Kiddushin 72b — the Talmud in English

A city whose name was

Akra de-Agma, which is in Babylonia, and

a man named

Ada bar Ahava is in it, and

exact column location")

today

he is

sitting in the lap of Abraham our father!

Today he was circumcised and entered into the covenant of Abraham our father, peace be upon him.

And

And today was born [

the one who would become ]

Rav Yehuda in Babylonia.

All these things were said by Rabbi on the day of his death. And on that day Rav Yehuda was born.

For the Master said: When Rabbi Akiva died, Rabbi was born.

And

And when Rabbi died, Rav Yehuda was born,

and

and when Rav Yehuda died, Rava was born.

And

And when Rava died, Rav Ashi was born.

To teach you that a righteous person does not depart from the world until a righteous person like him has been created.

As it is stated in the Book of Ecclesiastes [1:5]: “

]: «

And the sun rises and the sun sets.”

Before the sun of this righteous person set, the sun of that righteous person rose.

And so we find,

before the sun of Eli

the

Ramahite Samuel had set,

as it is stated [I Samuel 3]: “

And the lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying in the Temple of the Lord.” And the verse continues and says that at that time the Shekhina was revealed to him for the first time.

And although the plain meaning of the verse is that the lamps of the menorah had not yet gone out, we expound it with regard to the lamp of Eli: before his lamp [the prophecy of Eli] went out, his sun [the prophecy] of Samuel rose.

It is written in the Scroll of Lamentations [1:17]: “

The Lord commanded

Jacob: his enemies are around him!”

For the Lord decreed that the enemies would surround Israel. And they are Ammon and Moab, who oppressed Israel more than all the enemies. And even during their exile in Babylonia, they surrounded Israel.

Rav Yehuda said: For example,

the city

Humnia,

which was entirely populated by Ammonites, whom Sennacherib exiled there, and they oppressed the Israelites who dwelt

along the river,

on the bank of the river.

It is written in the Book of Ezekiel [11:13]: “

And it came to pass as I prophesied, that Paltiah son of Benaiah [

who was among the princes of the people ]

died.

And I fell upon my face, and cried out with a loud voice, and said: Alas, Lord God!

Are You making an end of the remnant of Israel!”

And while Ezekiel was prophesying about the end of the men of iniquity, among them Paltiah, Paltiah died before his eyes. And Ezekiel cried out over this.

And

Rav and Shmuel disagreed about the nature of this cry.

One said:

he cried

for the good,

for the prophet grieved over his death.

And one said:

he cried

for the bad,

for it was bad in the prophet’s eyes that he died an easy death, and he wanted him to be punished in a more severe manner.

The one who says “

for the good”

holds that this Paltiah had merit.

Like this

incident that occurred:

the governor of Mesene [

governor of Mesene ],

was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar [

he was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar ].

He sent to him

to Nebuchadnezzar, his father-in-law:

Of all these captives whom you brought, have you not sent us one who would stand before us [

have you not sent even one of all the captives whom you brought to your land to stand before me and serve me ]?

Nebuchadnezzar wanted [

wanted ]

to send [

to send ]

to him

captives to his son-in-law

from Israel.

.

Paltiah son of Benaiah said to him

to Nebuchadnezzar:

We,

the Jews,

who are considered important [

that we are important ],

shall remain standing before you [

shall remain standing before you ],

and the servants [

the servants ]

shall go there,

they shall go there to serve your son-in-law.

And Nebuchadnezzar did accordingly, and through the merit of Paltiah the Jews remained in Babylonia.

And the

the

prophet said and cried out:

and cried: Is it that

one who did a kindness for Israel should die in the midst of his days?!

But

the one who says

that “

for the bad”

Ezekiel cried out, derives it from this

which is written

there: “

And He brought me to the gate of the House of the Lord

that faces eastward, and behold, at the entrance of the gate were twenty-five men, and I saw among them Jaazaniah son of Azzur and Paltiah son of Benaiah, princes of the people.”

