Kiddushin 73a — the Talmud in English

Could they not all have been written in one warning and with one “assembly,” for example: “A mamzer, an Ammonite, and a Moabite shall not enter the assembly; even the tenth generation shall not enter their assembly forever.” And concerning an Egyptian and an Edomite it should be written: “The third generation shall enter for them among you.” And from the fact that “assembly” is stated five times, we expound:

one

“assembly”

for kohanim, and one

“assembly”

for Levites, and one

“assembly”

for Israelites.

For if only one had been written, it would have entered our mind that specifically kohanim are called an “assembly,” and only they are forbidden with all these disqualifications.

And likewise, if “assembly” had been written only twice, it would have entered our mind that Israelites are not included in the prohibition. Therefore “assembly” was written three times.

And one

“assembly” is stated

to permit a mamzer with a shtuki.

And even though the mamzer is certain, whereas the shtuki is only a doubtful mamzer, the Torah permitted them to one another; for we expound: A certain assembly—a mamzer shall not enter, but a doubtful assembly [such as a shtuki]—he may enter.

And that our Mishna forbids a shtuki to the assembly is only rabbinic. Lest he marry his sister from his father, since it is not known who his father is.

And one

“assembly” is stated

to permit a shtuki with an Israelite.

And although he is a doubtful mamzer, we expound: A certain mamzer shall not enter the assembly, but a doubtful mamzer may enter.

And since all the “assembly”s in the verse have already been expounded, there remains no source from which to include even an assembly of converts. Therefore,

an assembly of converts is not called an assembly.

And therefore Rabbi Yosei holds that a convert is permitted with a mamzeret.

And Rabbi Yehuda

who includes even an assembly of converts, and forbids a convert with a mamzeret, from where does he derive this? — Because

kohanim and Levites emerge from one

“assembly,”

they emerge.

For they are from one tribe, and one does not call half a tribe an “assembly.”

It follows that

one is left over for him

one “assembly,” to include even

an assembly of converts

in the prohibition of a mamzer, an Ammonite, and a Moabite.

And if you wish, say:

Even according to Rabbi Yehuda,

these also,

kohanim and Levites, are

two

assemblies

they are.

And only two “assembly”s remain for the other expositions. But to permit

a mamzer with a shtuki, and a shtuki with an Israelite, from one

“assembly”

it emerges,

and there is no need for a separate “assembly” for each one, because one of them is learned from “assembly,” and the other is learned from “mamzer,” which must be a certain mamzer and not a doubtful one.

And thus we expound:

“A mamzer shall not enter the assembly of the Lord” —

the word “mamzer” teaches that only

a certain mamzer is the one who shall not enter

the assembly;

but a doubtful mamzer may enter.

From here, a shtuki is permitted with an Israelite.

And from that same verse we also learn from the word “in the assembly”:

In a certain assembly is the one who shall not enter; but in a doubtful assembly he may enter.

From here, a mamzer is permitted with a shtuki. And again one “assembly” is left over to include an assembly of converts.

And if you wish, say: these also —

the permission of a mamzer with a shtuki, and the permission of a shtuki with an Israelite —

are from two assemblies.

That is, each one requires a separate “assembly” to permit it, because from “mamzer” alone we would not expound that only a certain mamzer is forbidden to enter the assembly, and we would not permit a shtuki with an Israelite; rather, we would forbid a doubtful mamzer, as with every doubt concerning the Torah. It is only because an extra “assembly” is stated that we expound: In a certain assembly is the one who shall not enter, but he may enter a doubtful assembly.

And it is not from here that Rabbi Yehuda included an assembly of converts.

And

rather,

the reason of Rabbi Yehuda

is in the derivation

from here.

For it is written in the portion of libations [Numbers 15:15]:

“The assembly: one statute shall be for you and for the convert who resides among you.”

And why was “the assembly” written here? To teach us that even a convert is considered an assembly.

And according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that an assembly of converts is not called an assembly, according to his view the “convert” in this verse does not refer to the “assembly” at the beginning of the verse, because

“one statute,”

which is written

between them,

interrupted

the

matter.

We learned in the beraita above:

One, a convert; and one, an emancipated slave; and a chalal —

are permitted to a daughter of a kohen!

It supports Rav.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Women of priestly lineage were not warned

kohens’ daughters

against marrying those disqualified

from the priesthood.

But concerning those disqualified from the assembly, women too were warned. For Scripture equated a woman with a man with regard to all punishments in the Torah.

Rav Zeira expounded in Mehoza: A convert is permitted with a mamzeret.

Everyone pelted him with their etrogim [

with their etrogim], because there were many converts in Mehoza, and they were upset that they were not called an “assembly.”

Rava said: Is there one who expounds a matter such as this in a place where converts are common?!

And is one to expound these matters in a place where converts are common?

Rava expounded in Mehoza: A convert is permitted with a daughter of a kohen!

Because women of proper lineage were not warned against marrying those disqualified.

The people of Mehoza carried him

the people of Mehoza

on silks [

they dressed him in expensive garments], because they thought that thereby he considered them an assembly.

Afterward [

afterward]

Rava expounded to them

Rava:

A convert is permitted with a mamzeret,

because he is not called an assembly.

They said to him

the people of Mehoza:

You have ruined the first one!

By this you have forfeited our acknowledgment of gratitude for your first words. For it has become clear that you permitted us to daughters of kohanim not because we are considered an assembly.

He said to them

Rava: In the end, is it not so that

whatever is good for you I have done for you!

I have always ruled in your favor.

If you wish [

if you wish],

from here,

from those of proper lineage,

take [

marry] women

and if you wish,

from here, from those disqualified,

take!

