Kiddushin 72a (עב.) — the Talmud in English

And nowadays it was the Persians who moved it.

Only in our times did the Persians relocate this bridge and move it north of Akra Detulbaknei.

The Gemara did not discuss the lower side of the Euphrates, because the Euphrates flows diagonally and joins the Tigris at its lower end. Rather, the Gemara discussed how far the borders of Babylonia extend on its western side, beyond the Euphrates [apart from the northwestern point, which was clarified above].

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: On this side of the Euphrates, how far does Babylonia extend?!

How far does the width of Babylonia extend west of the Euphrates?

He said to him

Rav Yosef:

What is your reasoning —why did you come to ask about this side—if you are asking

because of Birem

which lies west of the Euphrates, whether it is included among the genealogically fit places of Babylonia—

Indeed, the people of Birem are fit, as

among the genealogically established families of Pumbedita, they took wives from Birem.

The established families of Pumbedita [as it lies between the Euphrates and the Tigris and is certainly part of Babylonia] married women from Birem.

The Sages instituted that an agent who brings a bill of divorce from all countries outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael must say when delivering the bill of divorce: “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” because those outside Eretz Yisrael are not expert in the requirement of lishma [that the bill of divorce must be written and signed for the sake of divorcing this particular woman]. Through this declaration, he testifies that the bill of divorce was made lishma.

But Babylonia is considered like Eretz Yisrael in this regard. And one who brings a bill of divorce from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, or from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, need not say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” because the people of Babylonia are as learned as the people of Eretz Yisrael and know that the bill of divorce must be written and signed lishma.

Rav Pappa said: Just as that

same

dispute

in which Rav, Shmuel, and Rabbi Yoḥanan disputed the borders of Babylonia

with regard

to

genealogy, so is the

dispute

with regard

to

bills of divorce.

A bill of divorce that comes from within the borders of Babylonia mentioned above—according to each sage’s approach—does not require the agent to say concerning it, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

And Rav Yosef said:

The

dispute

under discussion is

with regard

to

genealogy

alone.

But with regard

to

bills of divorce,

with

universal agreement,

the border of Babylonia extends

as far as the second marsh of the bridge the second lake from the bridge.

There were two lakes below the bridge of Babylonia, and the more distant one was the border of Babylonia with regard to bills of divorce, for until there the local people were expert in the requirement of lishma.

Rami bar Abba said: “

Ḥavil Yama” the name of a place

is the glory its finest part

of Babylonia!

That is, it is the finest place in Babylonia with regard to genealogy.

Shunya and Govya the names of places located in Ḥavil Yama

are the glory its finest part

of Ḥavil Yama

with regard to genealogy.

Ravina said: Tzitzura too

is among the finest parts of Ḥavil Yama.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: Ḥanan ben Pinḥas says: Ḥavil Yama

is

the glory of Babylonia; Shunya, Govya, and Tzitzura

are

the glory of Ḥavil Yama.

Rav Pappa said:

In the past, Ḥavil Yama was genealogically established. But

nowadays

it is no longer presumed to be fit, because

Cutheans became intermingled with them Cutheans became intermingled among them.

And we conclude:

That is not so;

rather, it is still genealogically fit. And the rumor of disqualification that circulated about it was because

it was a woman that

the Cuthean

requested from them a Cuthean sought to marry a woman from among them. But in fact

they did not give her to him

what he requested, and therefore he spread a defamatory rumor about them.

And we inquire:

What is “

Ḥavil Yama”?

Rav Pappa said: It is the Euphrates of Dבורסי.

A certain man said to them

the Sages:

I am from “

Shut Mishut”!

And he wished them to deem him fit on that account, like the families of Babylonia.

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa stood on his feet and said: Shut Mishut stands between the rivers

and therefore it is like Babylonia.

And we inquire:

And is it so that merely because

it is

between the rivers

it

stands, what difference does that make?!

What reason is that to deem it fit?

Abaye said that Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva said that Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:

Every part of Babylonia that

is between the rivers is as fit as “

the Exile”

with regard to genealogy.

And “the Exile” refers to Pumbedita.

And we inquire:

And where is “

Shut Mishut” located?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From Ayehi of Kira and above above it, toward the north. And Ayehi of Kira lies on the Euphrates, farther north than all the borders of Babylonia mentioned above.

Rabbi Yohanan said: From Aihei de-Kira and above [and above, toward the north]. And “Aihei de-Kira” sits on the Euphrates, north of all the boundaries of Babylonia mentioned above.

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Babylonia extends along the western side of the Euphrates

as far as the ferry of Gizma,

and no farther! How, then, can he say that Shut Mishut is part of Babylonia, when it lies beyond the border?

Abaye said: A strip a term for a narrow tract of land

extends

from the northern border, bypasses all the disqualified places, and at its end lies Shut Mishut. This strip is included within Babylonia.

Rav Ika bar Avin said that Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: Ḥalzon Nehardea the name of a river

it is

fit

like the Exile with

regard to

genealogy.

Abaye said to them: Do not heed him do not obey him. It is never like Babylonia with regard to genealogy. Rav Ika said this only because

his yevama fell to him there,

and in order that he could perform levirate marriage with her, he said this.

Rav Ika said to him

Rav Ika:

Is it really so

that

my

own

is it

this ruling? Surely this halakha was stated

in the name of Rav Ḥananel

and was not my own ruling.

They went and asked

Rav Ḥananel

whether he had said this.

He said to them: This is what Rav said: Ḥalzon Nehardea is like the Exile with

regard to

genealogy!

And Rav disagrees

with what

was

said by

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana.

As Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: What is the meaning of that which is written

concerning the Ten Tribes [II Kings 18:11]: “And the king of Assyria exiled Israel to Assyria,

and he settled them in Halaḥ, Habor, the river of Gozan, and the cities of Media”? “

Halaḥ”—

this is Ḥalzon. “

Habor”—

this is Hadayev. “

The river of Gozan”—

this is Ginzak. “

The cities of Media”—

this is Hamadan and its surrounding towns.

And some say: “

The cities of Media”—

this is Nehوند and its surrounding towns.

What are its surrounding towns,

which cities are the surrounding towns of Nehوند?

Shmuel said: The city called

Mushki,

and likewise

Ḥوسki, and

also

Romki.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And all of them

all these places

are disqualified.

For in every place to which the Ten Tribes were exiled, idolaters intermingled with their daughters, and consequently their genealogy was blemished.

And even according to the one who says, “When an idolater has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is fit,” the child is fit only with regard to entry into the Jewish community; nevertheless, he is blemished, and if the child is female, she is disqualified from marrying a koэн.

It follows that “Ḥalzon Nehardea” is not fit like the Exile with regard to genealogy, contrary to Rav.

The Gemara now raises a contradiction in Shmuel’s statements, for above he said that Mushki is one of the places to which the Ten Tribes were exiled.

It might have been understood that “

«

Mushki”

is “

Mushkani.”

If so, it is presumed disqualified, for Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And all of them are disqualified.

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Shmuel said: Mushkani is

fit

like “

the Exile” Pumbedita

with regard to genealogy!

And we answer:

Rather, Mushki is one place, and Mushkani is another place;

they are two different places, one fit and the other disqualified.

In the Book of Daniel [7:5], it is described that he saw in a nighttime vision four beasts, corresponding to the four kingdoms that ruled the world and subjugated the Jewish people. The second beast in the vision corresponds to Persia, and it is written concerning it: “

And three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth.”

Three ribs were in its mouth, between its teeth.

This verse requires explanation, for the word “in its mouth” implies that the three ribs were inside its mouth, whereas “between its teeth” implies that they protruded outward between its teeth.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

These three ribs are an allegory for the places—

this is Ḥalzon, Hadayev, and Natzivin.

At times

Persia

swallows them,

bringing them within its borders and ruling over them,

and at times it spits them out,

outside. For, as stated, “mouth” implies that they are inside, while “between its teeth” implies that they protrude outward.

The Gemara explains the beginning of the verse: “

And behold” and behold

And behold

a beast an animal

” [a beast]

after another, a second one another, the second, which

resembled a bear.”

And behold, another beast, second to it, which resembled a bear.

Rav Yosef taught: These are the Persians, who eat and drink like a bear, and are corpulent fleshy

like a bear, grow hair like a bear, and have no rest like a bear,

for even when it is tied, it circles around its place.

When Rabbi Ami saw a Persian riding when he would see a Persian riding,

he said: It is a wandering bear a wandering bear.

is he.

Rabbi said to Levi: Show me Persians.

Levi was a master of parables, and Rabbi asked him to give him a metaphor for the Persians—to what are they comparable?

He said to him

Levi:

They resemble

the

armies of the House of David,

for they are as mighty as they.

Rabbi said to him:

Show me give me a metaphor for

their neighbors,

the nation adjacent to the Persians, who are more corrupt and predatory than the Persians.

Levi said to him:

They resemble

the

angels of destruction.

Rabbi said to him:

Show me Ishmaelites.

Levi said to him:

They resemble

the

demons of the privy,

because they dress in black and resemble demons.

Rabbi said to him:

Show me the Torah scholars of Babylonia.

Levi said to him:

They resemble

the

ministering angels,

because they wear white garments and are wrapped like the ministering angels, as it is stated above: “And the man was dressed in linen.”

When Rabbi’s soul was departing at the time of his death, prophecy was cast into his mouth, and he

said:

There is a city called

Humnia in Babylonia, and all of it is Ammonite;

all its inhabitants are descended from the Ammonites.

There is a city called

Masgeria in Babylonia, and all of it consists of mamzerim;

all its inhabitants are mamzerim.

There is a city called

Birka in Babylonia, and there are two brothers in it who exchange their wives with one another.

There is a city called

Birta DeSatya in Babylonia, and today they have strayed

its inhabitants

from following the Omnipresent the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore it is called “Satya,” after the fact that they strayed and deviated from the straight path.

And in what way did they stray?

They flooded

the

pool

with

fish

in

Shabbat, and went and caught fish from them on Shabbat,

for the fishpond became flooded with many fish, and they went and caught some of them on Shabbat.

And Rabbi excommunicated them placed them under a ban

—Rabbi Aḥai bar Rabbi Yoshiya,

because they had desecrated Shabbat.

And

as a result,

they apostatized those people converted from their religion.