And it is written

above: “

And He brought me to the inner court of the House of the Lord

and behold, at the entrance of the Temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men, with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord

and their faces eastward.”

And they are those same twenty-five men mentioned later in the verse cited earlier, and among them was Paltiah son of Benaiah.

From the implication of what is stated “

and their faces eastward [

eastward ], is it not the case that

I know that their backs were toward

the Temple, which is on the side of

the west?!

Rather,

why does the verse say “

their backs toward the Temple of the Lord”?

It teaches that they were exposing [

revealing ] their

selves,

their backs,

and relieving themselves [

performing their bodily functions ]

toward Above,

toward the Temple, in a disgraceful manner.

And

concerning this

said the

the

prophet:

And is it that

one who did this evil in Israel should die upon his bed,

with an ordinary death?! And he grieved that he was not punished with a more severe death.

And the Gemara proves:

It may be established,

it can be proven,

that Shmuel

is the one who

said,

that the prophet cried out

for the bad over Paltiah’s death. For it is impossible that Shmuel held that he cried out for the good because of his merit, since Shmuel necessarily disagrees with the incident brought above [which caused Paltiah to ensure that Israel would not be exiled to Mesene, but only the slaves were], for according to him, slaves were not exiled there.

o smerti Pelati. Ved' nevozmozhno, chtoby Shmuel schital, chto on vоскликнул vo blago iz-za zaslugi Pelati, poskol'ku Shmuel obyazatel'no ne soglasen s privедennym vyshe rasskazom — chto blagodarya Pelati evrei ne byli vyseleni v Mayshan, a byli tuda otpravleny tol'ko rabы. Po ego mneniyu, rabы tuda ne vyselyalis.

For

behold,

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin said in the name of Shmuel: Mushkhei—behold, it is like a place of pure lineage.

And he likewise said:

Mesene—

they did not suspect it, neither on account of slavery nor on account of mamzerut,

and its people are not disqualified from entering the congregation.

Rather, the priests who were in it were not careful concerning divorced women,

and married them as wives. Therefore, their daughters are of uncertain halal status and disqualified from priesthood, but fit for the congregation.

Infer from this that Shmuel held that slaves were not exiled to Mesene.

And we reject this:

Actually, I will say to you that Shmuel

is the one who

said “

for the good,”

and he held that slaves were exiled to Mesene on Paltiah’s advice. Nevertheless, Shmuel did not suspect the inhabitants of Mesene of being descendants of slaves, because

Shmuel follows his own reasoning.

For Shmuel said: One who renounces ownership of his slave has gone free, and he does not require a document of emancipation!

For once the master’s monetary ownership of the slave has lapsed, his prohibitory ownership of him has also lapsed, and he is entirely free, and his law is again that of an Israelite, and he is permitted to a freeborn woman.

As it is stated [Exodus 12:44], “

v Tоре ]: «

Every slave of a man, purchased for money.”

Why is “slave of a man” written? Is it that specifically

a slave

of an

man

is subject to this law,

but not a slave

of an

woman?

Rather,

the verse comes to teach us:

a slave over whom there is authority

monetary

of his master, is called “

a slave.”

But

a slave who

whose master’s ownership of him has already lapsed and

there is no

authority over him

for his master over him, he is not

yavlyaetsya

called “

a slave,”

but is completely free.

And likewise those slaves who were exiled to Mesene: since they were robbed from their master, he despaired of them and renounced ownership of them [for despair is like renunciation of ownership], and they went free.

And once they became free, they were like Israelites. For this reason Shmuel did not suspect them, and permitted them to freeborn women.

And now the Gemara returns to discuss the words of the Mishna:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

What is implied by our Mishna, that the disqualified people ascended from Babylonia, and therefore it is of better lineage than the other lands—

These are the words of Rabbi Meir,

who holds that specifically Babylonia stands with an established presumption of fitness with regard to lineage, but the other lands have an established presumption of disqualification.

