Kiddushin, Daf Ayin Gimmel, Part 4
Introduction
Today’s sugya discusses the asufi, a child collected from the marketplace and does not know who either of his parents are.
ואמר רבא דבר תורה אסופי כשר מאי טעמא אשת איש בבעלה תולה
מאי איכא מיעוט ארוסות ומיעוט שהלך בעליהם למדינת הים כיון דאיכא פנויה ואיכא נמי דמחמת רעבון הוה פלגא ופלגא והתורה אמרה לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה’ ממזר ודאי הוא דלא יבא הא ממזר ספק יבא בקהל ודאי הוא דלא יבא הא בקהל ספק יבא
Rava also said: According to the Torah, a foundling is fit. What is the reason? A married woman ascribes [an illegitimate child] to her husband.
What else might there be? A minority of betrothed women and a minority whose husbands have gone overseas? But since there are unmarried [women], and also [children cast away] on account of poverty, it is half and half, and the Torah said: “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord”: only a certain mamzer may not enter, but a doubtful mamzer may; only into a certain congregatin may he not enter, but he may enter into a doubtful one.
In yesterday’s section Rava said that according to the Torah, a shetuki is valid. Here he adds that this is also true of an asufi, a foundling. The question is—whose child might this be such that it might be a mamzer? It could be the child of a married woman who had an affair, but married women do not throw their mamzer babies away. They just say the child is the husband’s. Betrothed women cannot say this and a married woman whose husband is away cannot say this. But this is a minority, most castaway children would come from either unmarried women or married women whose children are fit but who are too poor to raise them. and as we have seen, according to the Torah only a certain mamzer may not marry an Israelite. A doubtful one is allowed to.
ומה טעם אמרו אסופי פסול שמא ישא אחותו מאביו
Then what is the reason that they ruled that a foundling is unfit?
It is a decree lest he marry his paternal sister.
A foundling is not allowed to marry an Israelite lest this Israelite woman turns out to be his paternal sister.
אלא מעתה אסופי אסופית לא ישא שמא ישא אחותו בין מאביו בין מאמו
כל הני שדי ואזלי
If so, a foundling should not marry a female foundling, lest he marry his paternal or maternal sister?
Do we assume that one person cast so many children away [into the marketplace]?
Logically speaking, the foundling should not be allowed to marry even another foundling lest she be his sister. But we are not concerned that one person cast so many children into the marketplace. Leaving kids to be found with others is not something one should do too often.
בת אסופי לא ישא שמא ישא אחותו אלא לא שכיח ה"נ לא שכיח אלא מעלה עשו ביוחסים
Then let him not marry the daughter of a foundling, lest he marry his sister?
Rather [you must answer that] it is not common.
Then here too, it is not common!
Rather [the reason is:] a higher standard was set up in respect to lineage.
Again, logically he should not be allowed to marry the daughter of a foundling. But he is allowed to do so, because this is not common. But again, the Talmud protests, it would not be common for him to come from a woman who had an affair.
Rather, the ultimate answer is that the rabbis were simply strict when it comes to lineage. This is certainly an accurate assessment, as we have seen throughout this chapter. Rabbis view lineage as one of the most important factors determining a person’s qualities.
אמר רבא בר רב הונא מצאו מהול אין בו משום אסופי
משלטי הדמיה אין בו משום אסופי
שייף משחא ומלא כוחלא רמי חומרי תלי פיתקא ותלי קמיעא אין בו משום אסופי
Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If he [the foundling] is found circumcised, he is not [forbidden] as a foundling.
If his limbs are adjusted, he is not [forbidden] as a foundling.
If he has been rubbed with oil, full of powder, they hung beads on him, or they put a note [with an inscription] or an amulet on him, he is not considered a foundling.
As harsh as this sounds, the assumption is that a mother casting away a child who is a mamzer would not bother circumcising him or treating him well in some other way. Therefore, if we find any of these signs, we can assume the child is fit. The mother was forced, probably due to dire circumstances, to cast out her child. But first she made sure he was circumcised and received what was considered proper medical at this time.
We should emphasize that this also might be an attempt to limit the number of children considered unfit. Perhaps mothers would take care of their children, even if they are unfit. But if we can find some reason to assume that they are fit, then that’s what we do.
תלי בדיקלי אי מטיא ליה חיה יש בו משום אסופי אם לאו אין בו משום אסופי
זרדתא סמיכא למתא יש בו משום אסופי ואם לאו אין בו משום אסופי
בי כנישתא סמיכתא למתא ושכיחי ביה רבים אין בו משום אסופי ואם לאו יש בו משום אסופי
If they hung him up on a palm tree, if a wild beast can reach him, he is [forbidden] as a foundling; if not, he is not considered a foundling.
[If found in] a thicket near a town, he is considered a foundling; if not, he is not a foundling.
[If found in] a synagogue near a town where many congregate, he is not a foundling; otherwise, it is.
If we can assume that the parents placed him somewhere where he would be safe and likely to be found, then he is not considered unfit. Again, the assumption is that parents care about the wellbeing of their children only if they have decent lineage. If the child is a mamzer, the parents can be assumed to have just cast him away to die. Pretty sad, but as I’ve said, lineage was a big factor back then.