרים דבריו קיימים משום שנאמר האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדניה
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).
מאי תלמודא אמר רבא אדרבי יוסי הגלילי
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.
מתני׳ רבי טרפון אומר יכולין ממזרין ליטהר כיצד ממזר שנשא שפחה הולד עבד שיחררו נמצא הבן בן חורין רבי אליעזר אומר הרי זה עבד ממזר
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.
גמ׳ איבעיא להו רבי טרפון לכתחילה קאמר או דיעבד קאמר תא שמע אמרו לו לרבי טרפון טיהרת את הזכרים ולא טיהרת את הנקיבות
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.
ואי אמרת לכתחילה קאמר ממזרת נמי תינסיב לעבדא עבד אין לו חייס
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.
תא שמע דאושפזיכניה דרבי שמלאי ממזר הוה ואמר ליה אי אקדמתך טהרתינהו לבנך אי אמרת בשלמא לכתחילה שפיר אלא אי אמרת דיעבד מאי ניהו
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?
דמנסיב ליה עצה ואמר ליה זיל גנוב ואיזדבן בעבד עברי ובשני דרבי שמלאי עבד עברי מי הוה והאמר מר אין עבד עברי נוהג אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג אלא לאו שמע מינה רבי טרפון לכתחילה קאמר שמע מינה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי טרפון
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.
רבי אליעזר אומר הרי זה עבד ממזר אמר רבי אלעזר מאי טעמיה דרבי אליעזר דאמר קרא לו הלך אחר פסולו
§ 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.
ורבנן ההוא בישראל שנשא ממזרת סלקא דעתך אמינא למשפחתם לבית אבתם כתיב אתא לו אפקיה
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.
ורבי אליעזר לאו אף על גב דכתב למשפחתם לבית אבתם אתא לו אפקיה הכא נמי אף על גב דכתיב האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדניה אתא לו אפקיה ורבנן כל ולד במעי שפחה כנענית כולד במעי בהמה דמי
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.
הדרן עלך האומר
May we return to you, chapter “the one who says”
עשרה יוחסים עלו מבבל כהני לויי ישראלי חללי גירי וחרורי ממזירי נתיני שתוקי ואסופי
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.
כהני לויי וישראלי מותרין לבא זה בזה לויי ישראלי חללי גירי וחרורי מותרין לבא זה בזה
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.
גירי וחרורי ממזירי ונתיני שתוקי ואסופי כולם מותרין לבא זה בזה ואלו הם שתוקי כל שהוא מכיר את אמו ואינו מכיר את אביו אסופי כל שנאסף מן השוק ואינו מכיר לא את אביו ולא אמו אבא שאול היה קורא לשתוקי בדוקי
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.
גמ׳ עשרה יוחסין עלו מבבל מאי איריא דתני עלו מבבל ניתני הלכו לארץ ישראל מילתא אגב אורחיה קא משמע לן כדתניא וקמת ועלית אל המקום אשר יבחר ה׳ אלהיך מלמד שבית המקדש גבוה מכל ארץ ישראל וארץ ישראל גבוה מכל הארצות
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.
בשלמא בית המקדש גבוה מכל ארץ ישראל היינו דכתיב
The Gemara asks: Granted, the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael. This is derived from that which is written:
דברי ריבת בשעריך וקמת ועלית אלא ארץ ישראל גבוה מכל ארצות מנלן דכתיב לכן הנה ימים באים נאם ה׳ ולא יאמרו עוד חי ה׳ אשר העלה את בני ישראל מארץ מצרים כי אם חי ה׳ אשר העלה ואשר הביא את זרע בית ישראל מארץ צפונה ומכל הארצות אשר הדחתים שם
“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.
מאי איריא דתני עלו מבבל נתני עלו לארץ ישראל מסייע ליה לרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר לא עלה עזרא מבבל עד שעשאה כסולת נקיה ועלה
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.
איתמר אביי אמר עלו מאיליהם תנן ורבא אמר העלום תנן וקמיפלגי בדרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר לא עלה עזרא מבבל עד שעשאה כסולת נקיה ועלה
§ 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.
אביי לית ליה דרבי אלעזר רבא אית ליה דרבי אלעזר איבעית אימא דכולי עלמא אית להו דרבי אלעזר והכא בהא קא מיפלגי מר סבר אפרושי אפרושינהו ומנפשייהו סליקו ומר סבר בעל כרחייהו אסוקינהו
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.
בשלמא למאן דאמר עלו היינו דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל ארצות עיסה לארץ ישראל וארץ ישראל עיסה לבבל אלא למאן דאמר העלום מידע ידעינהו נהי דידעי לההוא דרא לדרא אחריני לא ידעי
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.
בשלמא למאן דאמר עלו היינו דכתיב ואקבצם אל הנהר הבא על אחוה ונחנה שם ימים שלשה ואבינה בעם ובכהנים ומבני לוי לא מצאתי שם
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.
אלא למאן דאמר העלום הא מיזהר זהירי נהי דאיזהור בפסולים בכשירים לא איזדהור
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.
כהני לויי וישראלי מנלן דסליקו דכתיב וישבו הכהנים והלוים ומן העם והמשררים והשוערים והנתינים בעריהם וכל ישראל בעריהם
§ 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.
חללי גירי וחרורי חללי מנלן דתניא רבי יוסי אומר גדולה חזקה שנאמר ומבני הכהנים בני חביה בני הקוץ בני ברזלי אשר לקח מבנות ברזלי הגלעדי אשה ויקרא על שמם אלה בקשו כתבם המתיחשים ולא נמצאו ויגאלו מן הכהנה ויאמר התרשתא להם אשר לא יאכלו מקדש הקדשים עד עמד כהן לאורים ולתמים
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).
ואמר להם הרי אתם בחזקתכם במה הייתם אוכלים בגולה בקדשי הגבול אף כאן נמי בקדשי הגבול
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.
ולמאן דאמר מעלים מתרומה ליוחסין הני דאכול בתרומה אתו לאסוקינהו שאני התם דריע חזקתייהו
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.
ואלא מאי גדולה חזקה דמעיקרא אכול בתרומה דרבנן ולבסוף אכול בתרומה דאורייתא
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.
ואיבעית אימא לעולם השתא נמי בדרבנן אכול בדאורייתא לא אכול וכי מסקינן מתרומה ליוחסין מדאורייתא מדרבנן לא מסקינן
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.
אי הכי מאי גדולה חזקה דמעיקרא ליכא למיגזר משום תרומה דאורייתא לבסוף אף על גב דאיכא למיגזר משום תרומה דאורייתא בדרבנן אכול בדאורייתא לא אכול
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.
והכתיב ויאמר התרשתא להם אשר לא יאכלו מקדש הקדשים בקדש הקדשים הוא דלא יאכל הא כל מידי ניכול
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.
הכי קאמר לא מידי דמיקרי קדש ולא מידי דמיקרי קדשים לא מידי דמיקרי קדש דכתיב וכל זר לא יאכל קדש ולא מידי דמיקרי קדשים דאמר קרא ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר היא בתרומת הקדשים לא תאכל ואמר מר במורם מן הקדשים
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,
-
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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 69
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
האומר לשפחתו הרי את בת חורין וולדך עבד הולד כמותה דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי וחכמים אומרים דבריו קיימים משום שנאמר האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדניה
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).
מאי תלמודא אמר רבא אדרבי יוסי הגלילי
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.
מתני׳ רבי טרפון אומר יכולין ממזרין ליטהר כיצד ממזר שנשא שפחה הולד עבד שיחררו נמצא הבן בן חורין רבי אליעזר אומר הרי זה עבד ממזר
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.
גמ׳ איבעיא להו רבי טרפון לכתחילה קאמר או דיעבד קאמר תא שמע אמרו לו לרבי טרפון טיהרת את הזכרים ולא טיהרת את הנקיבות
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.
ואי אמרת לכתחילה קאמר ממזרת נמי תינסיב לעבדא עבד אין לו חייס
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.
תא שמע דאושפזיכניה דרבי שמלאי ממזר הוה ואמר ליה אי אקדמתך טהרתינהו לבנך אי אמרת בשלמא לכתחילה שפיר אלא אי אמרת דיעבד מאי ניהו
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?
דמנסיב ליה עצה ואמר ליה זיל גנוב ואיזדבן בעבד עברי ובשני דרבי שמלאי עבד עברי מי הוה והאמר מר אין עבד עברי נוהג אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג אלא לאו שמע מינה רבי טרפון לכתחילה קאמר שמע מינה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי טרפון
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.
רבי אליעזר אומר הרי זה עבד ממזר אמר רבי אלעזר מאי טעמיה דרבי אליעזר דאמר קרא לו הלך אחר פסולו
§ 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.
ורבנן ההוא בישראל שנשא ממזרת סלקא דעתך אמינא למשפחתם לבית אבתם כתיב אתא לו אפקיה
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.
ורבי אליעזר לאו אף על גב דכתב למשפחתם לבית אבתם אתא לו אפקיה הכא נמי אף על גב דכתיב האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדניה אתא לו אפקיה ורבנן כל ולד במעי שפחה כנענית כולד במעי בהמה דמי
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.
הדרן עלך האומר
May we return to you, chapter “the one who says”
עשרה יוחסים עלו מבבל כהני לויי ישראלי חללי גירי וחרורי ממזירי נתיני שתוקי ואסופי
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.
כהני לויי וישראלי מותרין לבא זה בזה לויי ישראלי חללי גירי וחרורי מותרין לבא זה בזה
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.
