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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 25, 2016 | 讬状讝 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讜

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

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

Kiddushin 75

Study Guide Kiddushin 75. Different opinions whether having had a forbidden relationship forbids one from marrying a Kohen. 聽Does it depend on whether the situation would have caused a problem for the offspring or not? 聽The gemara then proceeds to understand the final opinion brought in the mishna that questionable people can’t marry each other nor can they marry mamzerim. 聽Rav and Shmuel have a difference opinion about who to hold like and it contradicts their opinions elsewhere. 聽Various explanations are brought to resolve the contradiction.


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

讻诇 砖讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜

Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow. If a priest is permitted to marry someone鈥檚 daughter, he is likewise permitted to marry that person鈥檚 widow; she has not become disqualified to marry a priest by having engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband. And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow either.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the first tanna of the mishna and Rabbi Yosei, as they appear to be saying the same thing? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The practical difference between them concerns a Jewish woman who engaged in intercourse with a second-generation Egyptian. The Torah prohibits Egyptian converts and their children from entering into the congregation by marriage, but the grandchildren of the Egyptian convert, i.e., the third generation, are permitted to marry Jews with unflawed lineage. And both of them learned their respective opinions only from the halakha of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, although they derived the halakha in different ways.

讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讘讬讗转讜 讘注讘讬专讛 讜驻讜住诇 讘讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讘讬讗转讜 讘注讘讬专讛 驻讜住诇

How so? As the first tanna holds that this case is like that of a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow, his act of intercourse with her is performed by means of a transgression and he disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood, so too anyone whose act of intercourse is by means of a transgression, such as a second-generation Egyptian who engages in intercourse with a Jewish woman, likewise disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讻讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞讬诐 讗砖专 讬讜诇讚讜 诇讛诐 讚讜专 砖诇讬砖讬 讬讘讗 诇讛诐 讘拽讛诇 讛壮

And Rabbi Yosei holds that the derivation is as follows: It is like a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow, whose offspring is unfit for the priesthood, as they have the status of a 岣lal, and he similarly disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her, so too, anyone whose offspring is unfit for the priesthood also disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her. This comparison serves to exclude a second-generation Egyptian, whose offspring is not unfit, as the verse states: 鈥淭he children of the third generation that are born to them may enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:9). Therefore, a second-generation Egyptian does not disqualify a woman with whom he engages in intercourse from marrying a priest.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗转 讘转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛

The baraita also taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow. And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow either. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? They seem to be stating the same halakha. Ulla said: The difference between them involves a male Ammonite convert and a male Moabite convert. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, male Ammonite and Moabite converts disqualify a woman with whom they engage in sexual intercourse from marrying a priest, whereas Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says they do not disqualify her. And both of them learned their respective opinions only from the halakha of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, although they derived the halakha in different ways.

讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讻讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇

How so? As Rabbi Yosei holds that this case is like that of a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow, the halakha is that his offspring are unfit for the priesthood, as they have the status of a 岣lal, and he similarly disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her, so too, anyone whose offspring is unfit for the priesthood, including a male Ammonite or Moabite convert, also disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讻诇 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讻诇 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 谞拽讘讜转 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讚谞拽讘讜转 讛讜讜 讻砖专讜转 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讚讗诪专 诪专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诇讗 注诪讜谞讬转 诪讜讗讘讬 讜诇讗 诪讜讗讘讬转

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the derivation is as follows: It is like a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow. Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow, as all his offspring are unfit, the females as well as the males, and he disqualifies her by engaging in intercourse with her, so too, everyone about whom the halakha is that all his offspring are unfit, even the females, disqualifies a woman with whom he engages in intercourse from marrying a priest. This comparison serves to exclude a male Ammonite or Moabite convert, as the females born to them are fit to enter into the congregation. As the Master said: An Ammonite man is prohibited from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman; similarly a Moabite man is prohibited from doing so, but not a Moabite woman.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讗诇诪谞转 注讬住讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪讗谉 诪讬拽诇 讘讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗诇诪谞转 注讬住讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛

Rav 岣sda says: All concede with regard to a widow of questionable lineage, i.e., a widow whose husband was possibly a 岣lal, that she is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara explains: Who is the most lenient of these tanna鈥檌m? It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and he says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow; and anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow either. He said the latter clause to exclude what? It is to exclude a widow of questionable lineage; and it teaches that she is unfit to marry into the priesthood, since the daughter of one who was possibly a 岣lal is prohibited from marrying a priest.

