Kiddushin, Daf Ayin Heh, Part 6
Introduction
In yesterday s section, we learned that R. Elazar holds like R. Akiva, that if a non-Jewish man has a child with a Jewish woman, the child is a mamzer. Today s section questions whether this is true.
ומי סבר לה רבי אלעזר כרבי עקיבא והאמר ר’ אלעזר אע"פ שנחלקו ב"ש ובית הילל בצרות מודים שאין ממזר אלא ממי שאיסורו איסור ערוה וענוש כרת
But does R. Elazar really hold like R. Akiva? But did not R. Elazar say: Even though Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel differ with respect to co-wives, they agree that a mamzer is only from one who is forbidden due to incest and is punished by karet!
In the first chapter of Yevamot, Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagree about whether a co-wife is liable for yibbum if one of the other co-wives cannot have yibbum due to her being related to the yavam. Bet Shammai says they are, Bet Hillel says they are not. This is not the place to get into the nitty-gritty of this debate. The importance here is that R. Elazar holds that both houses think that a mamzer is created only if the child is born of a union punishable by karet (or death). This would exclude a non-Jewish man who has a child with a Jewish woman.
אלא כי אתא רבין אמר ר’ חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן ואמרי לה אמר ר’ אבא בר זבדא אמר רבי חנינא ואמרי לה אמר ר’ יעקב בר אידי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שלש מחלוקות בדבר ר’ ישמעאל סבר כותים גירי אריות הן וכהנים שנטמעו בהם כהנים פסולים היו שנאמר (מלכים ב יז, לב) ויעשו להם מקצותם כהני במות ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מן הקוצים שבעם ומשום הכי פסלינהו
Rather when Ravin came, he said in the name of R. Hiyya in the name of R. Yohanan, and others say, in the name of R. Abba b. Zabda in the name of R. Hanina, and others say, in the name of R. Jacob b. Idi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: There are three opposing views in this matter: R. Ishmael holds: Samaritans are converts [through fear] of lions, and the priests who became mixed up in them were unfit priests, as it is said, And made unto them from among themselves (miktzotam) priests of the high places (II Kings 17:32), and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: from the most unworthy (hakotzim) of the people, and on that account they were disqualified.
Ravin comes to clarify that there are three views on the Samaritans and these lead to three different explanations as to why non-Samaritan Jews cannot intermarry with them. The first view is that of R. Yishmael. He holds that they were not real converts for they converted only out of fear. Priests of unfit lineage then intermarried with them. So a Samaritan may be of non-Jewish stock, or he may be of problematic Jewish stock. Since he is doubtful, he cannot marry another Samaritan.
ורבי עקיבא סבר כותים גירי אמת הן וכהנים שנטמעו בהן כהנים כשרים היו שנאמר ויעשו להם מקצותם כהני במות ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מן הבחירים שבעם ואלא מפני מה אסרום מפני שהיו מייבמים את הארוסות ופוטרים את הנשואות
R. Akiva holds: Samaritans are true converts, and the priests who became mixed up with them were fit priests, as it is said: And made unto them from among themselves priests of the high places (II Kings 17:32), and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: From the choicest of the people. Then why did they prohibit them? Because they would have levirate marriage with betrothed women and they would exempt the married ones.
R. Akiva thinks Samaritans converted out of true desire to join the Jewish people and the priests who married them were fit priests. The question then is why are they not allowed to marry non-Samaritan Jews? The answer is that they had wrong views with regard to levirate marriage. According to rabbinic halakhah, both a married wife and a betrothed one are liable to levirate marriage should their husband/fianc e die. But according to Samaritan halakhah (and I believe Karaitic halakhah) betrothed women are liable, married women are not. As we shall see, this could lead to mamzerim (it can also lead to mixed dancing).
מאי דרשי (דברים כה, ה) לא תהיה אשת המת החוצה לאיש זר הך דיתבה חוצה היא לא תהיה לאיש זר אבל הך דלא יתבה חוצה תהיה לאיש זר
ורבי עקיבא לטעמיה דאמר יש ממזר מחייבי לאוין
How did they interpret this? The wife of the dead shall not marry out [ha-huzah] to a stranger (Deuteronomy 25:5): she who sat out shall not marry a stranger; but she who did not sit out may marry a stranger.
And R. Akiva follows his own view, for he holds, There is mamzer from those who are prohibited by a negative commandment.
The Samaritans ruled this way due to a midrash on the word out, a word which seems to be extraneous. They read the word as referring to a betrothed woman, who sat out without getting married. Such a woman is liable for yibbum but a married woman is not.
It seems to me likely that the real reason the Samaritans ruled that betrothed women are liable for yibbum and that married ones are not is to solve the contradiction between the mitzvah to marry one s husband s brother and the prohibition of marrying one s brother s wife. The rabbis harmonize the verses by saying that it is always forbidden for a man to marry his brother s wife except in cases of yibbum. But another solution would be to say that it is prohibited in cases where the woman was married, and obligatory in cases where her husband died while still betrothed. Indeed, this is how the Karaites ruled in a later period.
Finally, R. Akiva holds that although the prohibition of a woman liable for yibbum to marry someone other than the yavam (without halitzah) is only a negative commandment, not punishable by death or karet, the offspring is still a mamzer. R. Akiva has the broadest view in terms of what relationships lead to the creation of mamzerim.
ויש אומרים לפי שאין בקיאין בדקדוקי מצות
מאן יש אומרים אמר רב אידי בר אבין רבי אליעזר היא דתניא מצת כותי מותרת ואדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח ורבי אליעזר אוסר לפי שאין בקיאים בדקדוקי מצות
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה כותים הרבה מדקדקים בה יותר מישראל
ואלא הכי מאי אין בקיאין לפי שאין בקיאין בתורת קידושין וגירושין
And some say, because they are not experts in the minutiae of the mitzvot.
Who are the some say ? R. Idi b. Abin said: It is R. Eliezer. For it was taught: The matzah of a Samaritan is permitted, and one fulfils his obligation with it on Pesah; but R. Eliezer forbids it, because they are not not experts in the minutiae of the mitzvot.
R. Shimon b. Gamaliel said: Every mitzvah which Samaritans have adopted, they observe it with minute care, [even] more than Jews.
But here [in respect to marriage], what does it mean they are not experts?
Because they are not experts in the laws of betrothal and divorce.
The third opinion disqualifies the Samaritans because they are not experts in the laws of betrothal and divorce and therefore might come to marry women married to other men. Samaritans did not observe the rabbinic laws of marriage and divorce, for most of these rules are not written in the Torah and the Samaritans did not observe rabbinic law. However, we see in the baraita quoted here, the Samaritans were thought by some rabbis to be scrupulous when it comes to mitzvoth that they have adopted, which probably include many of the mitzvoth found explicitly in the Torah. This seems to me a pretty perceptive view of the Samaritans they were not lax in their observance, they were simply not rabbinic Jews.
אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה ממזר מאחותו וממזר מאשת אח נתערבו בהן מאי קא משמע לן יש ממזר מחייבי כריתות ניתני חדא מעשה שהיה כך היה
R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: Mamzerim formed from [brother s relationships] with sisters and with brother s wives intermarried with them [Samaritans].
What does this come to teach us? That a mamzer is formed from those punished by karet? But we already taught this once!
This is what actually happened.
R. Nahman said Samaritans were intermarrying with mamzerim caused by incestual relationships punished by karet. While we have already learned that the offspring of such relationships are mamzerim, since this is history, R. Nahman taught it anyways, despite the fact that it teaches us nothing new. Halakhot should teach something new. Descriptions of things that actually happened do not need to teach something new.
ורבא אמר עבד ושפחה נתערבו בהן איסורא משום מאי משום שפחה ניתני חדא מעשה שהיה כך היה
And Rava said: Slaves and handmaidens intermarried with them. And why is this prohibited? Because of the prohibitions of having relations with a handmaiden. But we already taught this once!
This is what actually happened.
Rava says that they intermarried with slaves and handmaidens, and the child of a handmaiden is a slave. Thus Samaritans might be slaves. And again, while we ve already taught this halakhah, Rava states it here because this is what happened (in his opinion).