KIDUSHIN 69 (11 Iyar) - dedicated by the Feldman family in memory of their mother, ha'Rabbanit Sara Dvosya bas Rav Mordechai (of Milwaukee).

1)

(a)Rebbi Tarfon in our Mishnah declares that the off-spring of Mamzerim (who would normally remain Mamzerim forever) can be legitimized. How is this possible?

(b)What does Rebbi Eliezer say? Like whom will Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel later rule?

(c)What is the source of the prohibition against 'marrying' a Shifchah?

(d)We nevertheless ask whether Rebbi Tarfon does not permit a Mamzer to marry a Shifchah even l'Chatchilah. What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

1)

(a)Rebbi Tarfon in our Mishnah declares that the off-spring of Mamzerim (who would normally remain Mamzerim forever) can be legitimized by the Mamzer 'marrying' a Shifchah. The child will be an Eved, who, should his master set him free, will be permitted to marry a Yisre'elis.

(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer even whilst he is an Eved, he will be an Eved Mamzer, and when he is set free, he will remain a Mamzer (and forbidden to marry a Yisre'elis). Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel will later rule like Rebbi Tarfon.

(c)The source of the prohibition against 'marrying' a Shifchah is the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Lo Yiheyeh Kadesh ... ".

(d)We nevertheless ask whether Rebbi Tarfon does not permit a Mamzer to marry a Shifchah even l'Chatchilah becaus, on the one hand, maybe the Lav is confined to a Kosher Yisrael, whilst, on the other, seeing as a Shifchah has the status of an animal, and a Mamzer, after all, is a Yisrael, the Lav extends to him too.

2)

(a)What did the Chachamim mean when they asked Rebbi Tarfon 'Tiharta Es ha'Zecharim v'Lo Tiharta Es ha'Nekeivos'? Why do we initially think that women are worse off than men in this regard?

(b)How do we then try to prove from here that Rebbi Tarfon must be speaking b'Di'eved?

(c)How do we refute this proof? On what grounds would a Mamzeres be worse off than a Mamzer anyway (even assuming that they are permitted to 'marry' a Shifchah/Eved l'Chatchilah)?

(d)What is the source for this?

2)

(a)When the Chachamim asked Rebbi Tarfon 'Tiharta Es ha'Zecharim v'Lo Tiharta Es ha'Nekeivos' they meant that a woman would be unlikely to accept such advice, to move to another town and seek ways and means to 'marry' a slave in secret.

(b)We try to prove from here that Rebbi Tarfon must be speaking b'Di'eved because if he permitted it l'Chatchilah, then a woman would have no more qualms doing that than a man.

(c)We refute this proof however, on the grounds that a Mamzeres would be worse off than a Mamzer anyway (even assuming that they are permitted to 'marry' a Shifchah/Eved l'Chatchilah) because (even though the child of a Shifchah adopts the status of his mother), this is not the case with the child of an Eved who has no Yichus whatsoever ...

(d)... because the Torah refers to him as an 'Am ha'Domeh la'Chamor').

3)

(a)What did Rebbi Tarfon once say to his Mamzer host?

(b)What does this prove?

(c)On what grounds do we refute the counter-argument, suggesting that Rebbi Tarfon might have meant that he would have advised him to go and steal in order to be sold as an Eved Ivri who would then be permitted to live with a Shifchah Kena'anis?

(d)Since when is one permitted to steal?

3)

(a)Rebbi Tarfon once said to his Mamzer host that had he not been married, he would have advised him to do something that would normalize the status of his descendents.

(b)This proves that Rebbi Tarfon is speaking l'Chatchilah.

(c)We refute the counter-argument, suggesting that Rebbi Tarfon might have meant that he would have advised him to go and steal in order to be sold as an Eved Ivri who would then be permitted to live with a Shifchah Kena'anis on the grounds that, in the days of Rebbi Tarfon, the Din of Eved Ivri was no longer applicable (seeing as it was connected to the Din of Yovel, which was not then in practice since most Jews were not living in Eretz Yisrael).

(d)Of course stealing is prohibited and we could have eliminated the suggestion that way, but we chose to do it by means of the Kashya that we actually asked.

4)

(a)Rebbi Elazar cites the source of Rebbi Eliezer's ruling that the child of a Mamzer and a Shifchah is an 'Eved Mamzer' as the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Lo Yavo lo bi'Kehal Hash-m" (from which he Darshens "lo" 'Halach Achar Pesulo'). How does Rebbi Tarfon establish this Pasuk?

(b)What would we otherwise have thought?

(c)How does Rebbi Eliezer counter Rebbi Tarfon's argument? How does he know that "lo" overrides even the case of the child of a Mamzer and a Shifchah?

(d)On what grounds does Rebbi Tarfon disagree with him? How does he differentiate between a Yisre'elis and a Shifchah in this regard?

4)

(a)Rebbi Elazar cites the source of Rebbi Eliezer's ruling that the child of a Mamzer and a Shifchah is an 'Eved Mamzer' as the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Lo Yavo Lo bi'Kehal Hash-m" (from which he Darshens "lo" 'Halach Achar Pesulo'). Rebbi Tarfon however establishes this Pasuk by a Yisrael who married a Mamzeres (i.e. that the children go after her).

(b)We would otherwise have thought that, in view of the Pasuk in Bamidbar "l'Mishpechosam l'Veis Avosam", a child always goes after his father.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer counters Rebbi Tarfon's argument, inzasmuch as if "lo" was to preclude overrides "l'Mishpechosam l'Veis Avosam", why should it not also override "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tiheyeh la'Adonehah"

(d)Rebbi Tarfon disagrees with him however. In his opinion, one cannot compare a Yisre'elis and a Shifchah in this regard, because in the latter case, a fetus in the stomach of a Shifchah is comparable to one in the stomach of an animal, so we cannot possibly go after the father (in spite of the word "lo").

Hadran Alach 'ha'Omer'

Perek Asarah Yuchsin

5)

(a)Which four additional Yuchsin does our Mishnah add to the list of 'Kohanim, Leviyim, Yisre'elim, Chalalim, Gerim and Charurim'?

(b)Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisre'elim are permitted to intermarry, and so are Leviyim, Yisre'elim, Chalalim, Gerim, Charurim. Why does the Tana omit Kohanim from the latter list?

(c)The final list permits six of the above to intermarry. Which six?

5)

(a)The four Yuchsin that our Mishnah adds to the list of Kohanim, Leviyim, Yisre'elim, Chalalim, Gerim and Charurim, are -Mamzerim, Nesinim, Shesukim and Asufim.

(b)Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisre'elim are permitted to intermarry, and so are Leviyim, Yisre'elim, Chalalim, Gerim, Charurim. The Tana omits Kohanim from the latter list because a Kohen may marry neither a Chalalah (on whom there is a Lav), nor a Giyores or a Meshuchreres (who are both assumed to be Zonos).

(c)The final list permits Gerim, Charurim, Mamzerim, Nesinim, Shesukim and Asufim to intermarry.

6)

(a)What are ...

1. ... Chalalim?

2. ... Charurim?

3. ... Nesinim?

(b)Who issued the decree forbidding a Nasin to marry a Yisre'elis?

(c)On what basis does our Mishnah permit a Ger to marry a Mamzer?

(d)According to the Tana Kama, what is ...

1. ... a Shesuki?

2. ... an Asufi?

6)

(a)

1. Chalalim are Pasul Kohanim who are born from a union of Pesulei Kehunah.

2. Charurim are Avadim Meshuchrarim (set-free).

3. Nesinim are the offspring of the Giv'onim, who tricked Yehoshua, and whom he subsequently accepted for conversion.

(b)David ha'Melech issued the decree forbidding a Nasin to marry a Yisre'elis, after the Giv'onim demonstrated that they did not have the characteristics of a Yisrael.

(c)Our Mishnah permits a Ger to marry a Mamzer because he holds 'Kahal Gerim Lo Ikri Kahal'.

(d)According to the Tana Kama ...

1. ... a Shesuki is someone who recognizes his mother but not his father.

2. ... an Asufi is a waif (who was found abondoned in the street).

7)

(a)Why did the Tana choose to say 'Alu mi'Bavel' rather than ...

1. ... 'Halchu l'Eretz Yisrael'?

2. ... 'Alu l'Eretz Yisrael'?

(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Shoftim (in Devarim) "v'Kamta v'Alisa El ha'Makom Asher Yivchar Hash-m"?

2. ... in Yirmeyahu "Lo Ye'amar Od Chai Hash-m ... Asher He'elah va'Asher Heivi Es Zera Beis Yisrael me'Eretz Tzafonah u'mi Kol ha'Aratzos ... '?

(c)What do we learn from the previous words (in the Pasuk in Shoftim) "Divrei Rivos bi'She'arecha, (ve'Kamta v'Alisa) ... "?

(d)What ...

1. ... did Ezra achieve by taking all the Pesulim with him to Eretz Yisrael?

2. ... problem would have arisen had they remained in Bavel?

7)

(a)The Tana chose to say 'Alu mi'Bavel' rather than ...

1. ... 'Halchu l'Eretz Yisrael' to teach us by the way that Eretz Yisrael is higher than Bavel.

2. ... to corroborating Rebbi Elazar's statement that Ezra did not leave Bavel before purifying it like refined flour (leaving behind only those of the purest Yichus [lineage]).

(b)We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Shoftim (in Devarim) "v'Kamta v'Alisa El ha'Makom Asher Yivchar Hash-m" (which is speaking in Eretz Yisrael) that the Beis ha'Mikdash is the highest spot in Eretz Yisrael.

2. ... in Yirmeyahu "Lo Ye'amar Od Chai Hash-m ... Asher He'elah va'Asher Heivi Es Zera Beis Yisrael me'Eretz Tzafonah u'mi Kol ha'Aratzos ... ' that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all other lands.

(c)We learn from the previous words (in the Pasuk in Shoftim) "Divrei Rivos bi'She'arecha, (ve'Kamta v'Alisa) ... " that the Pasuk is referring to the Beis ha'Mikdash (the place where the Sanhedrin sat to judge) and not to Yerushalayim.

(d)

1. By taking all the Pesulim with him to Eretz Yisrael Ezra ensured that nobody would intermarry with them, because as long as he was alive, he kept control over them, and later the Sanhedrin (who sat in Lishkas ha'Gazis), would examine the Kohanim and the Leviyim before they began serving, to verify their Yichus.

2. Had they remained in Bavel a terrible mix-up would have ensued, because there was no-one of standing left in Bavel to keep strict control over the Yichus of those who remained.

69b----------------------------------------69b

8)

(a)Abaye reads our Mishnah 'Alu mi'Bavel', as it appears in our text. How does Rava amend it?

(b)They might be arguing over Rebbi Elazar's statement ('Lo Alah Ezra ... ', with which Rava agrees, and Abaye does not). On the other hand, both Amora'im might agree with Rebbi Elazar. How will we then explain the Mishnah, according to Abaye?

(c)What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel mean when he says ...

1. ... 'Kol Aratzos Iysah l'Eretz Yisrael? What is 'Iysah'?

2. ... v'Eretz Yisrael Iysah l'Bavel'?

(d)According to Rava ('He'elum T'nan'), what is the meaning of the second statement, seeing as Ezra had taken all the Pesulim by force, all the Kesherim would have known who the Pesulim were and would have kept their distance from them?

8)

(a)Abaye reads our Mishnah 'Alu mi'Bavel' (went up from Bavel), as it appears in our text. Rava amends it to 'He'elum mi'Bavel' (he brought them up from Bavel).

(b)They might be arguing over Rebbi Elazar's statement (Lo Alah Ezra ... ', with which Rava agrees, and Abaye does not). On the other hand, both Amora'im might agree with Rebbi Elazar, and when, according to Abaye, the Tana says 'Alu mi'Bavel', he means that after Ezra separated them, they went to Eretz Yisrael of their own accord.

(c)When Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel says ...

1. ... 'Kol Aratzos Iysah l'Eretz Yisrael', he means that compared to Eretz Yisrael (whose Yichus was controlled by the Kohanim on the Sanhedrin), the Yichus of other countries was like a dough (comprising a mixture of flour, water, salt and bran).

2. ... v'Eretz Yisrael Iysah l'Bavel', he means that compared to Bavel (whose Yichus had been sorted out by Ezra as we explained), Eretz Yisrael was like a dough.

(d)Even according to Rava ('He'elum T'nan'), the second statement is correct, because even though Ezra had taken all the Pesulim by force, and all the Kesherim would have known who the Pesulim were and would have kept their distance from them, that only pertained to that generation, but those of the next generation would have forgotten which families Ezra had disqualified.

9)

(a)What did Ezra discover when, on the way to Eretz Yisrael, they arrived at the river that flowed to Ahavah?

(b)What marked the Leviyim that he did discover there?

(c)According to Rava, having sorted out the people before leaving Bavel, how come that Ezra did not know about this beforehand?

9)

(a)When, on the way to Eretz Yisrael, they arrived at the river that flowed to Ahavah Ezra discovered that there were no Leviyim who were fit to do the Avodah (i.e. to play the instruments in the Beis ha'Mikdash).

(b)What marked the Leviyim that he did discover there was the fact that they were the ones who had cut off their thumbs in Bavel, to avoid "singing the songs of Hash-m in a foreign land").

