Kiddushin 70a (ע.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

converts and freed slaves.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

From where do we know

that converts and freed slaves were also among those who went up from Babylonia?

Rav Ḥisda said:

We learn this from

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

And

those who had separated themselves from the impurity of the nations of the land to join them also ate from the meat of the Paschal offering.”

That is, converts and slaves who had abandoned the religion of the nations and come to cleave to Israel also ate from the meat of the Paschal offering.

And from here it follows that they too went up with Ezra.

We learned in the Mishna:

mamzerim.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

From where

do we know that they too went up?

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 nobles

in Judea

were

sworn allies” [that is, friends]

to him [to Tobiah].

[to Tobiah].

For he was a son-in-law:

Tobiah [the Ammonite slave]

to Shecaniah son of Arah [the Israelite].

the Israelite.

And

even

Johanan, his son

of Tobiah [the Ammonite slave],

took

an Israelite woman as his wife,

the daughter of Meshullam son of Berechiah [the Israelite].

the Israelite.”

Thus, although Tobiah the Ammonite and his son Johanan were slaves—and slaves have no capacity to effect betrothal among Israel—nevertheless Israelite women married them, in violation of the prohibition.

The child born to them was a mamzer, because

the tanna holds

in our Mishna that

a gentile or a slave who has intercourse with an Israelite woman

and she becomes pregnant by him,

the child is a mamzer.

It follows that the sons of the slave Tobiah and of his son Johanan were mamzerim, since they were born to them by Israelite women [the daughter of Shecaniah the Israelite and the daughter of Meshullam the Israelite]. And it is explained in the verse that they too were among those who went up from Babylonia.

However, 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;

it is properly proven that they too went up with them.

But according to the one who says: “

A slave who has intercourse with an Israelite woman,

the child is fit,”

what can be said?

According to his view, the sons of Tobiah and Johanan were not mamzerim. Once again, the difficulty arises: From where do we know that there were mamzerim among those who went up from Babylonia?

Furthermore,

a second difficulty arises:

From what

do we know

that they had

that Tobiah and Johanan had

sons

by the Israelite women whom they took as wives?

Perhaps

they

did not have

any

sons

at all from those women whom they married from among the Israelite women.

Furthermore,

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

from where do we know that here—

in Babylonia—

they had them, and went up [that is, how do we know that they were born in Babylonia and subsequently went up]?

[that they were born in Babylonia and afterward went up]?

Perhaps

perhaps

there—

there in Eretz Yisrael—

they were: Shecaniah and Meshullam had always remained there in Eretz Yisrael, not having gone into exile to Babylonia at the time of the Destruction; and there, in Eretz Yisrael, Tobiah and Johanan married their daughters. Thus, they were not among those who went up from Babylonia at all.

And we conclude:

And we conclude:

Rather, from here

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

As it is written [there, 7:61]: “

And these went up from

the following places in Babylonia:

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

And they could not

those who went up from there

declare their ancestral house and their lineage, whether they were Israelites.”

And we expound: “

Tel Melah”—

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

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 property.

These people who went up from Babylonia likewise were born through forbidden sexual relations and were mamzerim. “

Tel Harsha”—

this is

one

who calls “

Father,”

but his mother silences him.

That is, they are shetukim—those whose fathers are unknown, because their mothers became pregnant while unmarried, and it is not known by whom they became pregnant; they are of uncertain mamzer status. They too were among those who went up from Babylonia. “

And they could not declare their ancestral house and their lineage, whether they were Israelites”—

this is a foundling who was collected from the marketplace

and whose father is unknown [“their ancestral house”] and whose mother is unknown [“and their lineage”], and they are of uncertain Israelite status [whereas a shetuki knows that his mother is an Israelite].

They too were among those who went up from Babylonia.

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

Cherub, Addon, and Immer”—

Rabbi Abbahu

expounded

the verse

from its end to its beginning:

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

“I said that

Israel should be as precious before Me as a cherub,”

that they should be holy like the holy cherubs in the Divine Chariot [which are among the holy living creatures],

but

these

they [Israel]

Israel

made themselves like a leopard,

for they commit adultery 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: Although they made

Israel

themselves like a leopard,”

and were not careful regarding forbidden sexual relations,

“they are nevertheless precious before Me as a cherub!”