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞谉 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注诇 讗诇诪谞转 注讬住讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讬 住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗 讜住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗 诇拽讜诇讗

The Gemara comments: This statement of Rav 岣sda serves to exclude the opinion of these following tanna鈥檌m. As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 8:3): Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira testified with regard to a widow of questionable lineage, that she is fit to marry into the priesthood. What is the reason for this lenient ruling? It is a case of a compound uncertainty, and the principle is that in a case of a compound uncertainty the ruling is to be lenient.

讜讚讗谉 讘讜讚讗谉 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讛诇诇 砖讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讬讜讞住讬诐 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 讜讻讜诇诐 诪讜转专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

搂 The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is permitted for those with definite flaws to marry with those with definite flaws. For example, it is permitted for mamzerim and Gibeonites to marry each other. By contrast, it is prohibited for those with definite flaws to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, and it is also prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry those whose flaws result from an uncertainty. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Yehuda added: When I said that halakha in front of Shmuel, he said to me: Hillel the Elder teaches the mishna as stating: Jews with ten types of lineage ascended from Babylonia, and all of them, i.e., all of those who may not enter into the congregation, even those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, are permitted to marry into each other鈥檚 families; and you said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?

讜专诪讬 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 讜专诪讬 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗讬转诪专 讗专讜住讛 砖注讬讘专讛 专讘 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬

The Gemara comments: And a contradiction can be raised from this statement of Rav against another statement of Rav, and similarly a contradiction can be raised from this statement of Shmuel against another statement of Shmuel. As, it was stated that they had the following dispute: With regard to a betrothed woman who became pregnant during her period of betrothal, and it is unknown whether it was her betrothed or someone else who impregnated her, Rav says that the offspring is a mamzer. The assumption is that she was impregnated by a different man and that the child is the offspring of a betrothed woman and a man other than her betrothed. And Shmuel says that the offspring is a shetuki, since there is no proof that it is a mamzer; she might have been impregnated by her betrothed.

专讘 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜专 讘诪诪讝专转 讗讬驻讜讱 专讘 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Rav says the offspring is a mamzer and is therefore permitted to marry a mamzeret; and Shmuel says the offspring is a shetuki and is prohibited to marry a mamzeret. It is seen here that Shmuel prohibits one whose flaw results from an uncertainty from marrying one with definite mamzer status, whereas Rav permits such a person to marry one with definite mamzer status. This contradicts their earlier statements, in which Rav prohibited one whose flaw results from an uncertainty from marrying one with definite mamzer status and Shmuel permitted it. The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in this dispute, so that Rav is the one who says: The offspring is a shetuki and is prohibited to marry a mamzeret; and Shmuel says: The offspring is a mamzer and may marry a mamzeret.

转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚专讜讘 讻砖专讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need two instances of the same dispute? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state the dispute twice, because if it were stated only with regard to that mishna, which discusses an unmarried woman whose offspring is a shetuki, one could have said: It was with regard to that case that Rav states his opinion, because the majority are fit with regard to her and only a minority of men are those who are forbidden to her as relatives or are those who are disqualified from entering into the congregation. But there, in the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant, where the majority are unfit with regard to her and she is forbidden to everyone other than her betrothed, one might say that Rav concedes to Shmuel that her child is a definite mamzer.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讱 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬转诇讛 讘讗专讜住 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, if it was stated only in this case of a betrothed woman, one could have said it was with regard to this case that Rav states the offspring is a shetuki, because it is most reasonable to ascribe the pregnancy to the betrothed man, which would mean that the offspring is not a mamzer, but in that case of an unmarried woman, one might say that he agrees with Shmuel that the child is considered to be a definite mamzer. It is therefore necessary to state both cases.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜诪讗讬 诪诪讝专 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 诇讗讜 诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 讗诇讗 讚讗住讜专 讘讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 讚讗住讜专 讘讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 砖诪砖转拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讚讬谉 讻讛讜谞讛

And if you wish, say: Actually, do not reverse the opinions, and what is the meaning of the term mamzer that Rav is saying? It does not signify that this offspring is permitted to marry a mamzeret, but merely that he is prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman. And when Shmuel says the offspring is a shetuki, he meant that he is prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman. The Gemara asks: If so, that is the same as Rav. Rather, what is the meaning of the term shetuki in Shmuel鈥檚 statement? It is that one silences [meshattekin] him, i.e., disqualifies him, from the halakha of the priesthood. In other words, even if the betrothed man was a priest, the child is not considered a priest.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 诪讚讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖转拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讚讬谉 讻讛讜谞讛 诪讬讘注讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 砖诪砖转拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讘讜讛 诪谞讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚转驻住

The Gemara questions this: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Now, if one silences him from the halakha of a Jew with unflawed lineage, and he is not allowed to enter into the congregation, is it necessary to say that he is silenced from the halakha of the priesthood? Rather, what is the meaning of shetuki in Shmuel鈥檚 statement? It is that one silences him from his presumed father鈥檚 property, i.e., he does not inherit from him. The Gemara again questions: This too is obvious; do we know who his father is? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where this son seized possession of the property of the betrothed man, claiming that the betrothed man is his father. It is with regard to such a scenario that Shmuel said that the property is taken away from him, and one does not say that the burden of proof rests upon the other inheritors to demonstrate conclusively that the betrothed man is not his father.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 讘讚讜拽讬 砖讘讜讚拽讬诐 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讗讜诪专转 诇讻砖专 谞讘注诇转讬 谞讗诪谞转 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 讛讬转讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 讝讛 诪讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

And if you wish, say: What is the meaning of shetuki in Shmuel鈥檚 statement? It means beduki, meaning that they examine his mother, and if she says: I engaged in sexual intercourse with a man with unflawed lineage, she is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel already say it once? As we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 13a): If an unmarried woman was pregnant, and people said to her: What is the status of this fetus? And she said to them: It is from soandso, and he is a priest; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible; and Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not deemed credible. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. This shows that Shmuel had already issued an explicit ruling in Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 favor; why did he repeat himself?

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 专讜讘 讻砖讬专讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for Shmuel to rule twice. As, if he had learned it only from there, from the mishna discussing an unmarried pregnant woman, I would say he rules that way there, when the majority are fit with regard to her, as her unmarried status means that the offspring resulting from sexual intercourse with most men would be of unflawed lineage. But here, in the case of a betrothed woman, when the majority of men are unfit with regard to her, as she is forbidden to everyone other than her betrothed, you might say that she should not be deemed credible to say she engaged in intercourse with the betrothed man. It is therefore necessary for Shmuel to state his ruling twice.

转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讜转讬 诇讗 讬砖讗 讻讜转讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讙专 诇讗讞专 注砖专讛 讚讜专讜转 讚转谞讬讗 讙专 注讚 注砖专讛 讚讜专讜转 诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗住讜专 讘诪诪讝专转

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:2): And similarly Rabbi Elazar says: A Samaritan man may not marry a Samaritan woman. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rav Yosef said: The Sages established him to be like the descendant of a convert, after ten generations. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the descendant of a convert, he is permitted to marry a mamzeret if he is within ten generations of both parents being descendants of converts; from this point forward the descendant of a convert is prohibited from marrying a mamzeret, as people no longer remember that he has the lineage of a convert.

讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬砖转拽注 砖诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪诪谞讜

The baraita continues: And some say that the descendant of a convert is permitted to marry a mamzeret until the name of idol worship is forgotten from him, i.e., as long as people remember that his roots are from gentiles he remains permitted to marry a mamzeret, regardless of the passage of time. Rav Yosef understands that Rabbi Elazar regards a Samaritan as being like a convert after ten generations, who may not marry a mamzeret. Since Samaritans assimilated among the Jewish people and are no longer recognized by the public as having Samaritan lineage, they may not marry those of flawed lineage, including, presumably, other Samaritans.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讙专 讬砖谉 讜诪诪讝专转 讞讚砖讛 讗诪专讬 讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 谞住讬讘 诪诪讝专转 讛讻讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is it comparable to the case of a convert? There, he is an old convert, i.e., the conversion occurred a long time ago, and she is a new mamzeret, i.e., her status as a mamzeret is known. Consequently, people who see him marrying a mamzeret will say: A Jewish man is marrying a mamzeret. Here, this and that, the two Samaritans, are the same as each other. If people consider the Samaritan man as being assimilated among the Jewish people, and consequently he may not marry a woman of flawed lineage, the Samaritan woman should likewise be considered a Jew of unflawed lineage. Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation in favor of the following: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael,

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻讜转讬诐 讙讬专讬 讗专讬讜转 讛诐 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

and Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva concerning a different halakha. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: Samaritans are lion converts, i.e., they converted out of fear of being attacked by lions for worshipping idols in Eretz Yisrael. They were never converts for the sake of Heaven, but remained gentiles according to halakha. And Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: In the case of a gentile or a Canaanite slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer. Since over the generations Jews assimilated with Samaritans, who have the status of gentiles, the descendants of those Jews who married Samaritans have the status of uncertain mamzerim.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 砖讘讗讜 注诇 讛讻讛谞转 讜注诇 讛诇讜讬讛 讜注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖驻住诇讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yishmael hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in this matter? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is it derived with regard to a gentile or a Canaanite slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest, or with the daughter of a Levite, or with the daughter of an Israelite, that they have disqualified her from marrying a priest? It is as it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and is returned to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13).

诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙专讜砖讬谉 讬爪讗 谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙专讜砖讬谉

He explains: It is only if she was married to one who has the halakhot of widowhood and divorce, meaning a Jew, that she can return to her father鈥檚 house and partake of teruma. This serves to exclude a gentile or a Canaanite slave, who do not have the halakhot of widowhood and divorce; if the daughter of a priest engages in intercourse with such a man, she may no longer partake of teruma.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛砖转讗 诪诪讝专 讛讜讬 诪讬驻住诇 讘讘讬讗转讜 诪讬讘注讬讗

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that the offspring of a Jewish woman and a gentile or a slave is a mamzer, what need is there for this proof? Now that he holds that the offspring from a gentile is a mamzer, is it necessary to state that the gentile or slave disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her?

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻讜转讬诐 讙讬专讬 讗专讬讜转 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

Rather, the Gemara explains as follows: Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: Samaritans are lion converts, and Rabbi Elazar himself also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: If a gentile or a Canaanite slave engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛讬诇诇 讘爪专讜转 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪诪讝专 讗诇讗 诪诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Elazar hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: Although Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed with regard to the halakha of rival wives, as to whether the rival wife of a yevama who is a forbidden relative of the yavam is obligated in or exempt from levirate marriage, they concede that a mamzer is only the offspring born from one whose prohibition is a prohibition of forbidden relatives and punishable by karet. Since engaging in intercourse with a gentile or a Canaanite slave is not punishable by karet, Rabbi Elazar would agree that the child of such a union is not a mamzer.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖诇砖 诪讞诇讜拽讜转 讘讚讘专

Rather, when Rabin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say that it was Rabbi Abba bar Zavda who says that Rabbi 岣nina says and some say it was Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi who says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There are three divisions of opinions with regard to the matter.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讻讜转讬诐 讙讬专讬 讗专讬讜转 讛谉 讜讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞讟诪注讜 讘讛诐 讻讛谞讬诐 驻住讜诇讬诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注砖讜 诇讛诐 诪拽爪讜转诐 讻讛谞讬 讘诪讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谉 讛拽讜爪讬诐 砖讘注诐 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 驻住诇讬谞讛讜

Rabbi Yishmael holds that Samaritans are lion converts, and the priests who assimilated among them were unfit priests, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd made unto them from among themselves priests of the high places鈥 (II聽Kings 17:32). And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the meaning of 鈥渇rom among themselves鈥? From the thorns that are among the Jewish people, meaning those of flawed lineage. And it was due to that reason that the Sages disqualified them, not due to the Samaritans themselves, who are gentiles, but due to the Jews of flawed lineage who are assimilated among them. When a Samaritan seeks to marry another Samaritan, it is possible that one of them is a Jew of flawed lineage.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻讜转讬诐 讙讬专讬 讗诪转 讛谉 讜讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞讟诪注讜 讘讛谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讻砖专讬诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注砖讜 诇讛诐 诪拽爪讜转诐 讻讛谞讬 讘诪讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谉 讛讘讞讬专讬诐 砖讘注诐 讜讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗住专讜诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讜 诪讬讬讘诪讬诐 讗转 讛讗专讜住讜转

And Rabbi Akiva holds: Samaritans are true converts, and the priests who assimilated among them were fit priests, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd made unto them from among themselves priests of the high places鈥 (II聽Kings 17:32). And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: 鈥淔rom among themselves鈥 means from the chosen ones, the upper echelon of the Jewish people. And for what reason did the Sages prohibit them from entering into the congregation if there is no problem with regard to their conversion or with regard to the Jews who assimilated among them? It is because they did not act in accordance with the halakha, as they would perform levirate marriage with betrothed women. They would perform the mitzva of levirate marriage only with one who was widowed from a betrothal,

