Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Zayin, Part 2

 

Introduction

The Talmud looks for another case of betrothal without a transgression where the status follows the father.

 

והאיכא דרבה בר בר חנה דאמ’ רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מצרי שני שנשא מצרית ראשונה בנה שלישי הוי

 

But there is the case of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah. For Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: If an Egyptian of the second degree marries an Egyptian woman of the first degree, her son ranks as third degree!

 

The Torah prohibits marrying an Egyptian until the third generation (this no longer applies, as the original Egyptians have been lost). The status of generations follows the father so if the father is second degree and the mother is first degree, the child follows the father and is third degree.

 

תנא כל מקום דרישא לאתויי

ולרב דימי דאמר שני הוי תנא איזו זו למעוטי

 

In any case of the first clause comes to include this;

And to R. Dimi, who holds that he belongs to the second degree, this is the case is taught as a limitation.

 

R. Yohanan could read this law into the mishnah s words in any case. And R. Dimi who disagrees and holds that the offspring is a second degree Egyptian, following the mother, he would read the words this is the case as excluding the case of the Egyptians. In other cases where there is kiddushin and no transgression the offspring follows the father. But not in this case.

 

והאיכא דכי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן באומות הלך אחר הזכר נתגיירו הלך אחר הפגום שבשניהם

תנא איזו זו למעוטי

 

But is there not the following: For when Ravin came, he said in the name of R. Yohanan: In the case of [other] nations, follow the male; if they convert, follow the more inferior status of the two!

This is the case comes to exclude.

 

Ravin discusses how to figure out what generation Egyptian or Edomite (both prohibited for the first three generations) is. If non-Jews marry, say a first generation Egyptian marries a non-Egyptian, we follow the male. But when they convert, the more inferior status is followed, not the male. This does not follow the rule of the mishnah where the status follows the male. [A convert may marry an Egyptian convert].

The Talmud now reads this is the case as excluding two non-Jews who convert.

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא מתניתין רבי יהודה היא כל מקום דרישא לאתויי ישראל שנשא חללה ודרבה בר בר חנה איזו זו למעוטי דרב דימי ורבין

כל מקום דסיפא לאתויי גר שנשא ממזרת

[Reverting to the issue of the authorship of the Mishnah:] How now! If you say that our Mishnah agrees with R. Judah, it goes well: In any case of the first clause includes an Israelite who marries a halalah and the case of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah; while this is the case excludes the cases of R. Dimi and Ravin.

And in any case of the second clause includes a convert who marries a mamzeret.

 

If you say that the mishnah accords with R. Yehudah who said that a convert may not marry a mamzeret, then the mishnah works well. The words in any case come to include an Israelite who marries a halalah (the child follows the father and is not a halal) and the case of the second generation Egyptian who marries a first generation Egyptian. The words this is the case exclude the cases of Ravin and R. Dimi from above.

And in the second clause, where the offspring follows the lesser lineage, the words in any case would include a convert who marries a mamzeret, since according to R. Yehudah, this marriage is a transgression.

 

אלא אי אמרת רבי יוסי היא כל מקום דרישא כדאמרן איזו זו כדאמרן אלא כל מקום דסיפא לאתויי מאי

 

But if you say that it agrees with R. Yose: In any case of the first clause is [to be explained] as we have said: This is the case [likewise] as we have said: but what does In any case of the second clause come to include?

 

R. Yose says a convert may marry a mamzer. So what does he include in the second clause of the mishnah?

 

ולטעמיך לר’ יהודה איזו זו דסיפ’ למה לי אלא איידי דתנא רישא איזו זו תנא סיפא איזו זו ה"נ איידי דתנא רישא כל מקום תנא נמי סיפא כל מקום

 

Now on your view, according to R. Judah, what is the purpose of the this is the case of the second clause?

Hence [you must say] because the first clause states this is the case , the second also states: this is the case . So here too, because the first clause states in any case the second also states in any case .

 

This is a bit confusing, I admit. But the short of it is sometimes you cannot read something into a word like in any case or this is the case. Sometimes the former does not come to include anything and sometimes the latter does not exclude anything. They re just there because that s the style of the mishnah.

I should note that the Talmud never derives new halakhot from words like in any case or this is the case. The Talmud uses these little words as an opportunity to add known halakhot to the Mishnah. This type of midrash on the mishnah is not generative, meaning generating new halakhot. It simply supports existing ones.