Kiddushin 69a — the Talmud in English

One who says to his maidservant

who is pregnant—she and her fetuses are his slaves—at the time of giving the deed of emancipation:

Behold, you are free

with this deed of emancipation,

and

if

your offspring

would remain

a slave,

his words are of no effect, and

the offspring

is emancipated

like her—

the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

And

if

the Sages say: His words take effect

and his maidservant is emancipated without her offspring,

because it is stated: “

The woman and her children shall belong to her master”—

And the Gemara explains the beraita:

What is its teaching [

how is this law learned from this verse]?

He said

he explained,

Rava:

The derivation from “The woman and her children shall belong to her master,” which the beraita mentioned, does not come to provide a reason for the words of the Sages, that his words take effect, for this law is learned from reasoning; rather, this exposition was brought

for Rabbi Yosei the Galilean,

who said that his words do not take effect, and his reason is because it is stated: “The woman and her children shall belong to her master”—

And we expound it concerning offspring whom she gives birth to after she has been emancipated, and this is how we expound it: “When the woman—the one giving birth—is her master’s,” then the offspring whom she gives birth to belong to her master; but if the woman does not belong to her master, because she was already emancipated before she gave birth, then the offspring do not belong to her master.

The offspring of a mamzer is disqualified forever, whether the father was a mamzer and his wife was fit, or whether she was a mamzeret and he was fit—the offspring is a mamzer. This is because it is stated: “A mamzer shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even the tenth generation shall not enter his assembly,” and therefore the Torah made the word “his” superfluous, to teach us: “Follow his disqualification.” In every case where you find disqualification, whether on the father’s side or on the mother’s side, the son is disqualified.

Mishna:

Rabbi Tarfon says: Mamzerim can become fit

from the disqualification of their offspring; that is, although the mamzer disqualifies his offspring forever, and because even when he marries a fit woman his son is disqualified, and his son necessarily disqualifies his own son, for the fit woman does not help prevent the son from being disqualified, nevertheless there is a way for a mamzer so that his son’s son will be fit to enter the assembly

; how:

Behold,

a mamzer who married a maidservant—her son

who was born to her from him,

is a slave

and has no disqualification except that of a slave, but he has no mamzer disqualification, because once an Israelite who has intercourse with a maidservant, the offspring does not relate to him at all, he does not disqualify him as a mamzer.

And when

they emancipate

the slave,

the son is found to be free, and permitted to an Israelite woman.

Rabbi Eliezer

disputes this and

says: This is

the offspring born from a mamzer’s intercourse with a maidservant,

a slave

he is, and also

a mamzer,

and even when they emancipate him and he no longer has the disqualification of a slave, he will still be a mamzer. Rabbi Eliezer’s reason is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

It was posed to them [

the members of the academy were uncertain]:

Does

Rabbi Tarfon, initially

mean that he

said

and every mamzer may initially do so in order to become fit, even though a fit Israelite is forbidden to marry a maidservant, for the Torah said [Deuteronomy 23:18]: “There shall not be a kadesh [the qof has a kamatz and the dalet a tzeirei] among the children of Israel,” and this is a prohibition against having intercourse with a maidservant, nevertheless the mamzer is not forbidden with her.

Or

perhaps

after the fact

he

said

Rabbi Tarfon: if the mamzer married a maidservant, his offspring becomes fit, but it is forbidden to do so initially, because even the mamzer is forbidden with a maidservant, like the rest of Israel, who are forbidden with her.

Come and hear

from a beraita that Rabbi Tarfon spoke after the fact, for it was taught:

They said to him

the Sages

to Rabbi Tarfon,

indeed

you purified

the mamzerim

the males

from the disqualification of their offspring through marriage with a maidservant,

but

however

you did not purify the females

from the disqualification of their offspring, for they do not have this option of marrying a slave, as will be explained.

