Kiddushin 70a — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

proselytes and freed slaves.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

from where do we know this?

From where do we know that proselytes and freed slaves, too, were among those who ascended from Babylonia?

Rav Hisda said:

We learned this from

as the verse says [Ezra 6:21]: “And the Children of Israel who had returned from the exile ate [the Paschal offering].

And

likewise, they ate from the flesh of the Paschal offering

everyone who had separated himself from the impurity of the nations of the land to join them.”

That is to say, even proselytes and freed slaves, who had abandoned the religion of the nations and had come to cleave to Israel, also ate from the flesh of the Paschal offering. And from here it follows that they, too, ascended with Ezra.

We learned in the Mishna:

mamzerim.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

from where do we know

that they, too, ascended?

And we answer: From

as it is written [Nehemiah 2:10], “

And Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite slave heard.”

It follows that “Tobiah” was a Canaanite slave.

And it is written

there [6:18], “

For

many officials

in Judah

were

bound by oath” [A0035]]friends]

to him

[to Tobiah].

For he is a son-in-law

of Tobiah [the Ammonite slave],

to Shecaniah son of Arah

[the Israelite].

And

also

Jehohanan, his son

of Tobiah [the Ammonite slave],

took

for himself a wife from the daughters of Israel,

the daughter of Meshullam son of Berechiah

[the Israelite].”

It follows that although Tobiah the Ammonite and his son Jehohanan were slaves, and slaves have no capacity for kiddushin in Israel, nevertheless Israelite women married them, in transgression.

And the child born to them is a mamzer, because

he holds

the tanna in our Mishna

that a gentile or a slave who has intercourse with an Israelite woman and she became pregnant by him,

and she becomes pregnant by him,

the child is a mamzer.

And it is found that the sons of Tobiah the slave and of his son Jehohanan were mamzerim, since they were born to them from Israelite women [from the daughter of Shecaniah the Israelite and from the daughter of Meshullam the Israelite]. And it is made clear in the verse that they, too, were among those who ascended from Babylonia.

But the Gemara raises three objections to this answer:

First,

this works well according to the one who says

that a slave who has intercourse with an Israelite woman,

the child is a mamzer,

for it is properly proven that they, too, ascended with them.

But according to the one who says, “A slave who has intercourse with an Israelite woman,

A slave who has intercourse with an Israelite woman,

the child is fit,”

what is there to say?

According to his view, the sons of Tobiah and Jehohanan were not mamzerim. And it remains difficult: From where do we know that there were mamzerim among those who ascended from Babylonia?

And furthermore,

a second difficulty:

from what

from where do we know

that they had,

that Tobiah and Jehohanan had,

sons

from the Israelite women whom they took as wives?

Perhaps,

perhaps

he did not have

at all

sons

from those women whom he took from the daughters of Israel.

And furthermore,

a third difficulty: Even if we assume that they had sons from those women,

from what do we know that here

in Babylonia

they had them, and ascended

[from where do we know that they were born in Babylonia and afterward ascended]?

Perhaps,

perhaps

there

there in the Land of Israel

they were, that Shecaniah and Meshullam had always been there, having remained in the Land of Israel at the time of the destruction and not having been exiled to Babylonia; and there, in the Land of Israel, Tobiah and Jehohanan married their daughters, and they were not among those who ascended from Babylonia at all.

And we conclude:

And we establish:

Rather, from here

we learn that there were mamzerim among those who ascended from Babylonia:

From what is written [there, Nehemiah 7:61]: “ And these are those who ascended from

the

places mentioned here in Babylonia:

Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer.

And they were unable

those who ascended from there

to declare their fathers’ houses and their offspring, whether they were Israelites.”

And we expound: “

Tel Melah” —

these are people whose deeds resemble the deeds of Sodom, which was turned into a mound of salt.

For the people of Sodom engaged in forbidden sexual relations, as it is said concerning them: “wicked and sinful.” And we expound: “wicked” with regard to their bodies, and “sinful” with regard to their money.

And these people, too, among those who ascended from Babylonia, were born through forbidden sexual relations and were mamzerim. “

Tel Harsha” —

this is

one who

calls “

Father,”

and his mother silences him.

That is to say, shetukim [a shetuki is also called “deaf,” because his mother silences him], whose fathers are unknown, because their mother became pregnant while unmarried, and it is not known by whom she became pregnant; thus they are doubtful mamzerim. And they, too, were among those who ascended from Babylonia. “

And they were unable to declare their fathers’ houses and their offspring, whether they were Israelites” —

this is a foundling who was gathered from the marketplace,

and it is not known who his father is [“their fathers’ houses”] and who his mother is [“and their offspring”], and they are doubtful Israelites [but a shetuki knows that his mother is an Israelite].

And they, too, were among those who ascended from Babylonia.

