More Discussions for this daf
1. question of gemarah 2. Kusi- Geirei Aryaos or Geirei Emes 3. Persian Jews

ruben farkas asked:

the gemarah on 75A asks a s'tirah between 2 dictates of Rav and 2 of Shmuel - 1st answer - change the attribution so they agree - 2nd answer - do not have to change - and say that Rav meant that a pregnant arusa's child is not a mamzer to extent that the child may marry a mamzeres only that the child is asur to marry a bas israel - likewise for Shmuel - do not say he meant the child is a sh'tuki to the that he may not marry a mamzeres but that he is asur to marry a a bas israel - if so the gemarah asks they are saying the same thing - I am unable to understand this question - while true that in the isolated reference to the child being able to marry a bas israel both agree that it may not - they still greatly differ in the overall halachick status of the child - acc. to Rav this child may NOT marry a mamzeres while acc. to Shmuel it may - how can the gemarrah ask if so they say the same thing?

I am resubmitting as the email address I sent originally was not accurate. Thank you

ruben farkas, toronto

The Kollel replies:

When Rav says 'ha'Velad Mamzer', the Gemara explains, he is coming to teach us (other rulings apart) that he is forbidden to marry a bas Yisrael. And when Shmuel says 'ha'Velad shesuki', he is coming to teach us (other rulings apart), that he is forbidden to marry a bas Yisrael. Yes, they do argue over whether or not, a Shesuki may marry a Mamzeres, but that is not what they are concerned with here. Therefore, the Gemara is justified in asking that they are both coming to teach us the same thing.

After writing the above, I saw the respective explanations of the Tosfos ha'Rosh and the Tosfos Rid. The Tosfos ha'Rosh explains that according to this Lashon, Shmuel agrees with Rav that a Shesuki is forbidden to marry a Mamzeres, and that Rav is coming to teach us that in the case of Arus, the child is a Shesuki and is forbidden to marry a bas Yisrael; whereas Shmuel is coming to teach us the Din of Meshaskin Oso mi'Din Kehunah (and finally mi'Nechsei Aviv) - and that, they do not in fact, argue in any point. I do not know how to reconcile this with the original statement of Shmuel, but that's what the Tosfos ha'Rosh says.

The Tosfos Rid, on the other hand, explains the Gemara's Kashya like this: Since Shmuel comes to teach us that the V'lad in our case is forbidden to marry a bas Yisrael (which is what 'ha'Velad Shesuki' normally means), Rav must be coming to teach us that he is permitted to marry a Mamzeres, which is brings us back to what we asked in the first place. Otherwise, they are both teaching us the same thing. And the Gemara answers that Rav must therefore be coming to teach us that he is Asur to marry a bas Yisrael, in which case Shmuel is teaching us that 'Meshaskin Oso ... ' (even though that is not what 'ha'Velad Sheuki' normally means).

The Sugya is a little complex, but I hope I have clarified it for you.

be'Virchas Kol Tuv

Eliezer Chrysler

ruben farkas commented:

Thank you for your response - I have analyzed this a bit further and would like to propose a chidush in understanding the shaklei v'tariah - it appears that the whole point of the gemarrah in first introducing us to the machlokes between Rav and Shmuel in Arus is to indicate the s'tirah in their positions. This s'tirah is created by their respective oponions in whether a shetuki is permitted or forbidden to marry a mamzeres (by Arus, Rav says yes - albeit via a di'uk), while prior he said no ....) - in the havei amineh - their position as it relates to a bas israel is NOT the relavent point. It is strictly isolated to the contradiction of their shetuki opinions.

Why did Rav and Shmuel (assuming we can answer the s'tirah in their positions satisfactorily) seemingly re-iterate their opinions in the case of Arus - what was it about the case that we would have been unable to ascertain that they felt a need to specifically address their same respective positions in the context of an Arus? It is this point the gemarrah struggles to deal with in the second terutz. The gemarrah understand that the Arus case has to contain an element of novelty that requires its specific mention.

The answer that the gemarrah gives must concentrate on deflecting the obvious di'uk that if Rav says by Arus - Havlad mamzer - it follows that he must hold mutar b'mamzeres which creates the s'tirah that here we see a shetuki is mutar in a mamzeres while before he said osur in mamzeres. If that di'uk is not to be made - what then can we infer from his position? - the gemarrah suggests that the only point he was making was that he is osur in a bas israel - but in fact if pressed to come up with his opinion on a mamzeres - he would agree that he is osur in a mamzeres as is his regular position regarding a shetuki's rights to marry a mamzeres.

Likewise Shmuel's only intent in discussing the case of Arus is to indicate that he is osur in a bas israel. Again if pressed as to his opinion on whether he can marry a mamzeres he would follow his regular position on the shetuki's entitlements to marry a mamzeres.

It then seems according to this terutz of the gemarrah that Rav really had no reason to isolate this case as it follows his basic principal that a shetuki is osur in a mamzeres and certainly in a bas israel and in fact there is no chidush in his position and likewise for Shmuel - there seems to be nothing that we would not have been able to figure out based on the knowledge of their previous discussion of the subject. This is untenable - as there is now no novelty in their positions and it is fully reconcilable with their normal postions - what was the reason to isolate this case - it seems we would have known every aspect of the respective positions even if they hadn't specifically addressed it in the context of Arus - the gemarrah phrases this objection in the form of - "if so Shmuel says the same as Rav" - I propose (and agree - ikar chosur min hasefer) that the gemarrah's real objection is that if the only di'uk we can make is as proposed and can go no further - the whole case of Arus is redundant - to this the gemarrah answers that in fact Shmuel is telling us something in this case that we would have been unable to determine - ultimately that if the child (which Shmuel calls a shetuki) grabs the belongings of "his father" - he must return them. While Rav agrees to this (acc. to the Makneh) the whole point of the Arus case is to introduce us to this novelty.

The gemarrah stays with this eeboyei eimah - and the positions of Rav and Shmuel are reconciled - my preference to this way of learning the sugya avoids the obvious difficulty of trying to explain the question - if so this is the same position as that of Rav - it is difficult to ignore the simple terutz the gemarrah could have given that they argue in the ability to marry a mamzeres. I understand my version is also frought with difficulty as the question of "if so this is like Rav" does not translate into "if so what is the chidush in the case of Arus" but I believe it still avoids the insurmountable problem that the gemarrah could have far easier given the terutz that they argue in whether he can marry a mamzeres versus the terutz it gives which is far more forced.

I thank you for taking the time to answer my question - your response in turn caused me to think through this new way of understanding the gemarrah.