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Whoever marries a woman who is unfit for him [A woman forbidden to him],

[who is forbidden to him],

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

Just as nothing ever grows from such plowing, so no fit offspring emerges from this union, since he disqualifies his offspring.

As it is stated: “

And these went up from Tel Melah and Tel Harsha.”

They were mamzerim or of uncertain mamzer status, as explained above, and “Harsha” is an expression relating to plowing. This alludes to the fact that they resemble one who plows and sows salt.

Rabba bar Rav Adda said that Rav said: Whoever marries a woman

who is disqualified for him, and does so

for the sake of money,

out of greed for profit,

will have unfit children.

As it is stated [Hosea 5:7]: “

They have betrayed the Lord, for they have begotten alien children.”

Since they betrayed the Lord, their children will be “alien.” The verse is speaking of men who marry a disqualified woman for the sake of money, as is demonstrated by the continuation of the passage, as explained immediately below.

And should you say that the

money

that the woman brought him

escaped [that is, remained in his possession]—

[remained in his possession]—

The verse states in its continuation: “

Now a new moon shall devour them with their portions.”

That money will be lost and consumed within a single month.

And should you say that only

his portion

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

not

will be lost

her portion [the usufruct property that remains hers], since she did not transgress by marrying a man of unblemished lineage, as she is not commanded to refrain from marrying a man of unblemished 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,”

indicating that her portion too will be lost.

And should you say that only

after

a long time

the money will be lost, and not immediately—

The verse states: “

It shall devour them

in a new month,”

immediately.

And we explain:

What is the indication that the meaning of “new month” is immediately?

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

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

This is the meaning of the verse: Immediately when this

new month

comes

in and the

and

month

that has passed

goes out,

their money will already be lost.

already be lost.

And Rabba bar Rav Adda said; and some say that Rabbi Sala said that Rav Hamnuna said: Whoever marries a woman

who is unfit for him,

who is disqualified for him,

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

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

binds him

to a pillar,

and the Holy One, blessed be He, lashes him [strikes him with a strap]. For this is what was done to those liable for lashes in the court: They would bind both his hands to a pillar and lash him.

[strikes him with a strap]. This is what was done to those liable to lashes in the court: their two hands were bound to a post, and they were flogged.

And the tanna

in a

beraita says:

Concerning all of them [kohanim, 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

them:

Woe to him who disqualifies his offspring, blemishes his family, and marries a woman who is unfit for him!

And

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

And whoever disqualifies

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

disqualified

with regard to his lineage.

And

a person who is disqualified

never speaks favorably

of others

ever.

For it is not the way of a disqualified person to speak favorably of people; rather, he is always seeking to cast aspersions upon them.

And

so

Shmuel said:

Whoever disqualifies others

disqualifies them through his own defect,

which indicates that he himself is disqualified through that same defect.

And the Gemara relates an incident in which they relied upon Shmuel’s statement:

There was a certain man from Nehardea who entered the slaughterhouse in Pumbedita [A story about a man from Nehardea who entered a slaughterhouse in Pumbedita].

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

He said to them

the butchers:

Give me meat [Give me some meat]!

[give me meat]!

They said to him: Wait until Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel’s attendant takes his portion, and we will give you [Wait until Rav Yehuda’s attendant takes his portion, and afterward we will let you choose from what remains].

[Wait until Rav Yehuda’s attendant takes his portion, and afterward we will let you choose from what remains.]

The man said:

:

Who

is this

Yehuda bar Sheviskal, that he should precede me and take from before me [Who is this Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel that he should precede me and take his portion before me]?!

He referred to Rav Yehuda by the name “bar Sheviskal,” a derogatory nickname meaning “glutton,” since “shevisk” is roast meat,

and “sheviskal” is one who eats roast meat.

They went

and

reported to Rav Yehuda

what had happened.

Rav Yehuda 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.

[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 Yehuda: That man is

accustomed

to

calling people slaves [to call people “slave”].

[call people “slave”].

Rav Yehuda proclaimed concerning him

that

he

he himself

is a slave, based on Shmuel’s statement that whoever disqualifies another does so through his own defect.

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

That man went

and

summoned [invited] Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel

Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel

to judgment before Rav Naḥman,

to sue him for proclaiming that he was a slave.