And since the Gemara brought this verse, it also explains what is stated in it: “

Cherub, Addon, and Immer” —

Rabbi Abbahu

expounded

and

this verse from its end to its beginning:

“The Lord said” [A0131]]the Holy One, blessed be He]:

I said that

Israel should be important before Me like a cherub,

that they should be holy like the holy cherubim in the Chariot [which are among the holy living beings],

and

these

they

[Israel]

made themselves like a leopard,

for they are adulterers like a leopard, which does not refrain from mating with its fellow’s mate.

Some say,

to the contrary,

Rabbi Abbahu said,

and this is how he expounded the verse:

“The Lord said: Even though they made

Israel

themselves like a leopard

and were not careful regarding forbidden sexual relations, nevertheless

they are important before Me like a cherub!”

Rabba bar bar Hana said: Anyone who marries a woman who is not fit for him

[who is forbidden to him],

the verse considers it for him as though he plowed the entire world and sowed it with salt.

Just as no produce will ever emerge from this plowed land, so too, no proper offspring will emerge from this union, for he disqualifies his offspring.

As it is stated: “

And these are those who ascended from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha.”

For they were mamzerim or doubtful mamzerim, as explained above, and “Harsha” is an expression of plowing. This hints that they resemble one who plows and sows salt.

Rabba bar Rav Adda said in the name of Rav: Anyone who marries a woman

who is disqualified for him, and does so

for the sake of money,

because of greed for profit,

will have sons who are unfit.

As it is stated [Hosea 5:7]: “

They have dealt treacherously with the Lord, for they have borne strange children.”

Since they dealt treacherously with the Lord, their sons will be “strange.” And the verse speaks of men who marry a disqualified woman for the sake of money, as is demonstrated by the continuation of the matter, as explained nearby.

And should you say that the

money

that the woman brought him

escaped

[remained in his possession] —

The verse states in its continuation: “

Now a new month shall devour their portions.”

That money will be lost and devoured within one month.

And should you say that only

his portion

of the woman’s money [the iron-sheep assets] will be lost, because he married a disqualified woman for the sake of the money, but

not

will be lost

her portion [the nichsei melog that remain hers], for she did not transgress by marrying one of established lineage, since she is not commanded to refrain from marrying a man of established lineage —

[usufruct property, which remains hers], since she did not transgress by marrying a man of established lineage, as she is not commanded to refrain from marrying a man of established lineage—

The verse states: “

their portions,”

for her portion, too, will be lost.

And should you say that only

after

a long time

will the money be lost, and not immediately —

The verse states: “It shall devour them

It shall devour them

a new month,”

immediately.

And we explain:

What is the implication?

From where do we know that the meaning of “a new month” is immediately?

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

This is the meaning of the verse: Immediately when

the new month

this

enters

and

the new month

that has passed

leaves, and

already

their money is lost.

And Rabba bar Rav Adda said; and some say that Rabbi Sala said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Anyone who marries a woman

who is not fit for him,

who is disqualified for him,

Elijah

[the name of an angel, who is the “scribe” above]

binds him

to the post,

and the Holy One, blessed be He, flogs him

[strikes him with a strap]. For this is what they would do to those liable for lashes in the court: they would bind both his hands to the post and flog him.

And the tanna

in a beraita

[said]: For all of them

[priests, Levites, and Israelites] who marry a woman unfit for them according to their lineage,

Elijah writes

the following words,

and the Holy One, blessed be He, signs

upon them:

Woe to him who disqualifies his offspring, who blemishes his family, and who marries a woman who is not fit for him!

And

Elijah binds him, and the Holy One, blessed be He, flogs him!

And anyone who disqualifies

other families and casts a blemish upon their fitness, it is a sign that he himself is

disqualified

with regard to his lineage.

And

a disqualified person

never speaks praise

[praise] of others

ever.

For it is not the way of a disqualified person to speak in praise of people; rather, he always seeks to cast a blemish upon them.

And

so

Samuel said: Anyone who disqualifies others,

Anyone who disqualifies others

disqualifies them through his own blemish,

for it is a sign that he himself is disqualified through this blemish.

And the Gemara brings an incident in which they relied upon Samuel’s words:

There was a certain man from Nehardea who entered the slaughterhouse in Pumbedita

[an incident involving a man from Nehardea who entered a slaughterhouse in Pumbedita].

He said to them,

to the butchers:

Give me meat

[give me meat]!

They said to him: Wait until Rav Judah bar Ezekiel’s attendant takes [his portion], and we will give you

[wait until Rav Judah’s attendant takes his portion, and afterward we will give you a choice from what remains].

The man said:

:

Who

is

this Judah bar Shviskal, that he should precede me and take from before me

[who is Judah bar Ezekiel that he should precede me and take his portion before me]?!

And he called Rav Judah by the name “bar Shviskal,” which is a derogatory nickname, from the language of “glutton,” because “shvisk” is roasted meat, and “shviskal” is one who eats roasted meat.

They went

and

told Rav Judah

the story of what had happened.

Rav Judah placed him under a ban

[excommunicated him], in accordance with the law that one who demeans the honor of a Torah scholar is placed under a ban.

They said

to Rav Judah: That man

regularly

does

call people slaves

[call people “slave”].

Rav Judah proclaimed concerning him

Rav Judah proclaimed concerning this man

that

he himself

is a slave, on the basis of Samuel’s statement that anyone who disqualifies others disqualifies them through his own blemish.

based on Shmuel’s statement that anyone who disqualifies others does so through his own defect.

That man went

and

summoned him [A0295]] [invited] Rav Judah bar Ezekiel

Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel

to judgment before Rav Nahman,

to sue him for proclaiming that he was a slave.

He brought a writ of summons

[he brought the writ of summons to court] to Rav Judah.

Rav Judah went before Rav Huna

to consult with him, and

said to him: Shall I go

[am I obligated to go] to litigate with this man before Rav Nahman,

or shall I not go,

since this entails a slight to the honor of Torah?!

Rav Huna said to him:

According to the letter of the law,

you certainly need not go!

You do not need to go before Rav Nahman,

because you are a great man,

for you are greater than Rav Nahman. Even though he is the head of the court of Nehardea, you are the head of the academy in Pumbedita.

Rather,

since Rav Nahman is a son-in-law in the house of the patriarch,

because of the honor

[honor]

of the house of the patriarch,

of the house of the patriarch,

arise and go

[go] to Torah judgment before him.

He came,

Rav Judah came before Rav Nahman,

and found him making

[found him making]

a parapet.

Rav Judah said to him,

Rav Judah bar Ezekiel said to Rav Nahman: Surely

does my master not accept that which Rav Huna bar Idi said in the name of Samuel: Once a person has been appointed a leader over the public, it is forbidden

for him

to perform work in the presence of three people!?

For it is a disgrace to the public subject to him, that their leader has no one to perform his work for him and is forced to perform it himself.

And if so, why are you performing work in public?

Rav Nahman said to him,

Rav Nahman said:

I am making only a little of the parapet

[I am making only a little of the parapet], and this is not considered work.

And Rav Nahman called the parapet “gundarita,” for this is its designation in one of the languages.

Rav Judah said to him: Surely

Rav Naḥman, is

is

[hateful and ugly] in your eyes the expression

“parapet”

like the expression

that is written in the Torah, or the expression

disagreeable to you, or

“partition”

like the expression

that the Sages said

concerning a parapet, that you must resort to a foreign language and call it “gundarita”?!

Rav Judah’s intention was to taunt him with words, in order to hint to him that he should not have exalted himself above him and summoned him to judgment before him.

Rav Nahman said to him,

Rav Nahman said:

Let my master sit on the bench

[let my master sit on the bench]. “Karpita” is a bench in a foreign language.

Rav Judah said to him,

Rav Judah said:

And

surely

is

[hateful] to you the expression

“bench”

like the expression

that the Sages said, or the expression

“

“platform”,

like the expression

that people use

[the language used by people], that you call it “karpita”?!

Rav Nahman said to him:

Rav Naḥman:

Let my master eat an etrog

[let my master eat an etrog]!

Rav Judah said to him:

Rav Yehuda:

Thus Samuel said: Anyone who says

of an etrog, “

etroniga,”

has a third of his spirit marked by arrogance.

A third of his spirit is haughty, and therefore he changes his speech.

Rather, one should say,

either “

etrog,”

as the Sages called it, or “

etroga,”

as

people say.

Rav Nahman said to him:

Rav Naḥman:

Let my master drink ananvag!

Let my master drink a cup of a beverage containing the measure of a quarter-log. It was a beverage that they were accustomed to drink in the morning, and it was called “asparagus.”

Rav Judah said to him: Surely

is

the expression

“ispargus”

[hateful] to you

as the Sages called

this beverage

“anpak”

[a cup containing a quarter-log] as

people say, that you call it “anvag”?!

Rav Nahman said to him:

Rav Naḥman:

Let Dung come and give us to drink

[let my daughter, whose name is “Dung,” come and give us to drink; that is, let her bring this beverage before us]!

Rav Judah said to him:

Rav Yehuda:

Thus Samuel said: One may not make use of a woman,

so that she will not become accustomed to being among men.

Rab Nahman said to him: But she is still

a minor

my daughter!

Rab Judah said to him:

Samuel said explicitly: one may not use a woman at all, whether an adult

or

whether a minor.

Rab Nahman said to him:

Let my master send Yalta greetings [

Let my master send a greeting to Yalta, my wife].

He said to him,

Rab Judah:

This is what Samuel said: a woman's voice,

its law is like the law of

forbidden nakedness, as it is stated: “Let me hear your voice.” Therefore, it is forbidden to hear a woman's voice.

And if I ask Yalta’s welfare, she will return a greeting to me, and I will transgress the stated rule.

Rab Nahman said to him: But it is

possible

for you to send her greetings

through a messenger,

and thereby you will not come to transgress “a woman's voice is forbidden nakedness.”

He said to him,

Rab Judah:

This is what Samuel said: