Kiddushin 72
וְהָאִידָּנָא הוּא [דְּ]דַלְיוּהּ פָּרְסָאֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: לְהָא גִּיסָא דִפְרָת עַד הֵיכָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? מִשּׁוּם בִּירָם? מְיַיחֲסִי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מִבִּירָם נָסְבִי.
And it is only now that the Persians moved the bridge further up northward. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Until where does the border extend on this western side of the Euphrates? Rav Yosef said to him: What are you thinking? Why do you ask? Is it due to the town of Biram? Even those of pure lineage who live in Pumbedita marry women from Biram, which demonstrates that the residents of Biram are presumed to have unflawed lineage.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת לְיוּחֲסִין, כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת לְעִנְיַן גִּיטִּין. וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת לְיוּחֲסִין, אֲבָל לְגִיטִּין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עַד אַרְבָּא תִנְיָינָא דְּגִישְׁרָא.
Rav Pappa says: Just as there is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel as to the northern border of Babylonia with regard to lineage, so is there a dispute with regard to bills of divorce. An agent bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael must state that it was written and signed in his presence. If he brought it from Babylonia, there is no requirement for him to state this. Rav Pappa is teaching that the borders that define Babylonia with regard to this issue are the same as the borders with regard to lineage. And Rav Yosef says: This dispute is with regard to lineage, but with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees that it is considered Babylonia up to the second lake of the bridge that Shmuel mentioned.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא: חֲבֵיל יַמָּא – תְּכֵילְתָּא דְבָבֶל. שׁוּנְיָא וְגוּבְיָא – תְּכֵילְתָּא דַּחֲבֵיל יַמָּא. רָבִינָא אָמַר: אַף צִיצוֹרָא. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, חָנָן בֶּן פִּנְחָס אוֹמֵר: חֲבֵיל יַמָּא – תְּכֵילְתָּא דְּבָבֶל, שׁוּנְיָא וְגוּבְיָא וְצִיצוֹרָא – תְּכֵילְתָּא דַּחֲבֵיל יַמָּא. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְהָאִידָּנָא אִיעָרַבִי בְּהוּ כּוּתָאֵי. וְלָא הִיא, אִיתְּתָא הוּא דִּבְעָא מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְלָא יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ. מַאי חֲבֵיל יַמָּא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: זוֹ פְּרָת דְּבוֹרְסִי.
Rami bar Abba said: The province of Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia with regard to lineage; Shunya and Guvya are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Ravina said: The town of Tzitzora is also like Shunya and Guvya. This is also taught in a baraita: Ḥanan ben Pineḥas says: Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia; Shunya and Guvya and Tzitzora are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Rav Pappa says: And nowadays, Samaritans have assimilated with them, and their lineage is problematic. The Gemara comments: And that is not so. Rather, one Samaritan requested to marry a woman from them and they would not give her to him, which led to the rumor that Samaritans had assimilated with them. The Gemara asks: What is this region called Ḥaveil Yamma? Rav Pappa said: This is the area near the Euphrates adjacent to Bursi.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא מִן שׁוֹט מֵישׁוֹט, עָמַד רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא עַל רַגְלָיו וְאָמַר: שׁוֹט מֵישׁוֹט בֵּין הַנְּהָרוֹת עוֹמֶדֶת. וְכִי בֵּין הַנְּהָרוֹת עוֹמֶדֶת, מַאי הָוֵי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בֵּין הַנְּהָרוֹת הֲרֵי הִיא כַּגּוֹלָה לְיוּחֲסִין. וְהֵיכָא קָיְימָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֵאִיהִי דְקִירָא וּלְעֵיל. וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד מַעְבַּרְתָּא דְגִיזְמָא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רְצוּעָה נָפְקָא.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to the Sages: I am from a place called Shot Mishot. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa stood on his feet and said: Shot Mishot is located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The Gemara asks: And if it is located between the rivers, what of it? What halakha is this relevant for? Abaye said that Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The area between the rivers is like the exile, meaning Pumbedita, with regard to lineage. The Gemara inquires: And where is the area between the rivers located for the purpose of this halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From Ihi Dekira and upward, i.e., northward. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Until the crossing at Gizma but no further? Abaye said: A strip extends from that region past Ihi Dekira.
אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב: חִלָּזוֹן נִיהֲוַונְד הֲרֵי הִיא כַּגּוֹלָה לְיוּחֲסִין. אֲמַר לְהוּ אַבָּיֵי: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, יְבָמָה הִיא דִּנְפַלָה לֵיהּ הָתָם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ דִּידִי הִיא? דְּרַב חֲנַנְאֵל הִיא! אֲזוּל שַׁיְילוּהּ לְרַב חֲנַנְאֵל, אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב: חִלָּזוֹן נִיהֲוַונְד הֲרֵי הִיא כַּגּוֹלָה לְיוּחֲסִין.
Rav Ika bar Avin says that Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage. Abaye said to them: Do not listen to Rav Ika bar Avin about this, as it was a yevama who fell before him from there to perform levirate marriage, and he said that its lineage was unflawed because he wished to marry her. Rav Ika bar Avin said to him: Is that to say that this halakha is mine? It is Rav Ḥananel’s, and it is not reasonable to say that I was influenced by my own interests in stating it. They went and asked Rav Ḥananel. He said to them: Rav said as follows: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּנְחֵם בַּחְלַח וּבְחָבוֹר נְהַר גּוֹזָן וְעָרֵי מָדָי״, חֲלַח – זוֹ חִלָּזוֹן, חָבוֹר – זוֹ הַדְיָיב, נְהַר גּוֹזָן – זוֹ גִּינְזַק, עָרֵי מָדָי – זוֹ חֲמָדָן וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: זוֹ נִהֲוַונְד וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ.
The Gemara comments: And this disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, as Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the exile of the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel: “And he put them in Halah, and in Habor, on the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (II Kings 18:11)? Halah is Ḥillazon; Habor is Hadyav; the river of Gozan is Ginzak; the cities of the Medes are Ḥamadan and its neighboring towns, and some say: This is Nihavnad and its neighboring towns. Since the ten tribes assimilated with the gentiles, the lineage of Jews from those places is flawed, unlike that which was taught before.
מַאי חַבְרוֹתֶיהָ? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּרַךְ מוּשְׁכֵּי חוּסְקֵי וְרוּמְקֵי. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְכוּלָּם לִפְסוּל. קָסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּא: מוּשְׁכֵּי הַיְינוּ מוּשְׁכְּנֵי. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מוּשְׁכְּנֵי הֲרֵי הִיא כַּגּוֹלָה לְיוּחֲסִין! אֶלָּא מוּשְׁכֵּי לְחוּד וּמוּשְׁכְּנֵי לְחוּד.
The Gemara asks: What are the neighboring towns of Nihavnad? Shmuel said: The city of Mushekhei, Ḥosekei, and Rumekei. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And all of these are the same with regard to flawed lineage. It was assumed that Mushekhei is the same as Mushekanei. The Gemara therefore asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin say that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile with regard to lineage? Rather, it must be that Mushekhei is discrete, and Mushekanei is discrete.
״וּתְלָת עִלְעִין בְּפֻמַּהּ בֵּין שִׁנַּהּ״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ חִלָּזוֹן, הַדְיָיב, וּנְצִיבִין, שֶׁפְּעָמִים בּוֹלַעְתָּן וּפְעָמִים פּוֹלַטְתָּן.
In connection to the aforementioned places, the Gemara analyzes the following verse, describing a vision of a bear-like animal: “And it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth” (Daniel 7:5). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is Ḥillazon, Hadyav, and Netzivin, which the Persian government sometimes swallows and sometimes discharges. In other words, control over these places passed from the Persians to the Romans and back again several times.
״וַאֲרוּ חֵיוָה אׇחֳרִי תִנְיָנָה דָּמְיָה לְדֹב״. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵלּוּ פָּרְסִיִּים, שֶׁאוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין כְּדוֹב, וּמְסוּרְבָּלִין כְּדוֹב, וּמְגַדְּלִין שֵׂעָר כְּדוֹב, וְאֵין לָהֶם מְנוּחָה כְּדוֹב. רַבִּי אַמֵּי כִּי הֲוָה חָזֵי פָּרְסָא דְּרָכֵיב, אָמַר: הַיְינוּ דּוּבָּא נָיְידָא.
