Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Het, Part 2

 

Introduction

Yesterday s section ended with a midrash explaining the words beloved and hated to refer to women prohibited in marriage by a negative commandment. Marriage is effective with such women and their children are not considered mamzerim. But R. Akiva holds that they are, and he holds that kiddushin are ineffective with such women. So how does he read the verse?

 

ולר"ע דאמר אין קידושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין כי תהיין במאי מוקים באלמנה לכ"ג וכר’ סימאי דתניא רבי סימאי אומר מן הכל היה ר"ע עושה ממזר חוץ מאלמנה לכהן גדול שהרי אמרה תורה (ויקרא כא, ו) לא יחלל חילולים עושה ואין עושה ממזרות

 

Now R, Akiva, who holds that kiddushin are invalid with those who are prohibited by a negative commandment, to what does he apply [the words], if there be ?

To [the betrothal of] a widow to a High Priest, and in accordance with R. Simai. For it was taught: R. Simai said: R. Akiva declared that any [offspring] of [a marriage forbidden by a negative commandment] is a mamzer, except that of a widow [married] to a High Priest, since the Torah said, [A widow . . . he shall not take,] and he shall not profane [his seed] (Leviticus 21:6): he profanes [his seed], but he does not make a mamzer.

 

According to R. Simai, there is one marriage prohibited by a negative commandment that R. Akiva does not declare a mamzer a widow married to a high priest.

 

ולר’ ישבב דאמר בואו ונצווח על עקיבא בן יוסף שהיה אומר כל שאין לו ביאה בישראל הולד ממזר הניחא לר’ ישבב אי לאפוקי מדר’ סימאי קאתי שפיר אלא אי טעמא דנפשיה קאמר ואפי’ חייבי עשה במאי מוקים לה בבעולה לכ"ג ומאי שנא משום דהוי ליה עשה שאין שוה בכל

 

But according to R. Yeshvav, who said: Come, and let us cry out against Akiva son of Joseph, who declared: He who has no entry in Israel, the offspring is a mamzer.

It goes well if R. Yeshvav comes to combat R. Simai; then it is right.

But if he states his own opinion, and [R. Akiva declares a mamzer the offspring] even of those who are prohibited by a positive commandment, to what does he apply it?

To a non-virgin [married] to a High Priest.

And how is this different? Because it is a positive commandment not applicable to all.

 

R. Yeshvav laments R. Akiva s overly strict position. However, it is unclear what R. Yeshvav thinks R. Akiva s position actually is. If he thinks it is the same as R. Simai does, then we understand how R. Akiva interprets the words beloved and hated. But if he thinks R. Akiva rules even more strictly, that the offspring of all women prohibited by negative commandments and even those prohibited by positive commandments are mamzerim, then how would R. Akiva understand the verse?

The answer is that R. Akiva could read the verse as referring to a non-virgin who may not marry a High Priest. This is considered a positive commandment for the Torah says that the High Priest must marry a virgin the rule is phrased in the positive and not the negative. It is different from other positive commandments in that it applies only to a High Priest and not to other Jews, even other priests. Only in this case would the offspring not be a mamzer according to a very expansive reading of R. Akiva.

Note that according to this R. Akiva reads the verse, If a man has two wives, one beloved and one hated as referring only to the Kohen Hagadol who has two wives, one he married as a virgin and one as a non-virgin. Yes, this is weird. But you ve been reading Talmud for a while now lots of stuff gets weird. As I ve said, as long as it s possible, an interpretation can be offered, even if it seems remarkably unlikely.