Kiddushin, Daf Ayin Heh, Part 5
Introduction
This sugya is about Samaritans. There has been much written about the origins and the development of this group. This is not the place for a comprehensive survey of the issue. To the rabbis, Samaritans were sort-of Jews. They did not keep rabbinic law, so they could not intermarry with rabbinic Jews (not sure if they wanted to anyways). But the rabbis realized that they did observe some commandments correctly. Some rabbis considered them valid converts, and some did not. We ll see this debate reflected in this sugya.
תניא וכן רבי אלעזר אומר כותי לא ישא כותית
מאי טעמא אמר רב יוסף עשאוהו כגר לאחר עשרה דורות דתניא גר עד עשרה דורות מותר בממזרת מכאן ואילך אסור בממזרת
ויש אומרים עד שישתקע שם עבודת כוכבים ממנו
It was taught: And thus did R. Elazar say: A Samaritan may not marry a Samaritan.
What is the reason? R. Yosef said: He treated him like a convert after ten generations. For it was taught: A convert, until ten generations, may marry a mamzeret. From this point forward, he is forbidden [to marry] a mamzeret.
Others state: [He is permitted] until the name of idolatry has completely fallen away from him.
According to R. Elazar, a Samaritan is like a convert after ten generations. For the first ten generations a convert can marry a mamzeret, because we (or at least this source) still suspects him of being an idol worshipper. But after ten generations, he may not because he is no longer suspected of any remnant of idolatry. The Samaritans converted a long time ago. Therefore, they may be kosher Israelites. But paradoxically, this means they cannot marry those forbidden to enter into Israel. In other words, one Samaritan cannot marry another. I should note, it is doubtful that any real Samaritans ever listened to what the rabbis said. The rabbis talk about them, but that does not mean they had any authority over them.
א"ל אביי מי דמי התם גר ישן וממזרת חדשה אמרי בר ישראל הוא דקא נסיב ממזרת הכא אידי ואידי כי הדדי נינהו
Abaye said to him: Is it the same! There, he is a convert of old [stock] and a recent mamzeret, and people will say: He is an Israelite marrying a mamzeret whereas here they are both alike?
Abaye points out the absurdity of the comparison. In the case of a convert after ten generations, people will have forgotten that his great-great-great (you get the point) grandfather was a convert. They will think a regular Israelite is marrying a mamzer. But here, the Samaritan is marrying another Samaritan. No one will think a regular Israelite is marrying a Samaritan.
אלא כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי אלעזר סבר לה כרבי ישמעאל ורבי ישמעאל סבר לה כר’ עקיבא
ר’ אלעזר סבר לה כרבי ישמעאל דאמר כותים גירי אריות הם ור’ ישמעאל סבר לה כר’ עקיבא דאמר עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר
Rather when R. Dimi came, he said: R. Elazar holds like R. Yishmael, and R. Yishmael holds like R. Akiva. R. Elazar holds like R. Yishmael, who holds: Samaritans are converts [through fear] of lions. And R. Yishmael agrees with R. Akiva, who said: If a non-Jew or a slave has intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite, the offspring is mamzer.
R. Dimi explains that to R. Elazar, Samaritans are basically non-Jews. Their conversion was invalid because it was out of fear of lions (see II Kings 17). Thus they are considered non-Jews. And if they have a child with a Jewish woman, the child is a mamzer. Therefore, all Samaritans have the status of uncertain mamzerim, and as we know, R. Elazar does not allow uncertain mamzerim to marry other uncertain mamzerim.
ומי סבר לה ר’ ישמעאל כר"ע והאמר רבי יוחנן משום ר’ ישמעאל מנין לעובד כוכבים ועבד שבאו על הכהנת ועל הלויה ועל בת ישראל שפסלוה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, יג) ובת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה וגרושה וזרע אין לה מי שיש לו אלמנות וגרושין יצא עובד כוכבים ועבד שאין לו אלמנות וגרושין
ואי ס"ד סבר לה כר"ע השתא ממזר הוי מיפסל בביאתו מיבעיא
But does R. Yishmael hold like R. Akiva? But did not R. Yohanan say in the name of R. Yishmael: How do we know that a non-Jew or a slave who has intercourse with the daughter of a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite, disqualifies her? Because it is said: But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and she has no offspring (Leviticus 22:13): One who can become [according to Jewish law] a widow or a divorcee. This excludes a non-Jew or a slave, who cannot become a widow or a divorcee.
Now should you think that he holds like R. Akiva, if he [the offspring] is mamzer, is it necessary [to deduce] that he [the non-Jew] disqualifies by his intercourse!
R. Yishmael teaches a midrash according to which when a non-Jew or slave has intercourse with an Israelite woman, he disqualifies her from subsequently marrying a priest. But if he agreed with R. Akiva, that the offspring of such a union was an Israelite, then obviously he would disqualify her from marrying a priest. The very need for such a midrash implies that the offspring is not a mamzer, but nevertheless, the woman is disqualified.
אלא ר’ אלעזר סבר לה כר’ ישמעאל דאמר כותים גירי אריות וסבר לה כר’ עקיבא דאמר עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר
Rather R. Elazar agrees with R. Yishmael who maintained that Samaritans are converts [through fear] of lions, and he also agrees with R. Akiva, who said: If a non-Jew or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the issue is mamzer.
This is only a small modification to what was said above. R. Elazar agrees with R. Yishmael and R. Akiva, but this does not mean that R. Yishmael agrees with R. Akiva. Now are we all okay with who agrees with whom?