The first part of that verse stated: “And behold a second beast, similar to a bear” (Daniel 7:5). Rav Yosef taught: These are Persians, who eat and drink copious amounts like a bear, and are corpulent like a bear, and grow hair like a bear, and have no rest like a bear, which is constantly on the move from one place to another. When Rabbi Ami saw a Persian riding, he would say: This is a bear on the move.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְלֵוִי: הַרְאֵנִי פָּרְסִיִּים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דּוֹמִים לַחֲיָילוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית דָּוִד. הַרְאֵנִי חַבָּרִין. דּוֹמִין לְמַלְאֲכֵי חַבָּלָה. הַרְאֵנִי יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים. דּוֹמִין לִשְׂעִירִים שֶׁל בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא. הַרְאֵנִי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁבְּבָבֶל. דּוֹמִים לְמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Levi: Show me Persians, i.e., describe a typical Persian to me. Levi said to him: They are similar to the legions of the house of David. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ḥabbarin, Persian priests. Levi said to him: They are similar to angels of destruction. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ishmaelites. Levi said to him: They are similar to demons of an outhouse. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Torah scholars of Babylonia. Levi said to him: They are similar to ministering angels.
כִּי הֲוָה נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲמַר: הוּמַנְיָא אִיכָּא בְּבָבֶל – כּוּלַּהּ עַמּוֹנָאֵי הִיא. מַסְגַּרְיָא אִיכָּא בְּבָבֶל – כּוּלָּהּ דְּמַמְזֵירֵי הִיא. בִּירְקָא אִיכָּא בְּבָבֶל – שְׁנֵי אַחִים יֵשׁ [בָּהּ] שֶׁמַּחֲלִיפִים נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם זֶה לָזֶה. בִּירְתָּא דְּסָטְיָא אִיכָּא בְּבָבֶל – הַיּוֹם סָרוּ מֵאַחֲרֵי הַמָּקוֹם, דְּאַקְפִּי פִּירָא בִּכְווֹרֵי בְּשַׁבְּתָא וַאֲזֻיל וְצָדוּ בְּהוּ בְּשַׁבְּתָא וְשַׁמְּתִינְהוּ רַבִּי אַחַי בְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה וְאִישְׁתַּמּוּד. אַקְרָא דְאַגְמָא אִיכָּא בְּבָבֶל – אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה יֵשׁ בָּהּ,
When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, he said prophetically: There is a place called Homanya in Babylonia, and all its people are the sons of Ammon. There is a place called Masgariya in Babylonia, and all its people are mamzerim. There is a place called Bireka in Babylonia, and there are two brothers there who exchange wives with each other, and their children are therefore mamzerim. There is a place called Bireta DeSatya in Babylonia. Today they turned away from the Omnipresent. What did they do? A ditch with fish overflowed, and they went and trapped the fish on Shabbat. Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, excommunicated them, and they all became apostates. There is a place called Akra DeAgma in Babylonia. There is a man named Adda bar Ahava there.
הַיּוֹם יוֹשֵׁב בְּחֵיקוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם. הַיּוֹם נוֹלַד רַב יְהוּדָה בְּבָבֶל.
Today he is sitting in the lap of Abraham our forefather, since he has just been circumcised. He added: Today Rav Yehuda was born in Babylonia.
דְּאָמַר מָר: כְּשֶׁמֵּת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נוֹלַד רַבִּי. כְּשֶׁמֵּת רַבִּי נוֹלַד רַב יְהוּדָה. כְּשֶׁמֵּת רַב יְהוּדָה נוֹלַד רָבָא. כְּשֶׁמֵּת רָבָא נוֹלַד רַב אָשֵׁי. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאֵין צַדִּיק נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁנִּבְרָא צַדִּיק כְּמוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְזָרַח הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וּבָא הַשָּׁמֶשׁ״. עַד שֶׁלֹּא כָּבְתָה שִׁמְשׁוֹ שֶׁל עֵלִי זָרְחָה שִׁמְשׁוֹ שֶׁל שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנֵר אֱלֹהִים טֶרֶם יִכְבֶּה וּשְׁמוּאֵל שׁוֹכֵב וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara comments: As the Master said: While Rabbi Akiva was dying, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was born; while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, Rav Yehuda was born; while Rav Yehuda was dying, Rava was born; while Rava was dying, Rav Ashi was born. This teaches you that a righteous person does not leave the world before an equally righteous person is created, as it is stated: “The sun also rises and the sun also sets” (Ecclesiastes 1:5). The same applies to earlier generations: Before Eli’s sun had gone out, Samuel the Ramathite’s sun was already rising, as it is stated: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying in the Temple of the Lord” (I Samuel 3:3), which teaches that Samuel was already prophesying in the days of Eli.
״צִוָּה ה׳ לְיַעֲקֹב סְבִיבָיו צָרָיו״. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: כְּגוֹן הוּמַנְיָא לְפוּם נַהֲרָא.
The Gemara stated above that Homanya is an Ammonite city. The verse states: “The Lord has commanded concerning Jacob, that they that are round about him should be his adversaries” (Lamentations 1:17), indicating that the Jewish people are surrounded by enemies even in its exile. Rav Yehuda says: Homanya is close to Pum Nahara, which had Jewish residents.
״וַיְהִי כְּהִנָּבְאִי וּפְלַטְיָהוּ בֶן בְּנָיָה מֵת וָאֶפֹּל עַל פָּנַי וָאֶזְעַק קוֹל גָּדוֹל וָאֹמַר אֲהָהּ אֲדֹנָי ה׳״, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר: לְטוֹבָה, וְחַד אָמַר: לְרָעָה. מַאן דְּאָמַר לְטוֹבָה – כִּי הָא דְּאִיסְתַּנְדְּרָא דְמֵישָׁן חַתְנֵיהּ דִּנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הֲוָה, שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: מִכּוּלֵּי הַאי שְׁבִיָּיה דְּאַיְיתֵית לָךְ – לָא שַׁדַּרְתְּ לַן דְּקָאֵי לְקַמַּן?
The verse states: “And it came to pass, when I prophesied, that Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died. Then fell I down upon my face, and cried with a loud voice, and said: Ah Lord God!” (Ezekiel 11:13). Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to the meaning of this verse. One said it should be interpreted for good, and one said it should be interpreted for evil. How so? The one who says that it should be interpreted for good claims it is like that story involving the governor [de’istandera] of the province of Meishan, who was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar. He sent a message to his father-in-law: From all those captives you have brought for yourself from your wars you have not sent us anyone to stand before us.
בָּעֵי לְשַׁדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ פְּלַטְיָהוּ בֶּן בְּנָיָהוּ: אֲנַן דַּחֲשִׁבִינַן נֵיקוּ מִקַּמָּךְ הָכָא, וְעַבְדִין נֵיזְלוּ לְהָתָם. וַאֲמַר נְבִיָּא: מִי שֶׁעָשָׂה טוֹבָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, יָמוּת בַּחֲצִי יָמָיו?
Nebuchadnezzar wanted to send him captives from the Jews to serve his son-in-law. Pelatiah, son of Benaiah, said to Nebuchadnezzar: We, who are important, shall stand and serve before you here, and our slaves will go there, to your son-in-law. Nebuchadnezzar took his advice. And about him the prophet Ezekiel said: One who did this good for the Jewish people, i.e., Pelatiah ben Benaiah, who spared them this exile, should he die at half of his days?
מַאן דְּאָמַר לְרָעָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתָּבֵא אֹתִי אֶל שַׁעַר בֵּית ה׳ הַקַּדְמוֹנִי הַפּוֹנֶה קָדִימָה וְהִנֵּה בְּפֶתַח הַשַּׁעַר עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה אִישׁ וָאֶרְאֶה בְתוֹכָם אֶת יַאֲזַנְיָה בֶן עַזֻּר וְאֶת פְּלַטְיָהוּ בֶן בְּנָיָהוּ שָׂרֵי הָעָם״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹא אֹתִי אֶל חֲצַר בֵּית ה׳ הַפְּנִימִית וְהִנֵּה פֶתַח הֵיכַל ה׳ בֵּין הָאוּלָם וּבֵין הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה אִישׁ אֲחֹרֵיהֶם אֶל הֵיכַל ה׳ וּפְנֵיהֶם קֵדְמָה״.
The one who says that the verse should be interpreted for evil cites the following verse, as it is written: “Then a spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the Lord’s House, which looked eastward; and behold, at the door of the gate five and twenty men; and I saw in the midst of them Jaazaniah the son of Azzur, and Pelatiah the son of Benaiah, princes of the people” (Ezekiel 11:1), and it is written: “And He brought me into the inner court of the Lord’s House, and, behold, at the door of the Temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east” (Ezekiel 8:16).
מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּפְנֵיהֶם קֵדְמָה״ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם כְּלַפֵּי מַעֲרָב? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״[אֲחֹרֵיהֶם] אֶל הֵיכַל ה׳״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ מַפְרִיעִין עַצְמָם וּמַתְרִיזִין עַצְמָם כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה. וְקָאָמַר נְבִיָּא: מִי שֶׁעָשָׂה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יָמוּת עַל מִיטָּתוֹ?!
The second verse is analyzed in light of the first verse, which states that Pelatiah ben Benaiah was among the twenty-five people: From the fact that it is stated: “And their faces toward the east,” don’t I know that their backs were toward the west, where the Temple was? What is the meaning when the verse states: “Their backs toward the Temple of the Lord”? These words hint at another matter, as the verse teaches that they exposed themselves from behind and discharged excrement toward the One above, in the direction of the Temple. And the prophet is saying: Shall he who did this evil in Israel die peacefully on his bed?
תִּסְתַּיֵּים דִּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר לְרָעָה, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מוּשְׁכְּנֵי – הֲרֵי הִיא כַּגּוֹלָה לַיּוֹחֲסִים. מֵישׁוֹן – לֹא חָשׁוּ לָהּ לֹא מִשּׁוּם עַבְדוּת וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מַמְזֵרוּת, אֶלָּא כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהּ לֹא הִקְפִּידוּ עַל הַגְּרוּשׁוֹת.
The Gemara comments: It may be concluded that it was Shmuel who said this was for evil, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile with regard to lineage. And even with regard to Mishon, they were not concerned due to slavery nor due to mamzer status. Rather, the priests who were there were not particular with regard to the prohibition against priests marrying divorced women. Consequently, Shmuel maintains that the only flaw of lineage in Mishon was that of ḥalalim, whereas the opinion that the verse was stated for good maintains that the some of the residents of Mishon were slaves.
לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לְטוֹבָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: הַמַּפְקִיר עַבְדּוֹ – יָצָא לְחֵירוּת וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל עֶבֶד אִישׁ מִקְנַת כָּסֶף״, עֶבֶד אִישׁ וְלֹא עֶבֶד אִשָּׁה? אֶלָּא: עֶבֶד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְרַבּוֹ עָלָיו – קָרוּי עֶבֶד, עֶבֶד שֶׁאֵין לְרַבּוֹ רְשׁוּת עָלָיו – אֵין קָרוּי עֶבֶד.
The Gemara rejects this: Actually, I could say to you that Shmuel said it was for good, and there is no contradiction, since Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated and he does not even require a bill of manumission. Shmuel cited a proof from that which is stated: “But every slave man that is bought for money” (Exodus 12:44). Does this apply only to a slave who is a man, and not to a woman slave? Rather, it means: The slave of a man, i.e., a slave whose master has authority and control over him, is called a slave, since he is the slave of a particular man. A slave whose master does not have authority over him, such as one who has been declared ownerless, is not called a slave but a freeman. The slaves who went to Mishon no longer had the status of slaves because their masters remained behind.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל אֲרָצוֹת בְּחֶזְקַת כְּשֵׁרוֹת הֵם עוֹמְדוֹת.
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This mishna, which indicates that only the inhabitants of Babylonia have unflawed lineage, is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis say: All lands retain a presumptive status of unflawed lineage.
אַמֵּימָר שְׁרָא לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן לְמִינְסַב אִיתְּתָא מְחוּזְיָיתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ – דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל אֲרָצוֹת בְּחֶזְקַת כְּשֵׁרוֹת הֵן עוֹמְדוֹת? וְהָא בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא לָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי, וּבֵי רַב פָּפָּא לָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי, וּבֵי רַב זְבִיד לָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא קַיבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מֵרַב זְבִיד דִּנְהַרְדְּעָא.
The Gemara comments: Ameimar permitted Rav Huna bar Natan to marry a woman from Meḥoza, which is outside the borders of Babylonia as pertains to lineage. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is your reasoning in allowing him to do so? Is it because Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say all lands retain a presumptive status of unflawed lineage. The halakha follows the opinion of the Rabbis, but the school of Rav Kahana did not teach like this, and the school of Rav Pappa did not teach like this, and the school of Rav Zevid did not teach like this. The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, despite hearing of all these reports, Ameimar did not accept this halakha from him, because he had heard this halakha directly from Rav Zevid of Neharde’a, upon whom he relied.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַמְזֵירֵי וּנְתִינֵי טְהוֹרִים לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵין טְהוֹרִים. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְזָרַקְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם מַיִם טְהוֹרִים וּטְהַרְתֶּם״! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מִכֹּל טֻמְאוֹתֵיכֶם וּמִכׇּל גִּלּוּלֵיכֶם״ – וְלֹא מִן הַמַּמְזֵרוּת. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אֲטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם״ – הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר אַף מִן הַמַּמְזֵרוּת.
The Sages taught (Tosefta 5:5): Mamzerim and Gibeonites will be pure in the future; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Meir says: They will not be pure. Rabbi Yosei said to him: But hasn’t it already been stated: “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you” (Ezekiel 36:25)? Rabbi Meir said to him: When it says: “From all your uncleanness, and from all your idols,” this emphasizes that God will purify people from these types of impurity, but not from mamzer status. Rabbi Yosei said to him: When it says: “Will I cleanse you,” at the end of the verse, you must say this means even from mamzer status.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְיָשַׁב מַמְזֵר בְּאַשְׁדּוֹד״. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, מַאי ״וְיָשַׁב מַמְזֵר בְּאַשְׁדּוֹד״? כְּדִמְתַרְגֵּם רַב יוֹסֵף: יֵתְבוּן בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל לְרוּחְצָן בְּאַרְעֲהוֹן דַּהֲווֹ (דָּמוּ) [דָּמַיִין] בַּהּ לְנוּכְרָאִין.
The Gemara comments: Granted, according to Rabbi Meir, who maintains that mamzerim will not be purified, this is as it is written: “And a mamzer shall dwell in Ashdod” (Zechariah 9:6), indicating that they will have their own isolated living area. But according to Rabbi Yosei, what is the meaning of the phrase “And a mamzer shall dwell in Ashdod”? The Gemara answers: He understands that verse as Rav Yosef would translate it: The Jewish people shall dwell in tranquility in their land, where they were formerly like strangers, reading mamzer as me’am zar, from a strange people.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הֲוָה אָתֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ מַפֵּיק מִינַּן צַוְורָנֵי צַוְורָנֵי קוֹלָרִין.
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that mamzerim and Gibeonites will be pure in the future. Rav Yosef says: If it were not for the fact that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Elijah would come and remove from us group after group of forbidden people [kolarin], since he would reveal how many mamzerim there are among the Jewish people.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גֵּר נוֹשֵׂא מַמְזֶרֶת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: גֵּר לֹא יִשָּׂא מַמְזֶרֶת. אֶחָד גֵּר אֶחָד עֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר וְחָלָל מוּתָּרִים בְּכֹהֶנֶת. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? חֲמִשָּׁה קְהָלֵי כְּתִיבִי.
The Sages taught (Tosefta 5:3): A convert may marry a mamzeret ab initio; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yehuda says: A convert may not marry a mamzeret. A convert, an emancipated slave, and a ḥalal are all permitted to marry the daughter of a priest. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei, who deems it permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret? The Gemara answers: Five congregations are written, meaning, the word congregation appears five times in the Torah with regard to various people of flawed lineage who are prohibited from entering the congregation of God.