(c)Even according to Rava, who maintains that Ezra had sorted out the people before leaving, it is not surprising that he did not know about this beforehand because he had only sorted out whose Yichus was Pasul but not those who possessed other Pesulim (such as Ba'alei Mumin).

10)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Ezra ...

1. ... "Vayeishvu ha'Kohanim v'ha'Leviyim u'Min ha'Am ... b'Areihem"?

2. ... "u'mi'Bnei ha'Kohanim Bnei Chavayah ... Eleh Bikshu Chesavam ha'Misyachsim v'Lo Nimtza'u, va'Yigo'alu min ha'Kehunah"?

(b)What did Hatirshasa permit them to eat? Who was Hatirshasa?

(c)What problem do we have with that, based on the principle 'Ma'alin mi'Terumah l'Yuchsin'?

(d)How do we resolve it?

10)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Ezra ...

1. ... "Vayeishvu ha'Kohanim v'ha'Leviyim u'Min ha'Am ... b'Areihem" that Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisre'elim accompanied Ezra from Bavel to Yerushalayim.

2. ... "u'mi'Bnei ha'Kohanim Bnei Chavayah ... Eleh Bikshu Chesavam ha'Misyachsim v'Lo Nimtza'u, va'Yigo'alu min ha'Kehunah" that Chalalim went with him too.

(b)Hatirshasa (alias Nechemyah ben Chachalyah) permitted them to continue eating Kodshei ha'G'evul (i.e. Terumah), as they had done in Bavel.

(c)The problem with this, based on the principle 'Ma'alin mi'Terumah l'Yuchsin' is that seeing as they were allowed to eat Terumah, one would assume their Yichus to be impeccable, which we know it was not.

(d)We solve the problem by citing the fact they had lost their Chazakah regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach, in which case nobody would draw any conclusions from the fact that they ate Terumah.

11)

(a)Seeing as there was no reason to issue any decrees against the Kohanim, what is the significance of the statement 'Gedolah Chazakah'?

(b)Alternatively, we add, they were in fact, restricted to Terumah d'Rabanan (but were forbidden to eat Terumah d'Oraisa). What is ...

1. ... Terumah d'Rabanan?

2. ... Terumah d'Oraisa?

(c)Then what is the significance of 'Gedolah Chazakah'?

(d)How do we reconcile this with the Pasuk where Hatirshasa forbade those Kohanim to eat Kodesh ha'Kodashim, implying that they were permitted to eat everything else (including Terumah d'Oraisa)?

11)

(a)Despite the fact that there was no reason to issue any decrees against the Kohanim, the significance of the statement 'Gedolah Chazakah' is that whereas before, they were only eating Terumah d'Rabanan, now they were permitted to eat Terumah d'Oraisa.

(b)Alternatively, we add, they were in fact, restricted to Terumah d'Rabanan but were forbidden to eat Terumah d'Oraisa. Terumah ...

1. ... d'Rabanan is Terumas Chutz la'Aretz.

2. ... d'Oraisa is Terumah of corn, wine and oil of Eretz Yisrael.

(c)And the significance of 'Gedolah Chazakah' is then that, even though one may have expected Chazal to forbid them to eat even Terumah d'Rabanan (on account of Terumah d'Oraisa), they did not do so, due to 'Gedolah Chazakah'.

(d)We reconcile this with the Pasuk where Hatirshasa forbade those Kohanim to eat Kodesh ha'Kodashim, implying that they were permitted to eat everything else (including Terumah d'Oraisa) by establishing "Kodesh ha'Kodashim" to mean Terumah and Chazeh v'Shok of Shelamim (as we shall now see).

12)

(a)What is the Pasuk in Emor referring to when it writes ...

1. ... "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh"?

2. ... "u'Bas Kohen Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar, Hi bi'Serumas ha'Kodashim Lo Sochel"?

(b)Which Halachah do we learn from this latter Pasuk?

12)

(a)When the Torah in Emor writes ...

1. ... "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh" it is referring to Terumah (because that is what the Torah is talking about).

2. ... "u'Bas Kohen Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar, Hi bi'Serumas ha'Kodashim Lo Sochel" it is referring to what is 'Moram min ha'Kodashim' (separated from Kodshim), which is the Chazeh and the Shok (the chest and the right calf) of every Shelamim.

(b)We learn from this latter Pasuk that, even though a bas Kohen (who married a Yisrael and whose husband died or divorced her leaving her without children), returns to her father's house to eat Terumah, she is not permitted to eat Chazeh v'Shok.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF