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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 19, 2016 | 讬状讗 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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. 聽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. 聽The gemara derives that according to the opinion that allows this, it is permitted ab initio. 聽And that opinion is accepted in halacha. 聽However, nowadays in the absence of Caananite maidservants, this solution is not possible. 聽The fourth perek begins with a description of all the differnet lineages聽of the people that came to Israel in the time of Ezra and who is allowed to marry who. 聽There is a debate between Rava and Abaye about what happened historically. 聽Did Ezra forceably remove all those with problematic lineage when he went to Israel to ensure that聽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.

讛讗讜诪专 诇砖驻讞转讜 讛专讬 讗转 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讜讜诇讚讱 注讘讚 讛讜诇讚 讻诪讜转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚谞讬讛

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鈥檚 statement is upheld, because it is stated: 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 21:4).

诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

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: 鈥淭he wife and her children,鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诪诪讝专讬谉 诇讬讟讛专 讻讬爪讚 诪诪讝专 砖谞砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讛讜诇讚 注讘讚 砖讬讞专专讜 谞诪爪讗 讛讘谉 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 注讘讚 诪诪讝专

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.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚讬注讘讚 拽讗诪专 转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讟讬讛专转 讗转 讛讝讻专讬诐 讜诇讗 讟讬讛专转 讗转 讛谞拽讬讘讜转

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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 拽讗诪专 诪诪讝专转 谞诪讬 转讬谞住讬讘 诇注讘讚讗 注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讬讬住

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鈥檚 question.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗讜砖驻讝讬讻谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 诪诪讝专 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗拽讚诪转讱 讟讛专转讬谞讛讜 诇讘谞讱 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讬注讘讚 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear, as Rabbi Simlai鈥檚 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?

讚诪谞住讬讘 诇讬讛 注爪讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讙谞讜讘 讜讗讬讝讚讘谉 讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 讜讘砖谞讬 讚专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 注讘讚 注讘专讬 诪讬 讛讜讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 拽讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 注讘讚 诪诪讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 驻住讜诇讜

搂 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: 鈥淓ven to the tenth generation none of his shall enter the assembly of the Lord鈥 (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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪砖驻讞转诐 诇讘讬转 讗讘转诐 讻转讬讘 讗转讗 诇讜 讗驻拽讬讛

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: 鈥淏y their families, by their fathers鈥 houses鈥 (Numbers 4:2), the child should follow his father鈥檚 lineage rather than that of his mother. Therefore, the term 鈥渙f his鈥 in the previously cited verse comes to exclude him from his father鈥檚 lineage, as it indicates that his lineage follows his mother when she is a mamzeret.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讘 诇诪砖驻讞转诐 诇讘讬转 讗讘转诐 讗转讗 诇讜 讗驻拽讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚谞讬讛 讗转讗 诇讜 讗驻拽讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讻诇 讜诇讚 讘诪注讬 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讻讜诇讚 讘诪注讬 讘讛诪讛 讚诪讬

And how does Rabbi Eliezer respond to this claim? Is it not the case that even though the Torah wrote: 鈥淏y their families, by their fathers鈥 houses,鈥 nevertheless, the term 鈥渙f his鈥 comes and excludes him? Here too, although it is written: 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 21:4), from which it is derived that the child of a Canaanite maidservant is like her, nevertheless the term 鈥渙f his鈥 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鈥檚 womb. Consequently, her children do not inherit the father鈥檚 status, even if his is the flawed lineage.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗讜诪专

 

诪转谞讬壮 注砖专讛 讬讜讞住讬诐 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 讻讛谞讬 诇讜讬讬 讬砖专讗诇讬 讞诇诇讬 讙讬专讬 讜讞专讜专讬 诪诪讝讬专讬 谞转讬谞讬 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬

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 [岣lalim]; 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.

讻讛谞讬 诇讜讬讬 讜讬砖专讗诇讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 诇讜讬讬 讬砖专讗诇讬 讞诇诇讬 讙讬专讬 讜讞专讜专讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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, 岣lalim, converts, and emancipated slaves, it is permitted for men and women in these categories to marry one another.