גירי וחרורי ממזירי ונתיני שתוקי ואסופי כולם מותרין לבא זה בזה ואלו הם שתוקי כל שהוא מכיר את אמו ואינו מכיר את אביו אסופי כל שנאסף מן השוק ואינו מכיר לא את אביו ולא אמו אבא שאול היה קורא לשתוקי בדוקי
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.
גמ׳ עשרה יוחסין עלו מבבל מאי איריא דתני עלו מבבל ניתני הלכו לארץ ישראל מילתא אגב אורחיה קא משמע לן כדתניא וקמת ועלית אל המקום אשר יבחר ה׳ אלהיך מלמד שבית המקדש גבוה מכל ארץ ישראל וארץ ישראל גבוה מכל הארצות
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.
בשלמא בית המקדש גבוה מכל ארץ ישראל היינו דכתיב
The Gemara asks: Granted, the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael. This is derived from that which is written:
דברי ריבת בשעריך וקמת ועלית אלא ארץ ישראל גבוה מכל ארצות מנלן דכתיב לכן הנה ימים באים נאם ה׳ ולא יאמרו עוד חי ה׳ אשר העלה את בני ישראל מארץ מצרים כי אם חי ה׳ אשר העלה ואשר הביא את זרע בית ישראל מארץ צפונה ומכל הארצות אשר הדחתים שם
“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.
מאי איריא דתני עלו מבבל נתני עלו לארץ ישראל מסייע ליה לרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר לא עלה עזרא מבבל עד שעשאה כסולת נקיה ועלה
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.
איתמר אביי אמר עלו מאיליהם תנן ורבא אמר העלום תנן וקמיפלגי בדרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר לא עלה עזרא מבבל עד שעשאה כסולת נקיה ועלה
§ 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.
אביי לית ליה דרבי אלעזר רבא אית ליה דרבי אלעזר איבעית אימא דכולי עלמא אית להו דרבי אלעזר והכא בהא קא מיפלגי מר סבר אפרושי אפרושינהו ומנפשייהו סליקו ומר סבר בעל כרחייהו אסוקינהו
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.
בשלמא למאן דאמר עלו היינו דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל ארצות עיסה לארץ ישראל וארץ ישראל עיסה לבבל אלא למאן דאמר העלום מידע ידעינהו נהי דידעי לההוא דרא לדרא אחריני לא ידעי
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.
בשלמא למאן דאמר עלו היינו דכתיב ואקבצם אל הנהר הבא על אחוה ונחנה שם ימים שלשה ואבינה בעם ובכהנים ומבני לוי לא מצאתי שם
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.
אלא למאן דאמר העלום הא מיזהר זהירי נהי דאיזהור בפסולים בכשירים לא איזדהור
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.
כהני לויי וישראלי מנלן דסליקו דכתיב וישבו הכהנים והלוים ומן העם והמשררים והשוערים והנתינים בעריהם וכל ישראל בעריהם
§ 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.
חללי גירי וחרורי חללי מנלן דתניא רבי יוסי אומר גדולה חזקה שנאמר ומבני הכהנים בני חביה בני הקוץ בני ברזלי אשר לקח מבנות ברזלי הגלעדי אשה ויקרא על שמם אלה בקשו כתבם המתיחשים ולא נמצאו ויגאלו מן הכהנה ויאמר התרשתא להם אשר לא יאכלו מקדש הקדשים עד עמד כהן לאורים ולתמים
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).
ואמר להם הרי אתם בחזקתכם במה הייתם אוכלים בגולה בקדשי הגבול אף כאן נמי בקדשי הגבול
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.
ולמאן דאמר מעלים מתרומה ליוחסין הני דאכול בתרומה אתו לאסוקינהו שאני התם דריע חזקתייהו
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.
ואלא מאי גדולה חזקה דמעיקרא אכול בתרומה דרבנן ולבסוף אכול בתרומה דאורייתא
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.
ואיבעית אימא לעולם השתא נמי בדרבנן אכול בדאורייתא לא אכול וכי מסקינן מתרומה ליוחסין מדאורייתא מדרבנן לא מסקינן
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.
אי הכי מאי גדולה חזקה דמעיקרא ליכא למיגזר משום תרומה דאורייתא לבסוף אף על גב דאיכא למיגזר משום תרומה דאורייתא בדרבנן אכול בדאורייתא לא אכול
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.
והכתיב ויאמר התרשתא להם אשר לא יאכלו מקדש הקדשים בקדש הקדשים הוא דלא יאכל הא כל מידי ניכול
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.
הכי קאמר לא מידי דמיקרי קדש ולא מידי דמיקרי קדשים לא מידי דמיקרי קדש דכתיב וכל זר לא יאכל קדש ולא מידי דמיקרי קדשים דאמר קרא ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר היא בתרומת הקדשים לא תאכל ואמר מר במורם מן הקדשים
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,