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Kiddushin 75

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 75

讻诇 砖讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜

Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow. If a priest is permitted to marry someone鈥檚 daughter, he is likewise permitted to marry that person鈥檚 widow; she has not become disqualified to marry a priest by having engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband. And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow either.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the first tanna of the mishna and Rabbi Yosei, as they appear to be saying the same thing? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The practical difference between them concerns a Jewish woman who engaged in intercourse with a second-generation Egyptian. The Torah prohibits Egyptian converts and their children from entering into the congregation by marriage, but the grandchildren of the Egyptian convert, i.e., the third generation, are permitted to marry Jews with unflawed lineage. And both of them learned their respective opinions only from the halakha of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, although they derived the halakha in different ways.

讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讘讬讗转讜 讘注讘讬专讛 讜驻讜住诇 讘讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讘讬讗转讜 讘注讘讬专讛 驻讜住诇

How so? As the first tanna holds that this case is like that of a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow, his act of intercourse with her is performed by means of a transgression and he disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood, so too anyone whose act of intercourse is by means of a transgression, such as a second-generation Egyptian who engages in intercourse with a Jewish woman, likewise disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讻讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞讬诐 讗砖专 讬讜诇讚讜 诇讛诐 讚讜专 砖诇讬砖讬 讬讘讗 诇讛诐 讘拽讛诇 讛壮

And Rabbi Yosei holds that the derivation is as follows: It is like a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow, whose offspring is unfit for the priesthood, as they have the status of a 岣lal, and he similarly disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her, so too, anyone whose offspring is unfit for the priesthood also disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her. This comparison serves to exclude a second-generation Egyptian, whose offspring is not unfit, as the verse states: 鈥淭he children of the third generation that are born to them may enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:9). Therefore, a second-generation Egyptian does not disqualify a woman with whom he engages in intercourse from marrying a priest.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗转 讘转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛

The baraita also taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow. And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow either. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? They seem to be stating the same halakha. Ulla said: The difference between them involves a male Ammonite convert and a male Moabite convert. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, male Ammonite and Moabite converts disqualify a woman with whom they engage in sexual intercourse from marrying a priest, whereas Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says they do not disqualify her. And both of them learned their respective opinions only from the halakha of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, although they derived the halakha in different ways.

讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讻讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇

How so? As Rabbi Yosei holds that this case is like that of a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow, the halakha is that his offspring are unfit for the priesthood, as they have the status of a 岣lal, and he similarly disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her, so too, anyone whose offspring is unfit for the priesthood, including a male Ammonite or Moabite convert, also disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讻诇 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讻诇 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 谞拽讘讜转 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讚谞拽讘讜转 讛讜讜 讻砖专讜转 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讚讗诪专 诪专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诇讗 注诪讜谞讬转 诪讜讗讘讬 讜诇讗 诪讜讗讘讬转

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the derivation is as follows: It is like a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow. Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow, as all his offspring are unfit, the females as well as the males, and he disqualifies her by engaging in intercourse with her, so too, everyone about whom the halakha is that all his offspring are unfit, even the females, disqualifies a woman with whom he engages in intercourse from marrying a priest. This comparison serves to exclude a male Ammonite or Moabite convert, as the females born to them are fit to enter into the congregation. As the Master said: An Ammonite man is prohibited from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman; similarly a Moabite man is prohibited from doing so, but not a Moabite woman.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讗诇诪谞转 注讬住讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪讗谉 诪讬拽诇 讘讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗诇诪谞转 注讬住讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛

Rav 岣sda says: All concede with regard to a widow of questionable lineage, i.e., a widow whose husband was possibly a 岣lal, that she is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara explains: Who is the most lenient of these tanna鈥檌m? It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and he says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow; and anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow either. He said the latter clause to exclude what? It is to exclude a widow of questionable lineage; and it teaches that she is unfit to marry into the priesthood, since the daughter of one who was possibly a 岣lal is prohibited from marrying a priest.

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞谉 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注诇 讗诇诪谞转 注讬住讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讬 住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗 讜住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗 诇拽讜诇讗

The Gemara comments: This statement of Rav 岣sda serves to exclude the opinion of these following tanna鈥檌m. As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 8:3): Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira testified with regard to a widow of questionable lineage, that she is fit to marry into the priesthood. What is the reason for this lenient ruling? It is a case of a compound uncertainty, and the principle is that in a case of a compound uncertainty the ruling is to be lenient.

讜讚讗谉 讘讜讚讗谉 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讛诇诇 砖讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讬讜讞住讬诐 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 讜讻讜诇诐 诪讜转专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

搂 The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is permitted for those with definite flaws to marry with those with definite flaws. For example, it is permitted for mamzerim and Gibeonites to marry each other. By contrast, it is prohibited for those with definite flaws to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, and it is also prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry those whose flaws result from an uncertainty. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Yehuda added: When I said that halakha in front of Shmuel, he said to me: Hillel the Elder teaches the mishna as stating: Jews with ten types of lineage ascended from Babylonia, and all of them, i.e., all of those who may not enter into the congregation, even those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, are permitted to marry into each other鈥檚 families; and you said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?

讜专诪讬 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 讜专诪讬 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗讬转诪专 讗专讜住讛 砖注讬讘专讛 专讘 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬

The Gemara comments: And a contradiction can be raised from this statement of Rav against another statement of Rav, and similarly a contradiction can be raised from this statement of Shmuel against another statement of Shmuel. As, it was stated that they had the following dispute: With regard to a betrothed woman who became pregnant during her period of betrothal, and it is unknown whether it was her betrothed or someone else who impregnated her, Rav says that the offspring is a mamzer. The assumption is that she was impregnated by a different man and that the child is the offspring of a betrothed woman and a man other than her betrothed. And Shmuel says that the offspring is a shetuki, since there is no proof that it is a mamzer; she might have been impregnated by her betrothed.

专讘 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜专 讘诪诪讝专转 讗讬驻讜讱 专讘 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Rav says the offspring is a mamzer and is therefore permitted to marry a mamzeret; and Shmuel says the offspring is a shetuki and is prohibited to marry a mamzeret. It is seen here that Shmuel prohibits one whose flaw results from an uncertainty from marrying one with definite mamzer status, whereas Rav permits such a person to marry one with definite mamzer status. This contradicts their earlier statements, in which Rav prohibited one whose flaw results from an uncertainty from marrying one with definite mamzer status and Shmuel permitted it. The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in this dispute, so that Rav is the one who says: The offspring is a shetuki and is prohibited to marry a mamzeret; and Shmuel says: The offspring is a mamzer and may marry a mamzeret.

转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚专讜讘 讻砖专讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need two instances of the same dispute? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state the dispute twice, because if it were stated only with regard to that mishna, which discusses an unmarried woman whose offspring is a shetuki, one could have said: It was with regard to that case that Rav states his opinion, because the majority are fit with regard to her and only a minority of men are those who are forbidden to her as relatives or are those who are disqualified from entering into the congregation. But there, in the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant, where the majority are unfit with regard to her and she is forbidden to everyone other than her betrothed, one might say that Rav concedes to Shmuel that her child is a definite mamzer.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讱 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬转诇讛 讘讗专讜住 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, if it was stated only in this case of a betrothed woman, one could have said it was with regard to this case that Rav states the offspring is a shetuki, because it is most reasonable to ascribe the pregnancy to the betrothed man, which would mean that the offspring is not a mamzer, but in that case of an unmarried woman, one might say that he agrees with Shmuel that the child is considered to be a definite mamzer. It is therefore necessary to state both cases.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜诪讗讬 诪诪讝专 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 诇讗讜 诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 讗诇讗 讚讗住讜专 讘讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 讚讗住讜专 讘讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 砖诪砖转拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讚讬谉 讻讛讜谞讛

And if you wish, say: Actually, do not reverse the opinions, and what is the meaning of the term mamzer that Rav is saying? It does not signify that this offspring is permitted to marry a mamzeret, but merely that he is prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman. And when Shmuel says the offspring is a shetuki, he meant that he is prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman. The Gemara asks: If so, that is the same as Rav. Rather, what is the meaning of the term shetuki in Shmuel鈥檚 statement? It is that one silences [meshattekin] him, i.e., disqualifies him, from the halakha of the priesthood. In other words, even if the betrothed man was a priest, the child is not considered a priest.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 诪讚讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖转拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讚讬谉 讻讛讜谞讛 诪讬讘注讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 砖诪砖转拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讘讜讛 诪谞讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚转驻住

The Gemara questions this: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Now, if one silences him from the halakha of a Jew with unflawed lineage, and he is not allowed to enter into the congregation, is it necessary to say that he is silenced from the halakha of the priesthood? Rather, what is the meaning of shetuki in Shmuel鈥檚 statement? It is that one silences him from his presumed father鈥檚 property, i.e., he does not inherit from him. The Gemara again questions: This too is obvious; do we know who his father is? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where this son seized possession of the property of the betrothed man, claiming that the betrothed man is his father. It is with regard to such a scenario that Shmuel said that the property is taken away from him, and one does not say that the burden of proof rests upon the other inheritors to demonstrate conclusively that the betrothed man is not his father.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 讘讚讜拽讬 砖讘讜讚拽讬诐 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讗讜诪专转 诇讻砖专 谞讘注诇转讬 谞讗诪谞转 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 讛讬转讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 讝讛 诪讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 谞讗诪谞转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

And if you wish, say: What is the meaning of shetuki in Shmuel鈥檚 statement? It means beduki, meaning that they examine his mother, and if she says: I engaged in sexual intercourse with a man with unflawed lineage, she is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel already say it once? As we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 13a): If an unmarried woman was pregnant, and people said to her: What is the status of this fetus? And she said to them: It is from soandso, and he is a priest; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible; and Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not deemed credible. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. This shows that Shmuel had already issued an explicit ruling in Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 favor; why did he repeat himself?

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 专讜讘 讻砖讬专讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚专讜讘 驻住讜诇讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for Shmuel to rule twice. As, if he had learned it only from there, from the mishna discussing an unmarried pregnant woman, I would say he rules that way there, when the majority are fit with regard to her, as her unmarried status means that the offspring resulting from sexual intercourse with most men would be of unflawed lineage. But here, in the case of a betrothed woman, when the majority of men are unfit with regard to her, as she is forbidden to everyone other than her betrothed, you might say that she should not be deemed credible to say she engaged in intercourse with the betrothed man. It is therefore necessary for Shmuel to state his ruling twice.

转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讜转讬 诇讗 讬砖讗 讻讜转讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讙专 诇讗讞专 注砖专讛 讚讜专讜转 讚转谞讬讗 讙专 注讚 注砖专讛 讚讜专讜转 诪讜转专 讘诪诪讝专转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗住讜专 讘诪诪讝专转

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:2): And similarly Rabbi Elazar says: A Samaritan man may not marry a Samaritan woman. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rav Yosef said: The Sages established him to be like the descendant of a convert, after ten generations. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the descendant of a convert, he is permitted to marry a mamzeret if he is within ten generations of both parents being descendants of converts; from this point forward the descendant of a convert is prohibited from marrying a mamzeret, as people no longer remember that he has the lineage of a convert.

讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬砖转拽注 砖诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪诪谞讜

The baraita continues: And some say that the descendant of a convert is permitted to marry a mamzeret until the name of idol worship is forgotten from him, i.e., as long as people remember that his roots are from gentiles he remains permitted to marry a mamzeret, regardless of the passage of time. Rav Yosef understands that Rabbi Elazar regards a Samaritan as being like a convert after ten generations, who may not marry a mamzeret. Since Samaritans assimilated among the Jewish people and are no longer recognized by the public as having Samaritan lineage, they may not marry those of flawed lineage, including, presumably, other Samaritans.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讙专 讬砖谉 讜诪诪讝专转 讞讚砖讛 讗诪专讬 讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 谞住讬讘 诪诪讝专转 讛讻讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is it comparable to the case of a convert? There, he is an old convert, i.e., the conversion occurred a long time ago, and she is a new mamzeret, i.e., her status as a mamzeret is known. Consequently, people who see him marrying a mamzeret will say: A Jewish man is marrying a mamzeret. Here, this and that, the two Samaritans, are the same as each other. If people consider the Samaritan man as being assimilated among the Jewish people, and consequently he may not marry a woman of flawed lineage, the Samaritan woman should likewise be considered a Jew of unflawed lineage. Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation in favor of the following: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael,

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻讜转讬诐 讙讬专讬 讗专讬讜转 讛诐 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

and Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva concerning a different halakha. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: Samaritans are lion converts, i.e., they converted out of fear of being attacked by lions for worshipping idols in Eretz Yisrael. They were never converts for the sake of Heaven, but remained gentiles according to halakha. And Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: In the case of a gentile or a Canaanite slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer. Since over the generations Jews assimilated with Samaritans, who have the status of gentiles, the descendants of those Jews who married Samaritans have the status of uncertain mamzerim.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 砖讘讗讜 注诇 讛讻讛谞转 讜注诇 讛诇讜讬讛 讜注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖驻住诇讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yishmael hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in this matter? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is it derived with regard to a gentile or a Canaanite slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest, or with the daughter of a Levite, or with the daughter of an Israelite, that they have disqualified her from marrying a priest? It is as it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and is returned to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13).

诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙专讜砖讬谉 讬爪讗 谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙专讜砖讬谉

He explains: It is only if she was married to one who has the halakhot of widowhood and divorce, meaning a Jew, that she can return to her father鈥檚 house and partake of teruma. This serves to exclude a gentile or a Canaanite slave, who do not have the halakhot of widowhood and divorce; if the daughter of a priest engages in intercourse with such a man, she may no longer partake of teruma.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛砖转讗 诪诪讝专 讛讜讬 诪讬驻住诇 讘讘讬讗转讜 诪讬讘注讬讗

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that the offspring of a Jewish woman and a gentile or a slave is a mamzer, what need is there for this proof? Now that he holds that the offspring from a gentile is a mamzer, is it necessary to state that the gentile or slave disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her?

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻讜转讬诐 讙讬专讬 讗专讬讜转 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

Rather, the Gemara explains as follows: Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: Samaritans are lion converts, and Rabbi Elazar himself also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: If a gentile or a Canaanite slave engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛讬诇诇 讘爪专讜转 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪诪讝专 讗诇讗 诪诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Elazar hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: Although Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed with regard to the halakha of rival wives, as to whether the rival wife of a yevama who is a forbidden relative of the yavam is obligated in or exempt from levirate marriage, they concede that a mamzer is only the offspring born from one whose prohibition is a prohibition of forbidden relatives and punishable by karet. Since engaging in intercourse with a gentile or a Canaanite slave is not punishable by karet, Rabbi Elazar would agree that the child of such a union is not a mamzer.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖诇砖 诪讞诇讜拽讜转 讘讚讘专

Rather, when Rabin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say that it was Rabbi Abba bar Zavda who says that Rabbi 岣nina says and some say it was Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi who says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There are three divisions of opinions with regard to the matter.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讻讜转讬诐 讙讬专讬 讗专讬讜转 讛谉 讜讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞讟诪注讜 讘讛诐 讻讛谞讬诐 驻住讜诇讬诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注砖讜 诇讛诐 诪拽爪讜转诐 讻讛谞讬 讘诪讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谉 讛拽讜爪讬诐 砖讘注诐 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 驻住诇讬谞讛讜

Rabbi Yishmael holds that Samaritans are lion converts, and the priests who assimilated among them were unfit priests, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd made unto them from among themselves priests of the high places鈥 (II聽Kings 17:32). And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the meaning of 鈥渇rom among themselves鈥? From the thorns that are among the Jewish people, meaning those of flawed lineage. And it was due to that reason that the Sages disqualified them, not due to the Samaritans themselves, who are gentiles, but due to the Jews of flawed lineage who are assimilated among them. When a Samaritan seeks to marry another Samaritan, it is possible that one of them is a Jew of flawed lineage.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻讜转讬诐 讙讬专讬 讗诪转 讛谉 讜讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞讟诪注讜 讘讛谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讻砖专讬诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注砖讜 诇讛诐 诪拽爪讜转诐 讻讛谞讬 讘诪讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谉 讛讘讞讬专讬诐 砖讘注诐 讜讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗住专讜诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讜 诪讬讬讘诪讬诐 讗转 讛讗专讜住讜转

And Rabbi Akiva holds: Samaritans are true converts, and the priests who assimilated among them were fit priests, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd made unto them from among themselves priests of the high places鈥 (II聽Kings 17:32). And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: 鈥淔rom among themselves鈥 means from the chosen ones, the upper echelon of the Jewish people. And for what reason did the Sages prohibit them from entering into the congregation if there is no problem with regard to their conversion or with regard to the Jews who assimilated among them? It is because they did not act in accordance with the halakha, as they would perform levirate marriage with betrothed women. They would perform the mitzva of levirate marriage only with one who was widowed from a betrothal,

Scroll To Top