Kiddushin 72b (עב:) — the Talmud in English

There is a city called

Akra de-Agma in Babylonia

, and there is a man named

Ada bar Ahava;

today

he

is sitting in the lap of Abraham our forefather!

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

And

today was born [

one who was destined to become ]

Rav Yehuda in Babylonia.

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

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

And

when Rabbi died, Rav Yehuda was born;

and

when Rav Yehuda died, Rava was born.

And

when Rava died, Rav Ashi was born.

This teaches you that no righteous person departs from the world until a righteous person like him has been created.

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

]: «

The sun rises and the sun sets.”

Before the sun of this righteous person sets, the sun of that righteous person rises.

And similarly we find that

before the sun of Eli

the priest

had set, the sun of Samuel of Ramah rose.

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.” The verse continues by stating that at that time the Divine Presence was revealed to him for the first time.

Although the simple meaning of the verse is that the lamps of the Menora had not yet gone out, we interpret it as referring to Eli’s lamp: before his lamp went out [that is, Eli’s prophecy], his lamp [that is, Samuel’s prophecy] rose.

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

The Lord has commanded

Jacob; his enemies surround him!”

The Lord decreed that the enemies would surround Israel. These were Ammon and Moab, who oppressed Israel more than all the other enemies. Even during Israel’s exile in Babylonia, they surrounded Israel.

Rav Yehuda said: This is referring, for example, to

the city

Humnia

, which was entirely populated by Ammonites whom Sennacherib exiled there. They oppressed the Israelites who lived

along the river

, on the riverbank.

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

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

who was one of the leaders of the people

died.

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

Will You completely destroy the remnant of Israel!”

While Ezekiel was prophesying about the fate of the sinful men, among them Pelatiah, Pelatiah died before his eyes. Ezekiel cried out over this.

Rav and Samuel disputed the nature of this cry:

Rav and Samuel.

One said:

He cried

for good,

because the prophet was distressed over Pelatiah’s death.

And one said:

He cried

for evil,

because the prophet was upset that he had died an easy death, and wanted him to be punished in a more severe manner.

The one who says “

for good”

holds that this Pelatiah had merit.

It is like this

, an incident that occurred:

The governor of Meishan

pravitel Mayshana ],

was Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law

.

He sent word

to Nebuchadnezzar, his father-in-law:

“Of all these captives whom you brought, have you not sent us one who could stand before us”

to serve me?

Nebuchadnezzar

wanted

to send

to send ]

him

captives

from Israel

.

Pelatiah son of Benaiah said to him

to Nebuchadnezzar:

“We

, the Jews,

who are important

, should

remain standing before you

;

and the servants

raby ]

should go there

, to serve your son-in-law.”

Nebuchadnezzar did as he said, and in Pelatiah’s merit the Jews remained in Babylonia.

And

the

prophet

said and cried out: “Can it be that

one who did a kindness to Israel should die in the prime of his years?!”

But

the one who says

that Ezekiel cried “

for evil,”

derives it from what

is written

there: “

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

that faces east, and behold, at the entrance of the gate were twenty-five men, and I saw among them Jaazaniah son of Azur and Pelatiah son of Benaiah, leaders of the people.”

And it is written

above: “

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

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

and their faces eastward.”

These are the same twenty-five men mentioned later in the verse cited earlier, and Pelatiah son of Benaiah was among them.

From the fact that it is stated “

and their faces eastward

eastward,”

do I not know that their backs were toward

the Sanctuary, which is situated to the

west?

Rather,

why do I need the phrase “

with their backs toward the Sanctuary of the Lord”?

It teaches that they were exposing

their

selves

, their backs,

and defecating

toward

Above

, toward the Sanctuary, in a degrading manner.

And

concerning this

said

the

prophet:

Can it be that

one who committed this evil in Israel should die in his bed

a normal death?! He was distressed that the man had not been punished with a more severe death.

The Gemara proves this:

It may be concluded

, it can be demonstrated, that

Samuel

was the one who

said

that the prophet cried

for evil over Pelatiah’s death. It is impossible for Samuel to have held that he cried for good because of Pelatiah’s merit, since Samuel necessarily disagrees with the incident cited above [that Pelatiah caused Israel not to be exiled to Meishan, but only the servants], for according to his view, no servants were 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

indeed,

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin said that Samuel said: Meshakni is equivalent to a city of unblemished lineage.

And he likewise said:

Meishon—

they did not raise concern there, neither because of slavery nor because of mamzerut

, and its inhabitants are not disqualified from entering the congregation.

Rather, the priests who were there did not take care concerning divorced women

, and married them. Therefore, their daughters are of uncertain status as ḥalalot and are disqualified from the priesthood, but they are fit to enter the congregation.

Infer from this that Samuel held that no servants were exiled to Meishan.

And we reject this:

In fact, I can say to you that Samuel

was the one who

said “

for good,”

and he held that servants were exiled to Meishon on Pelatiah’s advice. Nevertheless, Samuel had no concern regarding the people of Meishon being descended from servants, because

Samuel follows his own reasoning.