讙讬专讬 讜讞专讜专讬 诪诪讝讬专讬 讜谞转讬谞讬 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬 讻讜诇诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗诇讜 讛诐 砖转讜拽讬 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讻讬专 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讗住讜驻讬 讻诇 砖谞讗住祝 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 诇讗 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪讜 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 诇砖转讜拽讬 讘讚讜拽讬

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鈥檛 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.

讙诪壮 注砖专讛 讬讜讞住讬谉 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 谞讬转谞讬 讛诇讻讜 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜拽诪转 讜注诇讬转 讗诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讘讞专 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪诇诪讚 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讙讘讜讛 诪讻诇 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讙讘讜讛 诪讻诇 讛讗专爪讜转

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: 鈥淎nd you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord, your God, shall choose鈥 (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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讙讘讜讛 诪讻诇 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: Granted, the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael. This is derived from that which is written:

讚讘专讬 专讬讘转 讘砖注专讬讱 讜拽诪转 讜注诇讬转 讗诇讗 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讙讘讜讛 诪讻诇 讗专爪讜转 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 诇讻谉 讛谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讘讗讬诐 谞讗诐 讛壮 讜诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 注讜讚 讞讬 讛壮 讗砖专 讛注诇讛 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讻讬 讗诐 讞讬 讛壮 讗砖专 讛注诇讛 讜讗砖专 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讝专注 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 爪驻讜谞讛 讜诪讻诇 讛讗专爪讜转 讗砖专 讛讚讞转讬诐 砖诐

鈥淢atters of controversy within your gates, and you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord, your God, shall choose鈥 (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: 鈥淭herefore 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鈥 (Jeremiah 23:7鈥8). The phrase 鈥淲ho brought up鈥 indicates that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the other lands from where God will bring the Jewish people.

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 谞转谞讬 注诇讜 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 注诇讛 注讝专讗 诪讘讘诇 注讚 砖注砖讗讛 讻住讜诇转 谞拽讬讛 讜注诇讛

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.

讗讬转诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 注诇讜 诪讗讬诇讬讛诐 转谞谉 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讛注诇讜诐 转谞谉 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 注诇讛 注讝专讗 诪讘讘诇 注讚 砖注砖讗讛 讻住讜诇转 谞拽讬讛 讜注诇讛

搂 It was stated that amora鈥檌m 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.

讗讘讬讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗驻专讜砖讬 讗驻专讜砖讬谞讛讜 讜诪谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 住诇讬拽讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讬讛讜 讗住讜拽讬谞讛讜

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注诇讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讗专爪讜转 注讬住讛 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注讬住讛 诇讘讘诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注诇讜诐 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬谞讛讜 谞讛讬 讚讬讚注讬 诇讛讛讜讗 讚专讗 诇讚专讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 诇讗 讬讚注讬

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注诇讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗拽讘爪诐 讗诇 讛谞讛专 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜讛 讜谞讞谞讛 砖诐 讬诪讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讘讬谞讛 讘注诐 讜讘讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讘谞讬 诇讜讬 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 砖诐

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Ezra 8:15), as it was necessary for Ezra to clarify the identity of the people traveling to Eretz Yisrael.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注诇讜诐 讛讗 诪讬讝讛专 讝讛讬专讬 谞讛讬 讚讗讬讝讛讜专 讘驻住讜诇讬诐 讘讻砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 讗讬讝讚讛讜专

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.

讻讛谞讬 诇讜讬讬 讜讬砖专讗诇讬 诪谞诇谉 讚住诇讬拽讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖讘讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 讜诪谉 讛注诐 讜讛诪砖专专讬诐 讜讛砖讜注专讬诐 讜讛谞转讬谞讬诐 讘注专讬讛诐 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘注专讬讛诐

搂 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: 鈥淪o 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鈥 (Ezra 2:70). The verse specifies priests, Levites, and all of Israel.

讞诇诇讬 讙讬专讬 讜讞专讜专讬 讞诇诇讬 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讘谞讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讘讬讛 讘谞讬 讛拽讜抓 讘谞讬 讘专讝诇讬 讗砖专 诇拽讞 诪讘谞讜转 讘专讝诇讬 讛讙诇注讚讬 讗砖讛 讜讬拽专讗 注诇 砖诪诐 讗诇讛 讘拽砖讜 讻转讘诐 讛诪转讬讞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 谞诪爪讗讜 讜讬讙讗诇讜 诪谉 讛讻讛谞讛 讜讬讗诪专 讛转专砖转讗 诇讛诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 注讚 注诪讚 讻讛谉 诇讗讜专讬诐 讜诇转诪讬诐

The mishna further states that 岣lalim, converts, and emancipated slaves ascended from Babylonia. The Gemara clarifies: From where do we derive that 岣lalim 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥63).

讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛专讬 讗转诐 讘讞讝拽转讻诐 讘诪讛 讛讬讬转诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘讙讜诇讛 讘拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞诪讬 讘拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇

The baraita continues: This shows that there was uncertainty whether specific descendants of priests were fit for the priesthood or were 岣lalim, 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 鈥淭hey should not eat of the offerings of the most sacred order.鈥 In any event, since the verse writes that they were 鈥減ut out from the priesthood,鈥 it can be seen that there were 岣lalim who came with Ezra to Eretz Yisrael.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注诇讬诐 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讛谞讬 讚讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讗转讜 诇讗住讜拽讬谞讛讜 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专讬注 讞讝拽转讬讬讛讜

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.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讻讜诇 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讜诇 讜讻讬 诪住拽讬谞谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪住拽讬谞谉

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讘住讜祝 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讻讜诇 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讜诇

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.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛转专砖转讗 诇讛诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讘拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讗 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 谞讬讻讜诇

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the Tirshatha said to them that they should not eat of the offerings of the most sacred order [kodesh hakodashim]鈥 (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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讬拽专讬 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讬拽专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讬拽专讬 拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讬拽专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讛讬讗 讘转专讜诪转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讜讗诪专 诪专 讘诪讜专诐 诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐

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: 鈥淣o non-priest may eat of the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 22:10). And the words nor anything that is called most sacred are referring to offerings, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:12). And the Master says: What is the meaning of 鈥渢hat which is set apart from the sacred things鈥? It means from the portions separated from the offerings, i.e., the breast and thigh of a peace-offering,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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

Kiddushin 69

讛讗讜诪专 诇砖驻讞转讜 讛专讬 讗转 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讜讜诇讚讱 注讘讚 讛讜诇讚 讻诪讜转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚谞讬讛

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鈥檚 statement is upheld, because it is stated: 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 21:4).

诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

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: 鈥淭he wife and her children,鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诪诪讝专讬谉 诇讬讟讛专 讻讬爪讚 诪诪讝专 砖谞砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讛讜诇讚 注讘讚 砖讬讞专专讜 谞诪爪讗 讛讘谉 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 注讘讚 诪诪讝专

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.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚讬注讘讚 拽讗诪专 转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讟讬讛专转 讗转 讛讝讻专讬诐 讜诇讗 讟讬讛专转 讗转 讛谞拽讬讘讜转

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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 拽讗诪专 诪诪讝专转 谞诪讬 转讬谞住讬讘 诇注讘讚讗 注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讬讬住

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鈥檚 question.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗讜砖驻讝讬讻谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 诪诪讝专 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗拽讚诪转讱 讟讛专转讬谞讛讜 诇讘谞讱 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讬注讘讚 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear, as Rabbi Simlai鈥檚 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?

