Kiddushin 69a (סט.) — the Talmud in English

One who says to his pregnant maidservant

—who, together with her fetuses, are his slaves—at the time of giving her a deed of emancipation:

You are hereby a free woman

through this deed of emancipation,

and

if

your child

were to remain

a slave,

his words are ineffective, and

the child

is emancipated

like her—

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

And

if

the Sages say: His words are valid

and his maidservant is emancipated without her children,

because it is stated: “

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

And the Gemara explains the beraita:

What is the derivation

—how is this law derived 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 Sages’ statement that his words are valid, as this law is derived logically; rather, this exposition was brought

with regard to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

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

And we expound it with regard to children whom she bears after she has been emancipated, as follows: “When the woman—the mother—is her master’s,” at that time the children whom she bears belong to her master; but if the woman is no longer her master’s, because she was emancipated before she gave birth, then the children 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 she was a mamzeret and he was fit, the child 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.” Therefore, the Torah added the word “his,” to teach us: “Follow his disqualification.” In every case in which disqualification is found, whether on the father’s side or on the mother’s side, the son is disqualified.

Mishna:

Rabbi Tarfon says: Mamzerim can become purified

from the disqualification of their offspring. That is, although a mamzer disqualifies his offspring forever, and even when he marries a fit woman his son is disqualified, and his son necessarily disqualifies his own son, as the fit woman does not prevent the son from becoming disqualified, nevertheless, a mamzer has a way for his grandson to be fit to enter the assembly

; how:

Behold,

if a mamzer married a maidservant, her son

born to her from him

is a slave

and is disqualified only on account of being a slave; he is not disqualified as a mamzer. Since when an Israelite has relations with a maidservant, the child is not considered related to him at all, he does not disqualify the child as a mamzer.

And when they

emancipated

the slave,

the son was found to be free and permitted to marry an Israelite woman.

Rabbi Eliezer

disagrees and

says: He is

the child born from a mamzer’s relations with a maidservant

a slave

and also

a mamzer. Even after he is emancipated and no longer disqualified as a slave, he remains a mamzer; Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning is explained in the Gemara.

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 raised as a dilemma

—the scholars of the academy were uncertain:

Does

Rabbi Tarfon, from the outset

mean

say

that every mamzer may initially do so in order to become purified? Although a fit Israelite is forbidden to marry a maidservant, as the Torah says [Deuteronomy 23:18]: “There shall not be a sacred prostitute [the kuf is vocalized with kamatz, and the dalet with tzere] among the children of Israel,” which is a prohibition against having relations with a maidservant, nevertheless, a mamzer is not forbidden to her.

Or

perhaps

after the fact

is what

he is saying

Rabbi Tarfon: If the mamzer married a maidservant, his offspring is purified, but it is forbidden to do this initially, because even a mamzer is forbidden to have relations with a maidservant, like the rest of the Jews who are forbidden to do so.

Come and hear a proof

from a beraita that Rabbi Tarfon was speaking only after the fact, as it is taught:

The Sages said to him

the Sages

to Rabbi Tarfon,

Indeed,

you have purified

the

male

mamzerim from the disqualification of their offspring through marriage to a maidservant,

but

you have not

purified the females

from the disqualification of their offspring, since they have no such option of marrying a slave, as will be explained.

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

And

behold,

if you say

that

he is speaking of doing so initially,

Rabbi Tarfon, why did he not purify the females? After all,

a mamzeret too

can purify her offspring in this manner, by

marrying a slave

[she should marry a slave], and the child 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 relations with a slave. In that case, where people know that he is an Israelite and that she is forbidden to him, they will prevent him from marrying a maidservant; his solution is to move to a place where people do not know him, say that he is a slave, marry a maidservant, and thereby purify his offspring. Therefore, this solution is not suitable for females, since a woman does not ordinarily move to another place and conceal her true identity in order to marry. But if he is permitted to do this initially, a woman can likewise purify her offspring, just as a man can. Why, then, did the Sages say to him that he had not provided a solution for the females!?

And we answer: The reason we said that the females do not become purified is not that in practice they cannot do so; rather, even if the mamzeret were to marry a slave, the child would still remain in his state of mamzerut—

And the reason is that

a slave has no familial affiliation

[his son is not considered related to him], and the slave father does not remove him from the status of mamzerut.

Ta shma

that Rabbi Tarfon is speaking of doing so initially:

The host of Rabbi Simlai

[the owner of the lodging where Rabbi Simlai stayed]

was a mamzer,

and his descendants after him were disqualified.

And he said to him

Rabbi Simlai said to the owner of his lodging:

If you had preceded me, I would have purified your sons,

[if I had arrived at your home before you married your wife, I would have advised you to marry in a manner that would purify your offspring and prevent them from being disqualified for generations]. This means that he would have advised him to marry a maidservant so that his offspring would become purified, in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon’s statement.

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

If it is understandable if, from the outset,

it is permitted to do so, then

well

Rabbi Simlai properly said that he would have given him this advice.

But if you say that Rabbi Tarfon is speaking only after the fact,

and that initially there is a prohibition of “There shall not be a sacred prostitute,” then

what is it!? What advice was Rabbi Simlai going to give him? He could not tell him to marry a maidservant in violation of the prohibition! And we answer:

—

He would have given him the following advice and said to him:

The advice Rabbi Simlai would have given him was to 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 purified.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning this resolution:

And during the two

during his lifetime, in his era

of Rabbi Simlai, was there a Hebrew slave?

Was the law of the Hebrew slave in force during the lifetime of Rabbi Simlai

?

For the Master said: The Hebrew slave applies only when the Jubilee is in force,

as it is stated with regard to him: “He shall work with you until the year of the Jubilee.” Since, during the time of Rabbi Simlai, the Jubilee was no longer in force, it is therefore impossible to explain that Rabbi Simlai was advising him to sell himself as a Hebrew slave.

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that he was telling him to marry a bondwoman without selling himself as a Hebrew 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 that it is permitted for a mamzer to marry a bondwoman.

Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon,

that when a mamzer has intercourse with a bondwoman, 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 bondwoman

is a slave

and

a mamzer:

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

Surely Rabbi Eliezer certainly agrees that the son does not trace his lineage to his Jewish father, as it is stated: “The woman and her children shall belong to her master.” And we learn from this that the child does not trace his lineage to the father; if so, why should the mamzer be like his father

? It is because

the verse says

with regard to a mamzer:

“Even the tenth generation shall not enter his assembly,” and therefore the Torah included the seemingly superfluous word

“his”,

in order to teach:

Follow his disqualification.

Even if only the father or only the mother is a mamzer, the child is a mamzer. Since the father is a mamzer, the child, too, is a mamzer. And the Gemara proceeds to explain this.

And the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, can say to you:

That

verse

is addressing a Jew who married a female mamzer.

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

it might have entered your mind

that, absent the verse:

“According to their families, by their fathers’ houses”

is written

in the Torah,

and just as, with regard to the tribal lineage, when his father is from one tribe and his mother from another tribe, the child follows the father, so too, with regard to mamzerut, the child follows only the father. If he is fit, his son is fit as well. Therefore,

it came

“his”

his”

and excluded him:

the verse had to state “his” in order to remove him from the rule of “according to their families, by their fathers’ houses.” Even when the mother is disqualified and the father is fit, the child is disqualified.

But when the mother is a bondwoman and the father is a mamzer, such that the child does not trace his lineage to the mamzer at all, from where do we learn that he becomes a mamzer?

And Rabbi Eliezer

can say to you: In any event, you can learn that even when the child does not trace his lineage to his father, he follows him with regard to disqualification, for

is it not that even though

the Merciful One

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

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

it came

“his”

his”

and excluded him

? The verse introduced “his” and removed him from his basic legal status: If there is a disqualification in his mother, he is disqualified, even though his father is not disqualified.

Here,

with regard to a bondwoman,

too, even though it is written:

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

from which we learn that the child does not trace his lineage to him, nevertheless we can say that

it came

“his”

his”

and excluded him:

if there is a disqualification in the father, we follow him, even though ordinarily the child does not trace his lineage to him

. And the Rabbis

can say to you:

Any child in the womb of a Canaanite bondwoman is like a child in the womb of an animal.

That is, this principle—that the father can disqualify his son even though ordinarily the child does not trace his lineage to him—applies only where there is some connection between the father and the son, even though there is no lineage relationship between them as father and son. But a child born of a bondwoman is as though it came from an animal: The father has no lineage relationship or connection whatsoever with his son. In such a case, the Torah did not introduce the rule that we follow the disqualified parent

. We have completed the chapter “One Who Says.”

Mishna:

When Ezra ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he brought with him part of the exiles. Among those who ascended were all the sages of the generation. Ezra feared that the members of the exile would remain without the supervision of the sages of the generation and would come to intermingle the disqualified families among themselves. Therefore, he brought all the disqualified families from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, so that there they would remain under the supervision of the sages, who would prevent intermarriage with them.

There were among them ten types of families, differing in their degree of lineage.

The Mishna before us details the ten degrees of lineage and the relationship among them.

Ten

types of

lineage

ascended

with Ezra

from Babylonia.

And these are:

a.

Kohanim.

Fit kohanim, whose lineage can be traced father after father back to Aaron the kohen, and none of them had any disqualification affecting the priesthood.

b.

Levites

(Leviyim).

c. And

Israelites.

Israelites among whom there was no disqualification affecting the congregation.

d.

Disqualified kohanim.

Kohanim who became disqualified from the priesthood because they, or their fathers, were born to a woman forbidden to a kohen.

e.

Converts

(gerim).

f.

Freed slaves

(freed Canaanite slaves).

g.

Mamzerim.

Mamzerim, who are biblically forbidden to enter the congregation.

h. And

Netinim.

The Netinim, who are descended from the Gibeonites who converted in the days of Joshua. They are called “Netinim” because Joshua appointed them as woodcutters and water-drawers. David decreed that they may not enter the congregation of Israel.

i.

A shetuki.

A person of uncertain mamzer status.

j.

And an asufi.

They too are of uncertain mamzer status. The Mishna below explains the difference between them and shetukim.

The first three degrees of lineage—

kohanim, Levites, and Israelites—are

permitted to enter

[to marry]

into one another.

Likewise, the five degrees of lineage—

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

permitted to enter into one another.

For disqualified kohanim, converts, and freed slaves, although their lineage is defective, are fit to enter the congregation of Israel.

But kohanim are forbidden to marry a woman who is a ḥalala, by virtue of the prohibition: “They shall not take a woman who is a divorced woman, a harlot, or a ḥalala.” Likewise, they are forbidden to marry a female convert or a freed maidservant, because such women have the status of a zona.

Likewise, the six degrees of lineage—

converts, freed slaves, and mamzerim,

and Netinim, shetukim, and asufim—are

all permitted to enter into one another.

The early authorities raised the following difficulty: The Netinim are forbidden by the prohibition “You shall not intermarry with them,” even after they converted, according to Rava in Yevamot [see note 3]. If so, how can all these categories be permitted to marry them? It cannot be said that people of disqualified lineage and converts are not forbidden by any prohibition against intermarriage, since they are forbidden to marry gentiles and slaves. They answered that with regard to all the prohibitions applying to disqualified lineage, those of disqualified lineage are not forbidden, just as they are not forbidden to marry mamzerim, because they are not called “the community.” For the Torah did not take into account lineage only with regard to those of valid lineage, and not with regard to those of disqualified lineage. The Torah prohibited them from marrying only gentiles and slaves, because of the concern that those people would lead them to idolatry, as it is written: “You shall not give your daughter to his son, for he will turn your son away from following Me.” There is a similar concern with slaves, since they are not obligated in all the mitzvot and their evil inclination has not yet been subdued; there is therefore some concern that they might lead the children to idolatry. But the Netinim are complete converts and obligated in all the mitzvot, so there is no concern that they will lead others astray. Therefore, those of disqualified lineage and converts are permitted to marry them.

Converts and freed slaves are permitted to marry mamzerim, because the prohibition concerning a mamzer is stated: “A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.” Our Mishna maintains that the congregation of converts is not called “the congregation of the Lord”; therefore, a mamzer is permitted to enter into their number. Likewise, freed slaves and Netinim have the status of converts.

Shetukim and asufim, who are of uncertain mamzer status, are also permitted to marry definite mamzerim. For it is stated concerning a mamzer: “He shall not enter the congregation of the Lord,” and we interpret this to mean: He may not enter specifically into a definite congregation, but a mamzer is permitted to enter into a congregation of uncertain status.

But kohanim, Levites, and Israelites are forbidden to marry even those of uncertain mamzer status.

They are likewise forbidden to marry Netinim, because of David’s decree, which prohibited the Netinim from entering the congregation.

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

And these are: “

A shetuki”—

anyone who recognizes

only

his mother but does not recognize his father,

because his mother became pregnant while unmarried 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 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. “

An asufi”—

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

his

mother.

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 would call a shetuki a

beduki,

a term derived from examination.

Abba Shaul is teaching us that if the mother is examined and asked by whom she became pregnant, and she says that she became pregnant by a fit man, she is believed and the child is fit. This is explained further in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Ten lineages ascended from Babylonia.

The Gemara raises a question:

What is the reason that he specifically taught “

ascended from Babylonia”?

Why did the tanna formulate the statement with the expression “ascended”?

Let him teach

[he should have taught:] “Ten lineages

went to Eretz Yisrael”!

The questioner knew that Babylonia was lower, like a deep abyss, but he did not know that Eretz Yisrael was also higher than the other lands. Therefore, he asked as follows: The Mishna says about all the exiles that ten lineages went up from among them, but some of them went up not from Babylonia but from other lands. The tan­nnait should therefore have used wording that also applies to those returning from the other lands, namely, “went to Eretz Yisrael.” They answered him that Eretz Yisrael is higher than the other lands as well. He then asked: If so, the difficulty is even greater—why did the tan­nnait not say “went up to Eretz Yisrael”? They answered him that only Babylonia remained like pure sifted flour, whereas in the other lands people of disqualified lineage also remained. Maharsha.

And we answer:

The tanna is teaching us something incidentally, by the way:

By using the expression “ascended from Babylonia,” he incidentally teaches us a novel point: Eretz Yisrael is higher than Babylonia, and anyone who goes there from Babylonia is considered to be “ascending.”

As it was taught:

It is written [Deuteronomy 17:8]: “

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

The verse teaches, by saying “

and ascend,”

that the

place of

the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael,

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

And

likewise,

Eretz Yisrael

is located in a place that is

higher than all the lands.