For Samuel said: One who renounces ownership of his servant goes free, and he does not require a writ of emancipation!

Once the master’s monetary ownership of the servant has lapsed, the bond of prohibition associated with him also lapses. He is entirely free and has the status of an Israelite in every respect, and he is permitted to marry a free Jewish woman.

As it is stated [Exodus 12:44]: “

Every male servant purchased for money.”

Why is the phrase “servant of a man” written? Is it specifically

a servant

of

a man

who has this status,

but not a servant

of

a woman?

Rather

, the verse comes to teach us that

a servant who is under the monetary authority

of

his master is called “

a servant.”

But

a servant whose

master’s ownership of him has already lapsed, and

there is no

authority

of his master over him, is not

called

“a servant”

, but is completely free.

a polnost'yu svoboden.

And likewise, those servants who were exiled to Meishan: once they had been taken from their master, he despaired of recovering them and renounced ownership of them [despair being equivalent to renunciation of ownership], and they became free.

Once they became free, they had the status of Israelites. Therefore, Samuel had no concern regarding them and permitted them to marry free Jewish women.

The Gemara now returns to discuss the statement of the Mishna:

Rav Yehuda said that Samuel said:

The implication of our Mishna is that the disqualified people came up from Babylonia, and therefore Babylonia is presumed to have unblemished lineage in contrast to the other lands—

These are the words of Rabbi Meir

, who holds that specifically Babylonia is presumed to have unblemished lineage, whereas the other lands are presumed to contain disqualified lineages.

But the Sages say: All lands are presumed to have unblemished lineage.

Ameimar permitted Rav Huna bar Natan to marry a woman from Meḥoz

, although it is not among the regions of Babylonia listed above with regard to lineage.

Rav Ashi said

to Ameimar:

What is your reasoning

? Why did you permit him to marry a woman not from Babylonia? Was it because

Rav Yehuda said that Samuel said: These are the words of Rabbi Meir; but the Sages say: All lands are presumed to have unblemished lineage!?

If this was your reason for permitting it, you should not have done so.

For

in the study hall of Rav Kahana, this was not taught in Samuel’s name. Rather, they taught in Samuel’s name that all lands are like dough, containing a mixture of valid and disqualified lineages.

ot imeni Shmuelya. Tam peredavali ot imeni Shmuelya, chto vse strany podobny smesi, v kotoroi est' neustanovlennaya nepolnotsennost'.

And

likewise,

in the study hall of Rav Pappa, this was not taught

in Samuel’s name.

And

likewise,

in the study hall of Rav Zevid, this was not taught

in Samuel’s name.

And

even so, Ameimar did not accept it

from

him

, but stood by his position and permitted all lands,

because he had heard

this

from Rav Zevid of Nehardea

in Samuel’s name.

The Sages taught: Mamzerim and Netinim

Gibeonites

will be purified in the future—

these are the words of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Meir says: They will not be purified

even in the future.

Rabbi Yosei said to him

:

But has it not already been stated [Ezekiel 36:25]: “

v Yehezkele 36:26 ]:

And I will sprinkle pure water upon you, and you shall be purified

, from all your impurities and from all your idols I will purify you”?

Rabbi Meir said to him: When it says “and you shall be purified,” it refers only to “

i vy ochistites'», rech' idet tol'ko o

from all your impurities and from all your idols”

, that is, from the impurity of idolatry,

but not from mamzerut.

Rabbi Yosei said to him: When it

again

says

at the end of the verse, “

I will purify you,”

you must say

that I will purify you

even from mamzerut.

And we raised a difficulty:

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir, this is why it 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 Yosei

, who holds that at that time they will be purified of their mamzerut,

what does “

and a mamzer shall dwell in Ashdod” mean?

And we answer:

As Rav Yosef translates

this verse:

The house of Israel will dwell securely in their land, for they were

regarded there as strangers

. The house of Israel, which until then was regarded as foreign in the land and expelled from it like a mamzer, will return to dwell in its land. Ashdod too lies within the borders of the Land of Israel.

Rav Yehuda said that Samuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei

, that mamzerim will be purified in the future.

Rav Yosef said: Had Rav Yehuda not said in the name of Samuel, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,” Elijah would come and remove from us group after group of mamzerim

thereby taking from us successive groups of mamzerim!

The Sages taught: A convert may marry a mamzeret—

these are the words of Rabbi Yosei

, because the congregation of converts is not called “the congregation”; therefore, converts 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 “the 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

another

ḥalal—

they are

permitted to marry a daughter of a priest.

Although a priest is forbidden to marry a female convert, a freed maidservant, or a ḥalala, fit priestly women were not prohibited with regard to any of these men.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei

who permitted a convert to marry a mamzeret?

And we answer:

Five

“congregations”

are written in the passages concerning the prohibition against those of disqualified lineage:

a. “A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.” b. “He shall not enter his congregation.” c. “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter the congregation.” d. “They shall not enter their congregation.” e. Concerning an Egyptian and an Edomite it is written: “The third generation may enter their congregation.”