讚诪谞住讬讘 诇讬讛 注爪讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讙谞讜讘 讜讗讬讝讚讘谉 讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 讜讘砖谞讬 讚专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 注讘讚 注讘专讬 诪讬 讛讜讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 拽讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 注讘讚 诪诪讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 驻住讜诇讜

搂 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: 鈥淓ven to the tenth generation none of his shall enter the assembly of the Lord鈥 (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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪砖驻讞转诐 诇讘讬转 讗讘转诐 讻转讬讘 讗转讗 诇讜 讗驻拽讬讛

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: 鈥淏y their families, by their fathers鈥 houses鈥 (Numbers 4:2), the child should follow his father鈥檚 lineage rather than that of his mother. Therefore, the term 鈥渙f his鈥 in the previously cited verse comes to exclude him from his father鈥檚 lineage, as it indicates that his lineage follows his mother when she is a mamzeret.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讘 诇诪砖驻讞转诐 诇讘讬转 讗讘转诐 讗转讗 诇讜 讗驻拽讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚谞讬讛 讗转讗 诇讜 讗驻拽讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讻诇 讜诇讚 讘诪注讬 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讻讜诇讚 讘诪注讬 讘讛诪讛 讚诪讬

And how does Rabbi Eliezer respond to this claim? Is it not the case that even though the Torah wrote: 鈥淏y their families, by their fathers鈥 houses,鈥 nevertheless, the term 鈥渙f his鈥 comes and excludes him? Here too, although it is written: 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 21:4), from which it is derived that the child of a Canaanite maidservant is like her, nevertheless the term 鈥渙f his鈥 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鈥檚 womb. Consequently, her children do not inherit the father鈥檚 status, even if his is the flawed lineage.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗讜诪专

 

诪转谞讬壮 注砖专讛 讬讜讞住讬诐 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 讻讛谞讬 诇讜讬讬 讬砖专讗诇讬 讞诇诇讬 讙讬专讬 讜讞专讜专讬 诪诪讝讬专讬 谞转讬谞讬 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬

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 [岣lalim]; 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.

讻讛谞讬 诇讜讬讬 讜讬砖专讗诇讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 诇讜讬讬 讬砖专讗诇讬 讞诇诇讬 讙讬专讬 讜讞专讜专讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛

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, 岣lalim, converts, and emancipated slaves, it is permitted for men and women in these categories to marry one another.

讙讬专讬 讜讞专讜专讬 诪诪讝讬专讬 讜谞转讬谞讬 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬 讻讜诇诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗诇讜 讛诐 砖转讜拽讬 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讻讬专 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讗住讜驻讬 讻诇 砖谞讗住祝 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 诇讗 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪讜 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 诇砖转讜拽讬 讘讚讜拽讬

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鈥檛 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.

讙诪壮 注砖专讛 讬讜讞住讬谉 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 谞讬转谞讬 讛诇讻讜 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜拽诪转 讜注诇讬转 讗诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讘讞专 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪诇诪讚 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讙讘讜讛 诪讻诇 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讙讘讜讛 诪讻诇 讛讗专爪讜转

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: 鈥淎nd you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord, your God, shall choose鈥 (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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讙讘讜讛 诪讻诇 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: Granted, the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael. This is derived from that which is written:

讚讘专讬 专讬讘转 讘砖注专讬讱 讜拽诪转 讜注诇讬转 讗诇讗 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讙讘讜讛 诪讻诇 讗专爪讜转 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 诇讻谉 讛谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讘讗讬诐 谞讗诐 讛壮 讜诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 注讜讚 讞讬 讛壮 讗砖专 讛注诇讛 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讻讬 讗诐 讞讬 讛壮 讗砖专 讛注诇讛 讜讗砖专 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讝专注 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 爪驻讜谞讛 讜诪讻诇 讛讗专爪讜转 讗砖专 讛讚讞转讬诐 砖诐

鈥淢atters of controversy within your gates, and you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord, your God, shall choose鈥 (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: 鈥淭herefore 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鈥 (Jeremiah 23:7鈥8). The phrase 鈥淲ho brought up鈥 indicates that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the other lands from where God will bring the Jewish people.

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 谞转谞讬 注诇讜 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 注诇讛 注讝专讗 诪讘讘诇 注讚 砖注砖讗讛 讻住讜诇转 谞拽讬讛 讜注诇讛

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.

讗讬转诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 注诇讜 诪讗讬诇讬讛诐 转谞谉 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讛注诇讜诐 转谞谉 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 注诇讛 注讝专讗 诪讘讘诇 注讚 砖注砖讗讛 讻住讜诇转 谞拽讬讛 讜注诇讛

搂 It was stated that amora鈥檌m 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.