And the Gemara proves that Rabbi Tarfon spoke after the fact:

And

behold,

if you say

that

he said it initially,

if so, why did he not purify the females? After all,

a mamzeret too

can achieve purification in this manner, by

marrying a slave [

she should marry a slave], and the son will not be a mamzer! That is: this is understandable if he is forbidden to marry a maidservant and the mamzeret is forbidden to have intercourse with a slave; if so, where they recognize him as an Israelite and he is forbidden to her, they will prevent him from marrying a maidservant, and his remedy is by going to a place where they do not recognize him, saying that he is a slave, marrying a maidservant, and purifying his offspring. Therefore this remedy is not suitable for females, because it is not the way of a woman to go to another place and conceal her true identity in order to marry. But if he is permitted to do this initially, then a woman too can purify her offspring just as a man can, and why did the Sages say to him that he had not provided a remedy for the females!?

And we answer: this that we said, that the females do not become fit, is not because in practice they cannot do so, but because even if the mamzeret marries a slave, the offspring nevertheless remains in its mamzerut—

and the reason is that

a slave has no genealogical relationship [

his son does not relate to him], and the slave father does not remove him from the status of mamzerut.

Come and hear

that Rabbi Tarfon said it initially:

For Rabbi Shemuel’s innkeeper [

the owner of the lodging at which Rabbi Shemlai stayed],

was a mamzer,

and his generations after him were disqualified.

And he said to him

Rabbi Shemlai to the owner of his lodging:

Had you preceded me, I would have purified your sons [

if I had preceded you in being here, before you married your wife, then I would have advised you to marry in a manner through which your offspring would become fit and not be disqualified for their generations], and that is, he would have advised him to marry a maidservant so that his offspring would become fit, in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon’s words.

And the Gemara proves from this incident that a mamzer may initially marry a maidservant, for:

If you say, initially

it is permitted to do so, then indeed

well

Rabbi Shemlai said to him that he would give him this advice.

But if you say, after the fact

is what Rabbi Tarfon said, and initially there is a prohibition of “There shall not be a kadesh,” then

what is it!?

What was the advice that Rabbi Shemlai would give him? After all, he could not tell him to marry a maidservant in violation of the prohibition! And we answer:

that he gave him advice and said to him,

this was the advice that Rabbi Shemlai would give him; he would say to him: “

Go, steal, and have yourself sold as a Hebrew slave [

go and steal, and you will be sold as a Hebrew slave], for a thief who has nothing with which to pay is sold by the court as a Hebrew slave, and the Torah permitted a Hebrew slave to marry a Canaanite maidservant; consequently, your offspring will become fit.”

The Gemara was astonished at this resolution:

And in the two

in his years, in his time

of Rabbi Simlai, was there an Israelite slave?,

and was it actually the case that the law of an Israelite slave applied in the time of Rabbi Simlai!?

And

the Master said: An Israelite slave applies only at a time when the Jubilee applies,

because it is stated concerning him: “Until the year of the Jubilee he shall work with you.” And since, in the time of Rabbi Simlai, the Jubilee was no longer in force, it is therefore impossible to explain that he was giving him advice to sell himself as an Israelite slave.

Rather, is it not so

that he was necessarily telling him to marry a maidservant without being sold as an Israelite slave, and necessarily

infer from this

that

Rabbi Tarfon was speaking of the outset.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from this

that Rabbi Tarfon was speaking of the outset, and it is permitted for a mamzer to marry a maidservant.

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon,

that when a mamzer has relations with a maidservant, his offspring is purified, and not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who disputes this in our Mishna.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

a mamzer who marries a maidservant

behold, this one is a slave

and

a mamzer:

Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer!?

Surely Rabbi Eliezer certainly agrees that the son does not affiliate after his Israelite father, for it is stated: “The woman and her children shall belong to her master,” and we have learned that the child does not affiliate after the father; if so, why should the mamzer be like his father!?

Because

the verse says

concerning a mamzer: “

Even the tenth generation shall not enter his assembly,” and therefore the Torah made the word

“his”

superfluous in order to teach:

Follow his disqualification;

even if only the father or the mother is a mamzer, the child is a mamzer. And since the father is a mamzer, he too is a mamzer. And he explains it further.

But the Rabbis,

who dispute Rabbi Eliezer, would say to you:

That

verse

deals with an Israelite who married a mamzeret,

and teaches us that his mother disqualifies him even though his father is not a mamzer. And the verse needed to teach us this, because

it might have entered your mind

that, without the verse:

Behold, “

according to their families, according to their fathers’ houses”

is written;

just as with regard to the affiliation of the tribes, when his father is from one tribe and his mother is from a second tribe, the child follows the father, so too with regard to mamzer status, the child follows only the father. If he is fit, his son is fit as well. Therefore

it came

“

his”

and removed him from it,

and the verse needed to say “his” in order to remove him from the law of “according to their families, according to their fathers’ houses”; even when the mother is disqualified and the father is fit, he is disqualified.

But when the mother is a maidservant and the father is a mamzer, in which case the child does not affiliate after the mamzer at all, from where do we learn that he becomes a mamzer?

And Rabbi Eliezer

would say to you: In any event, you have grounds to learn that even when he does not affiliate after his father, he follows him to be disqualified, for

is it not the case that although the Merciful One wrote

the verse

“according to their families, according to their fathers’ houses”,

which implies that “the mother’s family is not called a family,” nevertheless

it came

“

his”

and removed him from it

—the verse introduced “his” and removed him from his fundamental law!? If there is a disqualification in his mother, he is disqualified, even though his father is not disqualified.

Here,

with regard to a maidservant,

too, although it is written: “

The woman and her children shall belong to her master,”

from which we learn that the child does not affiliate after him, nevertheless we can say that

it came

“

his”

and removed him from it:

if there is a disqualification in the father, we follow him, even though generally the child does not affiliate after him.

But the Rabbis

would say to you:

Every child in the womb of a Canaanite maidservant is like a child in the womb of an animal,

that is to say: This matter—that it is possible to say that the father disqualifies his son even though generally the child does not affiliate after him—applies only where there is some connection between the father and his son, even though he does not have the affiliation of son and father. But a child who comes from a maidservant is as though he came from an animal: the father has no affiliation or connection whatsoever with his son. In such a case the Torah did not introduce the rule that we follow the disqualified one.

We return to you, chapter “The One Who Says”

Mishna:

When Ezra went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he took some of the exiles with him. Among those who went up were all the sages of the generation. Ezra was concerned that the exiles who remained would be without the supervision of the sages of the generation, and would come to intermingle with people of disqualified lineage. Therefore, he took all those of disqualified lineage from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, so that there they would remain under the supervision of the sages, who would prevent intermarriage with them.

Among them were ten types of families, with different levels of lineage.

The Mishna before us lists the ten levels of lineage and the relationship among them.

Ten

types of "

lineage"

went up

with Ezra

from Babylonia.

And these are they:

1.

Kohanim.

Kohanim of valid status, whose ancestry can be traced father by father back to Aaron the Kohen, with no disqualification affecting their status as kohanim.

2.

Levites

(Levites).

3. And

Israelites.

Israelites among whom there was no disqualification affecting eligibility to enter the Jewish community.

4.

Disqualified kohanim.

Kohanim whose status as kohanim was invalidated because they, or their fathers, were born to a woman forbidden to a kohen.

5.

Converts

(converts).

6.

Freed slaves

(freed Canaanite slaves).

7.

Mamzerim.

Mamzerim, who are forbidden by Torah law to enter the Jewish community.

8. And

Netinim.

Netinim, who are descended from the Gibeonites who converted in the days of Joshua. They are called “Netinim” because Joshua assigned them to chop wood and draw water. David decreed that they may not enter the Jewish community.

9.

Shetuki.

A person of uncertain mamzer status.

10.

And an asufi.

He too has uncertain mamzer status. The Mishna will soon explain the difference between an asufi and a shetuki.

The first three levels of lineage—

kohanim, Levites, and Israelites—are

permitted to enter

(to marry)

into one another.

Likewise, the five levels of lineage—

Levites, Israelites, disqualified kohanim, converts, and freed slaves—are

permitted to enter into one another.

Disqualified kohanim, converts, and freed slaves, although their lineage is defective, are fit to enter the Jewish community.

Kohanim, however, are forbidden to marry a woman whose status as a kohen’s wife is disqualified, by virtue of the prohibition: “They shall not take a divorced woman, or a woman who is a prostitute or whose status is disqualified.” Similarly, they are forbidden to marry a female convert or a freed maidservant, since such women have the presumptive status of a woman forbidden to a kohen.

Likewise, the six levels of lineage—

converts, freed slaves, and mamzerim,

and Netinim, shetukim, and asufim—are

all permitted to enter into one another.

Converts and freed slaves are permitted to marry mamzerim, because the prohibition concerning a mamzer states: “A mamzer shall not enter the community of the Lord.” Our Mishna maintains that a community of converts is not called “the community of the Lord,” and therefore a mamzer is permitted to enter into their community. Freed slaves and Netinim are likewise considered converts.

Shetukim and asufim, who have uncertain mamzer status, are also permitted to marry definite mamzerim. For it is stated concerning a mamzer: “He shall not enter the community of the Lord,” and we derive that he may not enter specifically a definite community, but a community of uncertain status is permitted to him.

Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites, however, are forbidden to marry even those of uncertain mamzer status.

They are likewise forbidden to marry Netinim, because of David’s decree prohibiting the Netinim from entering the Jewish community.

The Mishna now explains who the shetuki and the asufi mentioned at the beginning of the Mishna are.

And these are they: “

Shetuki”—

anyone who knows

only

his mother, but does not know his father, because his mother conceived him while she was an unmarried woman, by a man whose identity is unknown to us. He is therefore called a shetuki, because when he calls a certain man “Father,” his mother silences him.

His mother is an unmarried woman whom we know to be fit to enter the Jewish community. But since his father is unknown, and perhaps he is a mamzer, or perhaps he was forbidden to this woman because of a prohibition involving a forbidden relationship, the child has uncertain mamzer status. “

His mother was unmarried and is known to us as a woman fit to enter the congregation. But since his father is unknown, and perhaps he is a mamzer, or perhaps he was forbidden to this woman by a prohibition of forbidden relations, the child has uncertain mamzer status. “

Asufi”—

anyone who was gathered from the marketplace and knows neither his father nor

his

mother. He too has uncertain mamzer status, and there is concern regarding both his father and his mother: perhaps they were mamzerim, or perhaps they were forbidden to each other because of a prohibition involving a forbidden relationship.

He too has uncertain mamzer status, and there is concern regarding him both on his father’s side and on his mother’s side: perhaps they were mamzerim, or perhaps they were forbidden to one another by a prohibition of forbidden relations.

Abba Shaul called the shetuki a “

beduki,”

from a term meaning examination.

Abba Shaul thereby teaches us that if the mother is examined and asked by whom she conceived, and she says that she conceived by a man of valid status, she is believed and the child is of valid status. The Gemara will explain this further.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Ten lineages went up from Babylonia.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason that the tan­nnait specifically taught “

went up from Babylonia”?

Why did the tan­nnait formulate it as “went up”?

Let him teach

[it should have been taught:] “Ten lineages

went to Eretz Yisrael”!

And they answer:

The tan­nnait teaches us something incidentally, by the way,

that by using the phrase “went up from Babylonia,” he teaches us a novel point: Eretz Yisrael is higher than Babylonia. Anyone who goes there from Babylonia is therefore described as “going up.”

As it was taught in a beraita:

It is written [Deuteronomy 17:8]: “

And you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose.”

The verse teaches through the word “go up”

that

the

place of

the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael,

and therefore the verse uses the expression “going up” with regard to it.

And

likewise,

Eretz Yisrael

is in a place that is

higher than all the lands.