Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Zayin, Part 1

 

Introduction

This week s daf begins to explain the mishnah about lineage.

 

גמ׳ כל מקום שיש קידושין

אמר ליה רבי שמעון לרבי יוחנן כללא הוא דכל מקום שיש קידושין ואין עבירה הולד הולך אחר הזכר הרי גר שנשא ממזרת דיש קידושין ואין עבירה הולד הולך אחר הפגום דתניא גר שנשא ממזרת הולד ממזר דברי רבי יוסי

 

GEMARA. Wherever there is kiddushin: R. Shimon said to R. Yohanan: Is it then a general principle that wherever there is kiddushin and there is no transgression the offspring follows the status of the male? But what of a convert who marries a mamzeret, where the kiddushin is valid and there is no transgression, and yet the offspring follows the status of the flawed one? For it was taught: If a convert marries a mamzeret, the offspring is a mamzer, the words of R. Yose!

 

R. Shimon [ben Lakish] thinks that the mishnah s general principle has exceptions. If a convert marries a mamzeret, which is allowed, the child is a mamzer. Note that the child of a mamzer/et is always a mamzer.

 

אמר ליה מי סברת מתני’ ר’ יוסי היא מתניתין ר’ יהודה היא דאמר גר לא ישא ממזרת ויש קידושין ויש עבירה הולד הולך אחר הפגום וניתנייה תנא כל מקום דסיפא לאתויי

 

He said back: Do you think that our Mishnah agrees with R. Yose? Our Mishnah follows R. Yehudah, who holds: A convert may not marry a mamzeret; hence there is kiddushin, but there is a transgression, [and so] the offspring follows the status of the flawed one.

Then let it be taught [in the Mishnah]? In any case of the second clause comes to include this.

 

R. Yohanan responds that the mishnah agrees with R. Yehudah who holds that a convert may not marry a mamzeret. Therefore, this is a case of there being kiddushin (meaning they would need a divorce to separate) but with a transgression and in such cases the offspring follows the inferior, flawed, genealogical status. This is the second clause of the mishnah, not the first.

This is alluded to in the mishnah with the words in any case.

 

ואיבעית אימא לעולם רבי יוסי היא ותנא איזו זו למעוטי

 

And if you want I could say, it does after all, follow R. Yose, and this is the case is taught as a limitation.

 

The mishnah could read like R. Yose a convert can marry a mamzeret. However, the words this is the case would exclude this case from following the rule. Although a convert can marry a mamzeret, the offspring still follows the flawed status.

 

ואיזו זו ותו לא והרי חלל שנשא בת ישראל דיש קידושין ואין עבירה הולד הולך אחר הזכר

הא לא קשיא כר’ דוסתאי בן ר’ יהודה ס"ל

 

Does then the this is the case imply that there are no others? But what of a halal who marries the daughter of an Israelite, where there is kiddushin and there is no transgression, yet the offspring follows the male?

That is no difficulty: He [the Tanna of our Mishnah] holds according to R. Dostai son of R. Judah.

 

If this is the case means that the case in the mishnah is the only case (Israelites, Levites and priests who marry daughters of Israelites, Levites and priests) then what about a halal, a disqualified priest, who marries an Israelite woman. Here there is no transgression and the offspring is a halal.

The answer is that our mishnah follows. R. Dostai who holds that in this case the offspring is kosher, not a halal.

 

והרי ישראל שנשא חללה דיש קידושין ואין עבירה הולד הולך אחר הזכר

תנא כל מקום דרישא לאתויי

וניתנייה בהדיא

משום דלא מתני לה היכי ניתני כהנת ולויה וישראלית וחללה שנשאת לכהן לוי וישראל וחללה לכהן מי חזיא

 

But what of an Israelite who marries a halalah, where there is kiddushin and there is no transgression, and yet the offspring follows the male?

In any case is stated in the first clause to include.

Then let it be explicitly taught?

Because it cannot be [easily] taught. [For] how should it be taught: The daughter of a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite or a halalah who marries a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite? Is then a halalah fit to [marry] a priest?

 

If a halalah (a woman disqualified from marrying a priest, for instance a divorcee who had relations with a priest) marries an Israelite, the child follows a male. This is another example that would fit into the first clause of the mishnah and yet it is not taught.

The answer is that the words in any case in the first clause are there to include this case.

This case is not included in the mishnah because it would not easily fit in. While a halalah can marry an Israelite or Levite, she cannot marry a priest.