讗讘讬讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗驻专讜砖讬 讗驻专讜砖讬谞讛讜 讜诪谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 住诇讬拽讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讬讛讜 讗住讜拽讬谞讛讜

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注诇讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讗专爪讜转 注讬住讛 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注讬住讛 诇讘讘诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注诇讜诐 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬谞讛讜 谞讛讬 讚讬讚注讬 诇讛讛讜讗 讚专讗 诇讚专讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 诇讗 讬讚注讬

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注诇讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗拽讘爪诐 讗诇 讛谞讛专 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜讛 讜谞讞谞讛 砖诐 讬诪讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讘讬谞讛 讘注诐 讜讘讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讘谞讬 诇讜讬 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 砖诐

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Ezra 8:15), as it was necessary for Ezra to clarify the identity of the people traveling to Eretz Yisrael.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注诇讜诐 讛讗 诪讬讝讛专 讝讛讬专讬 谞讛讬 讚讗讬讝讛讜专 讘驻住讜诇讬诐 讘讻砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 讗讬讝讚讛讜专

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.

讻讛谞讬 诇讜讬讬 讜讬砖专讗诇讬 诪谞诇谉 讚住诇讬拽讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖讘讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 讜诪谉 讛注诐 讜讛诪砖专专讬诐 讜讛砖讜注专讬诐 讜讛谞转讬谞讬诐 讘注专讬讛诐 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘注专讬讛诐

搂 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: 鈥淪o 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鈥 (Ezra 2:70). The verse specifies priests, Levites, and all of Israel.

讞诇诇讬 讙讬专讬 讜讞专讜专讬 讞诇诇讬 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讘谞讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讘讬讛 讘谞讬 讛拽讜抓 讘谞讬 讘专讝诇讬 讗砖专 诇拽讞 诪讘谞讜转 讘专讝诇讬 讛讙诇注讚讬 讗砖讛 讜讬拽专讗 注诇 砖诪诐 讗诇讛 讘拽砖讜 讻转讘诐 讛诪转讬讞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 谞诪爪讗讜 讜讬讙讗诇讜 诪谉 讛讻讛谞讛 讜讬讗诪专 讛转专砖转讗 诇讛诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 注讚 注诪讚 讻讛谉 诇讗讜专讬诐 讜诇转诪讬诐

The mishna further states that 岣lalim, converts, and emancipated slaves ascended from Babylonia. The Gemara clarifies: From where do we derive that 岣lalim 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥63).

讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛专讬 讗转诐 讘讞讝拽转讻诐 讘诪讛 讛讬讬转诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘讙讜诇讛 讘拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞诪讬 讘拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇

The baraita continues: This shows that there was uncertainty whether specific descendants of priests were fit for the priesthood or were 岣lalim, 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 鈥淭hey should not eat of the offerings of the most sacred order.鈥 In any event, since the verse writes that they were 鈥減ut out from the priesthood,鈥 it can be seen that there were 岣lalim who came with Ezra to Eretz Yisrael.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注诇讬诐 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讛谞讬 讚讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讗转讜 诇讗住讜拽讬谞讛讜 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专讬注 讞讝拽转讬讬讛讜

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.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讻讜诇 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讜诇 讜讻讬 诪住拽讬谞谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪住拽讬谞谉

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讘住讜祝 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讻讜诇 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讜诇

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.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛转专砖转讗 诇讛诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讘拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讗 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 谞讬讻讜诇

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the Tirshatha said to them that they should not eat of the offerings of the most sacred order [kodesh hakodashim]鈥 (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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讬拽专讬 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讬拽专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讬拽专讬 拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讬拽专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讛讬讗 讘转专讜诪转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讜讗诪专 诪专 讘诪讜专诐 诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐

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: 鈥淣o non-priest may eat of the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 22:10). And the words nor anything that is called most sacred are referring to offerings, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:12). And the Master says: What is the meaning of 鈥渢hat which is set apart from the sacred things鈥? It means from the portions separated from the offerings, i.e., the breast and thigh of a peace-offering,

Scroll To Top