But the Sages say: All lands stand with an established presumption of fitness.

Ameimar permitted Rav Huna bar Natan to marry a woman from Mehoza [

he permitted him to marry a woman from Mehoza ], even though it is not among the territories of Babylonia mentioned above with regard to lineage.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar

to Ameimar:

What is your view,

for what reason did you permit him to marry a woman not from Babylonia? If it was because

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: These are the words of Rabbi Meir; but the Sages say: All lands stand with an established presumption of fitness!?

If you permitted it for that reason, you should not have done so.

For

But in the academy of Rav Kahana they did not teach this

in the name of Shmuel. Rather, they taught in Shmuel’s name that all lands are a massa.

And

likewise

in the academy of Rav Pappa they did not teach this

in Shmuel’s name.

And

likewise

in the academy of Rav Zevid they did not teach this

in Shmuel’s name.

And

even so, Ameimar did not accept it

from

him,

but stood by his position and permitted all the lands,

because he had heard it

thus

from Rav Zevid of Nehardea

in the name of Shmuel.

The Sages taught: Mamzerim and Nethinim [

Gibeonites ]

will be purified in the future—

the words of Rabbi Yose.

Rabbi Meir says: They will not be purified

even in the future.

Rabbi Yosei said to him

Rabbi Yose said to him:

But it has already been stated [Ezekiel 36:25], “

v Yehezkele 36:26 ]:

And I shall sprinkle pure waters upon you, and you shall be pure.”

From all your impurities and from all your idols, I shall purify you.

Rabbi Meir said to him: When it says “

and you shall be pure,” it refers only to “

from all your impurities and from all your idols,”

that is, from the impurity of idolatry,

and not from mamzerut.

Rabbi Yose said to him: When it

again

says

at the end of the verse: “

I shall purify you,”

you must say,

I shall purify you

even from mamzerut.

And we inquire concerning this:

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir, this is what is written [Zechariah 9:6], “

v Zekharii 9:6 ] «

And a mamzer shall dwell in Ashdod,”

for in the future the mamzerim will be separated and dwell in Ashdod by themselves.

But according to Rabbi Yose,

who holds that they will then be purified from their mamzerut,

what is the meaning of “

and a mamzer shall dwell in Ashdod”?

And we answer:

As Rav Yosef translates

this verse:

The house of Israel shall dwell securely in their land, who had been

considered in it as foreigners.

The house of Israel, which until then had been considered a foreigner in the land and expelled from it like a mamzer, will return to dwell in its land. For Ashdod too is within the boundaries of the Land of Israel.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yose,

that mamzerim are destined to be purified in the future.

Rav Yosef said: Were it not that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, ‘The halakha is according to Rabbi Yose,’ Elijah would come and remove from us groups upon groups of mamzerim [

he would remove from us groups upon groups of mamzerim ]!

The Sages taught: A convert may marry a mamzeret—

the words of Rabbi Yose,

for the congregation of converts is not called a “congregation”; therefore they are not included in the prohibition, “A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.”

Rabbi Yehuda says: A convert may not marry a mamzeret.

For he holds that even the congregation of converts is called a “congregation,” and they too are included in the prohibition, “A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.”

Whether a convert, a freed servant, or

Whether a convert or an emancipated slave, and whether

a halal—

they are

permitted to a priest’s daughter.

And although a priest is forbidden to a female convert, an emancipated maidservant, and a halala, priestesses were not warned against any of these.

And we inquire concerning this:

What is Rabbi Yose’s reason

for permitting a convert to a mamzeret?

And we answer:

Five

“congregations”

are written

with regard to the warning concerning those disqualified in lineage:

A. “A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.” B. “He shall not enter the congregation.” C. “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter the congregation.” D. “They shall not enter the congregation.” E. Concerning an Egyptian and an Edomite it is written: “The third generation shall enter their congregation.”