Kiddushin 67a — the Talmud in English

And

behold ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

a convert

who is fit,

who married a mamzeret,

who is disqualified,

for there are

for a convert

betrothals

with a mamzeret,

and there is no

for him

transgression

in his intercourse with her, because a convert is permitted to [marry] a mamzeret according to Rabbi Yosei, and nevertheless, the law is that

the offspring follows the disqualified one,

and the son is a mamzer like her, since she is disqualified and blemished, and as explained in the beraita that the Gemara cites.

But according to the principle in our Mishna, we should have said that his law is like the law of the male, who is fit!?

B

e­hold,

it was taught: A convert who married a mamzeret—the offspring is a mamzer,

the words of Rabbi Yosei.

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Shimon:

Do you maintain that our Mishna

is according to the method of

Rabbi Yosei—

and do you hold that our Mishna is according to the view of Rabbi Yosei, who permits a convert to marry a mamzeret, because the Torah said: “A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of the Lord,” and Rabbi Yosei holds: A congregation of converts is not called a “congregation”?

It is not so. Rather,

our Mishna—

is Rabbi Yehuda’s, who says: A convert may not marry a mamzeret,

for converts too are called a “congregation,”

and

according to his words, a convert who married a mamzeret

has betrothals and there is transgression.

And therefore

the offspring follows the disqualified one,

and he is a mamzer like her, as explained in the second כלל in our Mishna.

And we raise an objection: If our Mishna is according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda, this is difficult:

And let the tanna teach it!

Let the tanna teach this case also—a convert who married a mamzeret—among those whom the tanna specified in the second כלל, in whom the offspring follows the disqualified one!?

The Gemara answers with two answers. The first: the expression

“Every place”

that is in the latter clause,

in the second כלל,

comes to include.

It comes to include what the tanna did not specify, including a convert who married a mamzeret.

And if you wish, say

to resolve Rabbi Shimon’s objection:

Actually,

our Mishna

is Rabbi Yosei’s,

who permits a convert to marry a mamzeret.

Indeed, this case is an exception,

and the tanna

the tanna taught in our Mishna in the first כלל the expression

“Which is this?”,

in order

to exclude

a convert who married a mamzeret, for he is not included in this כלל.

And we raise an objection: Is it possible to say as you say, that

“and which

is this”—

which is stated in the first כלל—means specifically this

and no more,

that this כלל is stated specifically with regard to those cases that the tanna specified, and not with regard to another case!?

But behold,

also

a ḥalal who married an Israelite woman, for there are betrothals and there is no transgression,

and

the offspring follows the male,

and he becomes a ḥalal like his father!

It follows that there are other cases besides those specified by the tanna, in which this כלל applies!?

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

For the tanna of our Mishna

holds like Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda,

who says that when a ḥalal has intercourse with an Israelite woman, the offspring does not become a ḥalal like his father unless his mother too is a ḥalala.

And we raise an objection to what we have said, that the first כלל in our Mishna applies only to what the tanna specified:

But an Israelite who married a ḥalala, for there are betrothals and there is no transgression,

and

the offspring follows the male

who is fit, and the offspring is not ḥalalim like their mother.

Thus this כלל applies also to cases other than those specified by the Mishna!?

And we answer: Therefore

the tanna

in our Mishna taught

“Every place”

in the first clause

[in the first כלל], in order

to include

also an Israelite who has intercourse with a ḥalala, whose daughter is fit like him.

And we raise an objection:

And let it teach it explicitly,

let the tanna teach this case explicitly; why did he allude to it with the expression “Every place”?

And we answer:

Because he did not teach it,

meaning: it was not taught to the tanna in a concise expression together with the others.

For

how could he teach it

[how could the tanna teach it in a concise expression]!? Could the tanna teach: “Every place where there are betrothals and there is no transgression—and which is this? This is

a daughter of a kohein, a daughter of a Levite, an Israelite woman, and a ḥalala who married a kohein, a Levite, or an Israelite,”

and

behold,

is a ḥalala suitable for a kohein

[is a ḥalala permitted to a kohein]? If so, there is transgression in her case.

And we still raise an objection:

But there is

this case

of Rabba bar bar Hanna,

for in his law too there are betrothals and there is no transgression, and the offspring follows the male!?

For Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A second-generation Egyptian

[or an Edomite, who are forbidden to enter the congregation only in the first and second generations after their conversion, whereas the third generation is permitted to enter the congregation]

who

[meaning, whose father converted]

married a first-generation Egyptian woman

[or an Edomite woman],

we do not say that the offspring should follow the mother and be considered a second-generation Egyptian, who is still forbidden to enter the congregation; rather,

the child is not considered to follow the mother and be a second-generation Egyptian, who is still forbidden to enter the congregation. Rather,

her son

follows his father, and is an Egyptian

of the third generation,

and is permitted to enter the congregation.

But the general wording of the Mishna applies also to other matters that were not specified in our Mishna!?

And we answer: It also includes the ruling of Rabba bar bar Hanna:

tanna

every place

that is stated at the beginning

in order

to include [to include it].

And the Gemara adds:

And according to Rav Dimi—

who disagrees with Rabba bar bar Hanna—

who says

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A second-generation Egyptian who married a first-generation Egyptian woman, her son follows his mother, and he is

a second-generation Egyptian—

tanna

“which one is this”

among the first category in order

to exclude

a second-generation Egyptian who married a first-generation Egyptian woman, for although there is kiddushin and there is no transgression, nevertheless the offspring does not follow the male, but rather the mother.

We still raise an objection:

But there is

the halakha

that when Ravin came,

when he arrived from the Land of Israel,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: In

the lineage of

the nations,

before they converted,

one follows the male.

But after they

converted,

one follows the more disqualified one!

And in this law too there is kiddushin and there is no transgression, and nevertheless the offspring does not specifically follow the male, but rather the more disqualified one!?

That is to say, an offspring born to a man and a woman who are from two nations whose laws differ is treated differently with regard to the offspring [whether in relation to the father or to the mother]: if it was born to them while they were still gentiles, then the offspring follows the male. But if it was born to them after its father and mother converted, then the offspring follows the more disqualified one among them. [And below, on folio 68b, the Gemara explains how this law is fulfilled, and with regard to what.]

And we answer:

tanna—

at the beginning—“

which one is this,”

in order

to exclude

this statement of Ravin in the name of Rabbi Yohanan.

And after several matters have been explained—apart from a convert who married a mamzeret—some of which were necessarily included by the wording “every place” in the first category, and others of which were necessarily excluded by the wording “which one is this” in the first category—the Gemara returns to the beginning of the matter, where we raised the objection concerning a convert who married a mamzeret, which does not accord with the first general rule, and we resolved it in two ways:

The first: Our Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Yehuda, that a convert is forbidden to a mamzeret, and he does not belong to the first category, but to the second, and this is hinted at by “every place” in the second category.

The second: Our Mishna indeed follows the view of Rabbi Yosei, that a convert is permitted to a mamzeret, and he indeed belongs to the first category and does not accord with it, except that this law is hinted at by “which one is this,” which comes to exclude a convert who married a mamzeret—

And the Gemara objects to the second resolution:

What is this [what sort of resolution is this]!?

Granted, if you say—

according to the first resolution—that

the Mishna is Rabbi Yehuda’s, and a convert who marries a mamzeret does not belong to the first category, but to the second, and is included by the wording “every place” in the second category, then the interpretation of our Mishna is well, for it stated “every place” and “which one is this” in the first category, and also stated “every place” in the second category, for: “

and a convert who marries a daughter of a forbidden union does not belong to the first rule, but to the second, and is included by the wording “everywhere” in the second clause, then the formulation of our Mishna is well understood: in the first rule it states “everywhere” and “which is this?”, and in the second rule it also states “everywhere,” because: "

Every place”

at the beginning: to include an Israelite who married

a woman disqualified by priestly lineage,

for there is kiddushin and there is no transgression, and the offspring follows the male, as was explained above.

And

so—“tanna” “every place” at the beginning in order—

to include

this

of Rabba bar bar Hanna [a second-generation Egyptian who married a first-generation Egyptian, the offspring follows the male], if the halakha is in accordance with him.

And “

which one is this”

at the beginning comes

to exclude Rav Dimi’s [a second-generation Egyptian who married a first-generation Egyptian woman, whose offspring does not follow the male but rather the mother], if the halakha is in accordance with him,

and

so “which one is this” at the beginning also comes to exclude that of

Ravin [among nations who converted, one follows the more disqualified one and not the male].