He brought Rav Yehuda a writ of summons [he brought him the document summoning him to court].

[he brought Rav Yehuda the document summoning him to court].

Rav Yehuda 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 Naḥman,

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

or shall I not go, since this would be disrespectful to the honor of the Torah?!

since doing so would show disrespect for the honor of Torah?!

Rav Huna said to him:

According to the strict law,

you certainly need not go!

You do not need to go before Rav Naḥman

because you are a great man,

as you are greater than Rav Naḥman. Although he is the head of the court of Nehardea, you are the head of the academy in Pumbedita.

However,

since Rav Naḥman is the son-in-law of the Nasi,

out of respect

[honor]

for the house of the Nasi,

the Nasi’s household,

arise and go [go] to Torah judgment before him.

[go] to have the matter judged according to Torah before him.

He came,

and Rav Yehuda came before Rav Naḥman,

and found him engaged in making

[he found him making]

a parapet.

Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel said to Rav Naḥman: Do you not accept the statement of Rav Huna bar Idi in the name of Shmuel:

to Rav Naḥman: Is it not the case that the Master accepts what Rav Huna bar Idi said in the name of Shmuel: Once a person has been appointed as a communal leader,

Once a person has been appointed leader over the community, it is forbidden

for him

to perform work in the presence of three people!?

This is because it is demeaning to the community subject to him, since their leader has no one to perform his work for him and is forced to do it himself.

If so, why are you performing work publicly?

Rav Naḥman said to him

Rav Naḥman:

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

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

Rav Naḥman called the parapet “gundarita,” as it is called in one of the languages.

Rav Yehuda said to him: Does the expression

Rav Naḥman, is

“parapet” [disliked and ugly]

appear distasteful to you,

as it is written in the Torah, or

as used

in the Torah

the expression

“partition”,

as

as the Sages said concerning a parapet, that you need to use a foreign language and call it “gundarita”?!

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

Rav Yehuda’s intention was to taunt him with these words, in order to hint to him that he should not have asserted superiority over him and summoned him to judgment before him.

Rav Naḥman said to him

Rav Naḥman:

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

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

Rav Yehuda said to him

Rav Yehuda:

And

does

“bench” [a despicable expression] seem distasteful to you,

like the expression

“bench”

as

as the Sages said, or the expression

“

“platform,”

as

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

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

Rav Naḥman said to him

Rav Naḥman:

Let my master eat an etrog [Let my master eat an etrog]!

[let my master eat an etrog]!

Rav Yehuda said to him

Rav Yehuda:

This is what Shmuel said: Whoever calls

an etrog

“etronga” is

one-third arrogant.

One-third of his spirit is haughty, and therefore he alters his speech.

Rather, one should say,

either “

etrog,”

as the Sages called it, or “

etroga,”

as

ordinary people say.

Rav Naḥman said to him

Rav Naḥman:

Let my master drink anavga!

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

Rav Yehuda said to him: Does

“asparagus”

seem distasteful to you,

like the expression

as

that the Sages used

for this drink,

or “anpak” [a cup containing a quarter-log],

[a cup containing a quarter-log] as

as ordinary people say, that you call it “anavga”?!

Rav Naḥman said to him

Rav Naḥman:

Let Dong come and serve us a drink [Let my daughter, whose name is Dong, come and give us to drink; that is, let her bring us some of this beverage]!

[let my daughter, whose name is Donga, come and serve us; that is, let her bring this drink before us]!

Rav Yehuda said to him

Rav Yehuda:

This is what Shmuel said: One may not make use of a woman,

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

Rav Naḥman said to him: But she is still

a minor

—my daughter!

Rav Yehuda said to him:

Samuel explicitly said: One may not make use of a woman at all, whether an adult

or

a minor.

Rav Naḥman said to him:

Let my master send Yalta greetings [

let my master send greetings to Yalta, my wife ].

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

This is what Samuel said: A woman’s voice

is subject to the law of

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

And if I greet Yalta, she will respond to me with a greeting, and I will transgress the ruling stated above.

Rav Naḥman said to him: But

it is possible

for you to send her greetings

through a messenger,

and by doing so you will not come to transgress “a woman’s voice is ervah.”

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

This is what Samuel said: