Kiddushin 76
וּפוֹטְרִים אֶת הַנְּשׂוּאוֹת. מַאי דָּרְשִׁי? ״לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר״ – הָךְ דְּיָתְבָה חוּצָה, הִיא לֹא תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר, אֲבָל הָךְ דְּלָא יָתְבָה חוּצָה – תִּהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר.
and they would exempt married women from ḥalitza and levirate marriage. The Gemara elaborates: In what way would they expound the verse to lead them to this conclusion? The verse states: “The wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin; her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife, and consummate the levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:5). They understood the word “outside” to be a description of the woman: She who sits outside, i.e., one who is only betrothed; she shall not be married to one not of his kin, and it is with her that the obligation of levirate marriage applies. But she who is not sitting outside, but who has already married, shall marry one not of his kin. Consequently, the concern with regard to the Samaritans is that their descendants include the children of a widow who unlawfully wed one who was not her brother-in-law.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר מֵחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין.
After having explained which prohibition the Samaritans violated, the Gemara explains how this accounts for the prohibition with regard to marriage with Samaritans. And Rabbi Akiva conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: The offspring of intercourse for which one is liable for violating a prohibition is a mamzer. Therefore, the descendants of a yevama who had transgressed the prohibition of: “The wife of the deceased shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin,” have the status of mamzerim.
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין בְּדִקְדּוּקֵי מִצְוֹת. מַאן יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים? אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: מַצַּת כּוּתִי מוּתֶּרֶת וְאָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹסֵר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִים בְּדִקְדּוּקֵי מִצְוֹת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהּ כּוּתִים – הַרְבֵּה מְדַקְדְּקִים בָּהּ, יוֹתֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
And some say a third opinion as to why the Sages disqualified Samaritans for marriage: It is because they are not well versed in the details of mitzvot. The Gemara asks: Who is the one indicated by the phrase: Some say? Rav Idi bar Avin said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Pesaḥim 2:2): The matza of a Samaritan is permitted to be eaten on Passover and is not considered to be leavened bread, and a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover with it; but Rabbi Eliezer prohibits it, since Samaritans are not well versed in the details of mitzvot, and there is concern that their matza might be leavened. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that this is not a concern, as with regard to any mitzva that Samaritans embraced and accepted, they are more exacting in its observance than are Jews.
וְאֶלָּא הָכִי, מַאי אֵין בְּקִיאִין? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין בְּתוֹרַת קִידּוּשִׁין וְגֵירוּשִׁין.
The Gemara asks: But here, with regard to marriage, in what details are they not well versed? The Gemara answers: It is because they are not well versed with regard to the laws of betrothal and divorce. Consequently, it is possible that their bills of divorce were invalid, or that a betrothed woman was allowed to remarry without having received a bill of divorce, which would mean that her future children would be mamzerim.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מַמְזֵר מֵאֲחוֹתוֹ וּמַמְזֵר מֵאֵשֶׁת אָח נִתְעָרְבוּ בָּהֶן. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר מֵחַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת? נִיתְנֵי חֲדָא! מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה כָּךְ הָיָה.
Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Samaritans are of flawed lineage because a mamzer resulting from intercourse between a man and his sister and a mamzer resulting from intercourse between a man and his brother’s wife were assimilated among them, and they therefore all have the status of mamzerim due to the uncertainty as to the identity of those assimilated mamzerim. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us by providing the details of how they are mamzerim due to uncertainty? If he intended to incidentally teach us the halakha that the offspring from intercourse for which one is liable to receive karet is a mamzer, let him teach one example, by mentioning the example of a mamzer from a sister. The Gemara answers: He did not mention these details to teach us a halakha, but rather the incident that took place, took place in this way, and that is why the Samaritans were considered to be of flawed lineage.
וְרָבָא אָמַר: עֶבֶד וְשִׁפְחָה נִתְעָרְבוּ בָּהֶן. אִיסּוּרָא מִשּׁוּם מַאי, מִשּׁוּם שִׁפְחָה? נִיתְנֵי חֲדָא! מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה כָּךְ הָיָה.
And Rava says: A Canaanite slave and a Canaanite maidservant were assimilated among them. The Gemara asks: In these cases, the prohibition is due to what? It is due to a Canaanite maidservant, whose children are slaves. But if so, let him teach one example; why also mention a Canaanite slave, whose child resulting from intercourse with a Jewish woman is of unflawed lineage? The Gemara again answers: The incident that took place, took place in this way.
מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה כֹּהֶנֶת – צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחֲרֶיהָ אַרְבַּע אִמָּהוֹת שֶׁהֵן שְׁמֹנֶה: אִמָּהּ, וְאֵם אִמָּהּ, וְאֵם אֲבִי אִמָּהּ, וְאִמָּהּ, וְאֵם אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ, וְאֵם אֲבִי אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ. לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹד אַחַת.
MISHNA: A priest who marries a woman who is the daughter of a priest must investigate with regard to her background, i.e., he must check previous generations of her family tree from both the maternal and paternal sides, for four mothers, which are eight. How so? He investigates the lineage of her mother, and the mother of her mother, and the mother of her mother’s father, and her mother, i.e., the mother of her mother’s fathers’ mother. And he also investigates the lineage of the mother of her father, and her mother, i.e., the mother of her father’s mother, and the mother of her father’s father, and her mother i.e., the mother of her father’s father’s mother. If he seeks to marry a Levite woman or an Israelite woman, he adds to these an investigation of mothers of one additional generation.
אֵין בּוֹדְקִין לֹא מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּלְמַעְלָה, וְלֹא מִן הַדּוּכָן וּלְמַעְלָה, וְלֹא מִן הַסַּנְהֶדְרִין וּלְמַעְלָה. וְכֹל שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ אֲבוֹתָיו מִשּׁוֹטְרֵי הָרַבִּים וְגַבָּאֵי צְדָקָה – מַשִּׂיאִין לַכְּהוּנָּה וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחֲרֵיהֶן.
With regard to these investigations, one need not investigate from the altar and above. If his ancestors included a priest who served at the altar, one checks no further, as the court would have investigated his lineage before allowing him to participate in the Temple service. Nor do they check from the platform, used by Levites for singing in the Temple, and above, nor from the Sanhedrin and above, since only one whose lineage has been examined and who was found to be fit can be appointed to the Sanhedrin. And similarly, anyone whose ancestors held public posts, and anyone whose ancestors were charity collectors, may marry into the priesthood, and there is no need to investigate their lineage, since no one of flawed lineage would be appointed to those positions.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף מִי שֶׁהָיָה חָתוּם עֵד בְּעַרְכֵי הַיְּשָׁנָה שֶׁל צִיפּוֹרִי. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אַף מִי שֶׁהָיָה מוּכְתָּב בְּאִסְטְרַטְיָא שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ.
Rabbi Yosei says: Even the descendants of one who had signed as a witness in the old court [ba’arki] of Tzippori do not need to have their lineage investigated. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Even the descendants of one who was written in the army list [be’isteratya] of the Jewish king do not need to have their lineage investigated.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא בִּנְשֵׁי בָּדְקִינַן וּמַאי שְׁנָא בְּגַבְרֵי דְּלָא בָּדְקִינַן? נְשֵׁי דְּכִי מִינְּצוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי – בַּעֲרָיוֹת הוּא דְּמִינְּצוּ, וְאִם אִיתָא דְּאִיכָּא מִילְּתָא – לָא אִית לַיהּ קָלָא, גַּבְרֵי דְּכִי מִינְּצוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי – בְּיוּחֲסִין הוּא דְּמִינְּצֵי, אִם אִיתָא דְּאִיכָּא מִילְּתָא – אִית לַיהּ קָלָא.
GEMARA: What is different about women that we investigate their lineage, and what is different about men that we do not investigate their lineage? Why shouldn’t we also examine the lineage of a bride’s male ancestors for any possible flaw, as we do her female ancestors? The Gemara answers: When women quarrel with each other, it is through accusations of engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, i.e., licentiousness, that they quarrel. And if it is so that there is a matter of a flaw with regard to the lineage of the woman in question, it would not generate publicity. By contrast, when men quarrel with each other, it is through accusations of flawed lineage that they quarrel. Therefore, if it is so that there is a matter of a flaw with regard to her father’s lineage, it would generate publicity, even if no investigation is conducted.
וְאִיהִי נָמֵי תִּבְדּוֹק בֵּיהּ בְּדִידֵיהּ? מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא הוּזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת לִינָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִים.
The Gemara inquires: But she should also investigate his lineage; why is only the lineage of the woman investigated? The Gemara comments: This supports Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It was not prohibited for women of unflawed lineage, i.e., daughters of priests, to marry men of flawed lineage, such as ḥalalim, converts, or emancipated slaves. Therefore, women are not required to investigate the lineage of potential husbands.
רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה תָּנֵי: אַרְבַּע אִמָּהוֹת שֶׁהֵם שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: אַרְבַּע אִמָּהוֹת שֶׁהֵם שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה –
Rav Adda bar Ahava taught that one needs to investigate four mothers who are twelve, adding an additional two generations of mothers of each of the woman’s parents. It was taught in a baraita: Four mothers who are sixteen. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rav Adda bar Ahava,
מוֹקֵים לַהּ בִּלְוִיָּה וּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתָא נֵימָא פְּלִיגָא? לָא, מַאי ״עוֹד אַחַת״ – זוּג אַחַת.
he interprets his statement as referring to a Levite woman or an Israelite woman, about whom the mishna states that one must investigate one additional generation. Therefore, Rav Adda bar Ahava’s ruling accords with that of the mishna. But shall we say the baraita disputes the mishna? The Gemara rejects this: No, what is the meaning of the mishna’s phrase: One additional? It means one pair, i.e., two more mothers on each side.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל מִשְׁפָּחוֹת בְּחֶזְקַת כְּשֵׁרוֹת הֵן עוֹמְדוֹת. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ כְּשֶׁקּוֹרֵא עָלָיו עַרְעָר! מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי הָא – לָא מַתְנֵי הָא.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This mishna presents the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: All families retain a presumptive status of fitness, and do not require investigation. The Gemara asks: Is that so, did Rav really say this? But doesn’t Rav Ḥama bar Gurya say that Rav says: Our mishna is referring only to a case when an objection was registered about the family concerning its lineage, but if no objection was registered, everyone agrees that the family retains its presumptive status of fitness. The Gemara answers: The one who taught this statement in the name of Rav did not teach that other statement.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל מִשְׁפְּחוֹת בְּחֶזְקַת כְּשֵׁרוֹת הֵן עוֹמְדוֹת. אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: אִם קוֹרֵא עָלָיו עַרְעָר, צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחֲרֶיהָ.
There are those who say that this discussion occurred as follows: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This mishna presents the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: All families retain presumptive status of fitness. Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says that Rav says: When an objection is registered about a family concerning its lineage, everyone agrees that he must investigate it. According to this version, there is no contradiction between these two complementary statements.
אֵין בּוֹדְקִין מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּלְמַעְלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי לָאו דְּבַדְקוּהּ לָא הֲווֹ מַסְּקִי לֵיהּ. וְלֹא מִן הַדּוּכָן וּלְמַעְלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר מָר: שֶׁשָּׁם הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִים מְיַיחֲסֵי כְּהוּנָּה וּמְיַיחֲסֵי לְוִיָּה.
§ The mishna teaches that one need not investigate from the altar and above. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: If the Sanhedrin had not examined his lineage they would not have allowed him to ascend to the altar and perform the sacrificial rites. The mishna further teaches: Nor must one investigate from the platform and above. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers: It is as the Master said in his description of the Temple chambers (Tosefta, Ḥagiga 2:4): For there in the Hewn Chamber those of the priesthood with unflawed lineage and the Levites of unflawed lineage sat and examined the lineage of everyone who came to serve in the Temple.
וְלֹא מִסַּנְהֶדְרִין וּלְמַעְלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מְנוּקִּין בְּצֶדֶק – כָּךְ מְנוּקִּין מִכׇּל מוּם. אָמַר מָרִימָר: מַאי קְרָאָה – ״כֻּלָּךְ יָפָה רַעְיָתִי וּמוּם אֵין בָּךְ״.
The mishna also taught: Nor must one investigate from the Sanhedrin and above. What is the reason there is no need to investigate further? The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Yosef taught that just as the court is clean in justice, so too, it is clean of any blemish, i.e., it does not include anyone of flawed lineage. Mareimar said: What is the verse from which it is derived? It states: “You are all fair, my love; and there is no blemish in you” (Song of Songs 4:7).
אֵימָא מוּמָא מַמָּשׁ! אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִתְיַצְּבוּ שָׁם עִמָּךְ״, ״עִמָּךְ״ – בְּדוֹמִים לָךְ.
The Gemara asks: But perhaps you should say that this is referring to an actual blemish, that one who has a physical blemish may not be appointed to the Sanhedrin. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: It is not necessary to derive the halakha that one who has a physical blemish may not be appointed to the Sanhedrin from this verse, as the verse states with regard to the transfer of the Divine Spirit from Moses to the Elders: “That they may stand there with you” (Numbers 11:16), and the phrase “with you” is explained to mean: With similarity to you, teaching that the members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body like Moses.
וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם שְׁכִינָה? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָקֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ וְנָשְׂאוּ אִתָּךְ״ – בְּדוֹמִים לָךְ.
The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps those who were with Moses had to be free of any blemish due to the Divine Presence, which rested upon them, but this is not a requirement for judges on the Sanhedrin. Rav Naḥman said that the verse states: “So shall they make it easier for you and bear the burden with you” (Exodus 18:22). The phrase “with you” is explained to mean: With similarity to you, i.e., without blemish. This verse is referring to the appointment of regular judges, upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest, and teaches that all members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body. The verse from Song of Songs teaches that they must be of unflawed lineage as well.
כׇּל מִי שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ אֲבוֹתָיו מִשּׁוֹטְרֵי הָרַבִּים. לְמֵימְרָא דְּלָא מוֹקְמִינַן מִפְּסוּלִים? וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִים לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, וְאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִים לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: ״הַכֹּל״ לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַמְזֵר! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. וְכֵן תָּנֵי רַב שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר זֵירָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי דְבֵי לֵוִי: בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
§ The mishna teaches: Anyone whose ancestors held public posts may marry into the priesthood without investigation. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that we do not establish officers and other public appointees from people with flawed lineage? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following statement: All are fit to judge cases of monetary law, but not all are fit to judge cases of capital law. And we discussed it: What does the word: All, serve to include? And Rav Yehuda says: It serves to include a mamzer, that he may judge cases of monetary law. This indicates that even a mamzer may occupy a public position. Abaye said: The mishna is referring to public officials in Jerusalem, where they were particular that all their judges should be of unflawed lineage. And Rav Shimon bar Zeira similarly taught in the baraita of Kiddushin from the school of Levi: It is referring to public officials in Jerusalem.
וְגַבָּאֵי צְדָקָה מַשִּׂיאִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּמִנְּצוּ בַּהֲדֵי אִינָשֵׁי, דְּאָמַר מָר: מְמַשְׁכְּנִים עַל הַצְּדָקָה וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, וְאִם אִיתָא דְּאִיכָּא – אִית לֵיהּ קָלָא.
The mishna teaches: And anyone whose ancestors were charity collectors may marry into the priesthood without investigation. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: It is due to the fact that they quarrel with people, as the Master said: Those appointed to collect charity may forcibly take collateral for charity from those who have not fulfilled their obligations even on the eve of Shabbat, when people are preoccupied and rushed, leading to quarrels. And if it is so that there is a flaw in the lineage of the collector’s family, it would generate publicity through the quarrels that are an unavoidable aspect of his job.
אוּשְׁפִּיזְכָּנֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה גִּיּוֹרָא הֲוָה, וַהֲוָה קָא מִנְּצֵי אִיהוּ וְרַב בִּיבִי, מָר אָמַר: אֲנָא עָבֵידְנָא סְרָרוּתָא דְמָתָא, וּמַר אָמַר: אֲנָא עָבֵידְנָא סְרָרוּתָא דְמָתָא. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף אֲמַר לְהוּ: תְּנֵינָא: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ… מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ״, כׇּל מְשִׂימוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה מֵשִׂים – לֹא יִהְיֶה אֶלָּא מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ.
The Gemara relates: Rav Adda bar Ahava’s host was the son of a convert, and he and Rav Beivai were quarreling. One said: I will perform the service of the city, i.e., I will be appointed to a position of authority, and one said: I will perform the service of the city. They came before Rav Yosef to decide between them. Rav Yosef said to them: We learned: “You shall set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose; one from among your brothers” (Deuteronomy 17:15). The repetition of the verb “set” in the verse [som tasim] indicates: All appointments that you appoint may be only from among your brothers. Therefore, a convert may not serve in any official position.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: וַאֲפִילּוּ אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ. הִלְכָּךְ רַב בִּיבִי דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּא הוּא – לִיעַיֵּין בְּמִילֵּי דִשְׁמַיָּא, וּמָר – לִיעַיֵּין בְּמִילֵּי דְמָתָא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי הִלְכָּךְ מַאן דְּמַשְׁרֵי צוּרְבָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן בְּאוּשְׁפִּיזְכָּנֵיהּ – לַאשְׁרֵי כְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, (דְּיָדַע לִמְהַפֵּיךְ) [דִּמְהַפֵּיךְ] לֵיהּ בִּזְכוּתֵיהּ.
Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rav Yosef: And does this halakha apply even if the mother of the person in question is born Jewish? In other words, does this apply to one whose father is a convert? Rav Yosef said to him: If his mother is born Jewish, the words: “From among your brothers” are said about him. Therefore, now that it has been determined that this person’s mother was born Jewish and that he is fit to serve a public role, Rav Beivai, who is a great man in Torah learning, should oversee the matters of Heaven, i.e., the public issues that involve the performance of mitzvot; and the Master, Rav Adda bar Ahava’s host, should oversee the other matters of the city. Abaye said, as a moral of the story: Therefore, if one has a Torah scholar as a guest, let him host a person such as Rav Adda bar Ahava, who knows how to plead in his favor, as it was the argument of Rav Adda bar Ahava that led to his host’s appointment.
רַבִּי זֵירָא מִטַּפַּל בְּהוּ, רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ מִטַּפַּל בְּהוּ. בְּמַעְרְבָא אֲפִילּוּ רֵישׁ כּוֹרֵי לָא מוֹקְמִי מִינַּיְיהוּ. בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא אֲפִילּוּ רֵישׁ גַּרְגּוּתָא לָא מוֹקְמִי מִינַּיְיהוּ.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira would deal with converts and assign them to positions of authority. Similarly, Rabba bar Avuh would deal with them. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they would not establish even an appointee over measurements from them, as they extended the prohibition against appointing a convert as a king to include all positions of power. In Neharde’a, they would not establish even an appointee over irrigation of the city fields from them.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף מִי שֶׁהָיָה וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? דָּיְיקִי וּמַחְתְּמִי.
The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: Even the descendants of one who had signed as a witness in the Old Court of Tzippori does not need to have their lineage investigated. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: In that city, they would first examine witnesses and only afterward have them sign. Consequently, anyone who signed as a witness in Tzippori must certainly have been of unflawed lineage.
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בַּחֲיָילוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית דָּוִד. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קְרָא? ״וְהִתְיַחְשָׂם בַּצָּבָא בַּמִּלְחָמָה״. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא זְכוּתָן וּזְכוּת אֲבוֹתָם מְסַיַּיעְתָּן.
The mishna teaches that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Even the descendants of one who was written in the army list of the Jewish king does not have their lineage investigated. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The reference is to one who was written in the list of the military troops of the House of David, who were all of pure lineage. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? The phrase is: “Reckoned by lineage for service in war” (I Chronicles 7:40). The Gemara asks: And what is the reason for this requirement that they be of unflawed lineage? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is in order that their merit and the merit of their ancestors will help them in battle.
וְהָאִיכָּא צֶלֶק הָעַמּוֹנִי, מַאי לָאו דְּאָתֵי מֵעַמּוֹן? לָא, דְּיָתֵיב בְּעַמּוֹן. וְהָאִיכָּא אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי, מַאי לָאו דְּאָתֵי מֵחֵת? לָא, דְּיָתֵיב בְּחֵת.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there Zelek the Ammonite, one of David’s warriors (II Samuel 23:37); what, is it not indicated that he was a convert who came from Ammon? The Gemara rejects this: No, his name indicates only that he dwelled in Ammon, but he was born a Jew. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there Uriah the Hittite (II Samuel 23:39); what, is it not indicated that he came from Heth? The Gemara rejects this: No, his name indicates only that he dwelled in Heth.
וְהָאִיכָּא אִתַּי הַגִּתִּי! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי דְּיָתֵיב בְּגַת, וְהָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אִתַּי הַגִּיתִּי בָּא וּבִטְּלָהּ!
The Gemara further asks: But isn’t there Ittai the Gittite (II Samuel 15:19)? And if you would say that so too his name indicates that he dwelled in Gath but was born a Jew, but doesn’t Rav Naḥman say, to explain how David could make use of the crown of the idol of Ammon in apparent violation of the prohibition against deriving benefit from idolatry: Ittai the Gittite came and nullified its status of an idol. The halakha is that only a gentile can nullify an idol, by doing something degrading to it. This indicates that Ittai the Gittite must have been a gentile.
וְעוֹד אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת יְלָדִים הָיוּ לוֹ לְדָוִד, וְכוּלָּם בְּנֵי יְפַת תּוֹאַר הָיוּ, וְכוּלָּם מִסְתַּפְּרִים קוֹמֵי, וּמְגַדְּלִים בְּלוֹרִית הָיוּ, וְכוּלָּם יוֹשְׁבִים בִּקְרוֹנִיּוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב וְהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִים בְּרָאשֵׁי גְיָיסוֹת, וְהֵן הֵן בַּעֲלֵי אֶגְרוֹפִים שֶׁל בֵּית דָּוִד! דְּאָזְלִי לְבַעוֹתֵי עָלְמָא.
The Gemara again questions the statement that all of the soldiers in David’s army were of unflawed lineage. And further, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: David had four hundred youths in his camp, all sons of beautiful women, i.e., born to women captured in war, who were therefore gentiles, all of whom had their hair cut in the komei style or who grew their hair in a gentile hairstyle [belorit] on the back of their heads, and all of them sat in gold carts [bikroniyyot] and would march at the head of troops in David’s army; and these very ones were the strong men of the House of David, i.e., David would rely on their strength. This states that David’s army included men of flawed lineage. The Gemara answers: These four hundred youths did not fight in the battles, but rather they would go forth in front of the troops in order to frighten everyone.