And we conclude:

And the halakha is: A convert is permitted with a daughter of a kohen, and is permitted with a mamzeret.

“Is permitted with a daughter of a kohen” —

because

women of proper lineage were not warned against marrying those disqualified.

“And is permitted with a mamzeret” —

because the halakha is

according to Rabbi Yosei,

that an assembly of converts is not called an assembly.

We learned in the Mishna:

These are they: a shtuki, anyone who recognizes

his mother but does not recognize his father.

Rava said: By Torah law, a shtuki is fit for the assembly.

But he is a doubtful mamzer: perhaps his father was disqualified, or perhaps she is forbidden to him as a forbidden relative.

And what is the reason

that they permitted him? —

Because

the majority

of men are

fit with her [

with the mother]. For she is known to us as unmarried, and she is permitted to most of the world [even if a gentile or a slave had intercourse with her, the child is not a mamzer].

And

only

a minority

of men, such as mamzerim or relatives, are

disqualified with her.

In a place of doubt, one follows the majority. However, this is only in a case where the doubtful matter separated from the place of its establishment, and we are uncertain from where it separated. For example, a city in which there are nine shops selling slaughtered meat and one selling unslaughtered carcass meat: if we found meat in it and it is not known from where it separated, we say: Whatever separates, separates from the majority, and the meat is permitted for consumption.

But if the doubt arose concerning a particular shop, what is it, and the shop is fixed in its place, we say: Whatever is fixed is considered as half and half, and one does not follow the majority in it.

And

so too in our matter:

if they went [

the men]

to her [

to the mother] and had intercourse with her, the doubt is from where the man who had intercourse came, and it is properly possible to say:

Whatever separates, separates from the majority.

And since the majority of men are fit, we follow the majority and declare the child fit.

What can you say

if you say, from where do we know that the man who had intercourse went to the mother?

Perhaps she went to them

to the man who had intercourse, while he remained fixed in his place. And if so, we cannot rely on the majority of the fit ones, for

it would be

the man who had intercourse

fixed

in his place,

and whatever is fixed is considered as half and half,

and the Torah said: “A mamzer shall not enter the assembly of the Lord,” and a doubt concerning the Torah is stringent —

Nevertheless, the child is permitted to a woman of proper lineage. For even if the doubt is equal as half and half—perhaps he is fit and perhaps disqualified—we have already expounded: specifically

a certain mamzer is the one who shall not enter; but a doubtful mamzer may enter.

And he is likewise permitted with a mamzeret, because specifically

in a certain assembly is the one who shall not enter

a mamzer,

but in a doubtful assembly,

such as a shtuki,

he may enter

the mamzer.

And for what reason did

the Sages say:

A shtuki is disqualified

from entering the assembly? —

It is a decree

of rabbinic origin,

lest he marry his sister

from his father,

for his father is not known to us.

And we challenge:

But if that is so,

since the Sages decreed because of this concern,

a shtuki —

even a female shtuki he should not marry,

a decree

lest he marry his sister from his father!

And why is a shtuki permitted with a female shtuki?

And we answer: Is it so that

all such people engage in intercourse and go about?!

Is the concern so great that his father engaged in intercourse, that we should be concerned about all the shtukim in the city, lest they were born from his intercourse, and therefore forbid the shtuki from marrying a female shtuki, lest she be his sister? Surely it is not reasonable to attribute more than one act of intercourse to him.

And we challenge again: But there is still room to decree that

the daughter of a female shtuki

who was born from marriage to a fit husband,

he should not marry,

the shtuki,

lest he marry his sister from his father. For perhaps the husband of the female shtuki is his father, and the daughter of the female shtuki is thus his sister. Yet we have an established ruling that a shtuki is permitted with the daughter of a female shtuki, since she is defective like him.

Perhaps the husband of the shetukit is his father, in which case her daughter is his sister. Yet we have an established ruling that a shetuki may marry the daughter of a shetukit, since she is disqualified just as he is.

Rather,

necessarily, there is no concern for this, because

this combination of circumstances is uncommon.

совпадение обстоятельств.

And if so, the difficulty returns to its place: Why should a shtuki not marry a woman of proper lineage? After all,

here too it is uncommon

that his sister should happen to come to him.

And we conclude: Rather, they did not disqualify the shtuki because of this concern,

but they applied an elevated standard in matters of lineage,

and the Sages forbade even a doubtful mamzer.

And Rava said: By Torah law, an abandoned child [

who was collected from the marketplace, and it is not known who his father and mother are]

is fit

for the assembly.

But there is reason to be concerned that perhaps his mother is a married woman and had intercourse with a strange man forbidden to her by the prohibition of a married woman; for most of the world is forbidden to her, and

what is the reason

that we should not follow the majority and declare him forbidden because of mamzer status? —

It is not so, and there is no majority that he was born to a married woman. For

a married woman

does not cast away her child even if he is a mamzer, because

with her husband

she

can attribute

the child, saying that he was born from him. And generally, a woman who casts away her child is unmarried, because she has no one to whom to attribute him.

And as for

what is there

to attribute him to being a mamzer: perhaps his mother was

from the minority

of women who are

betrothed, or

from the

minority

of married women

whose husbands went to the land overseas.

These women customarily cast away their children when they become pregnant by a strange man, because they cannot attribute them by saying that they became pregnant from their husbands. However, even for this reason he should not be forbidden to the assembly. For even if we combine these two minorities, they amount only to half of the women who cast away their children, and not to a majority of women,

since

opposite them

there is

a minority of

unmarried women [

unmarried women],

and there is also

a minority of married women

who

became pregnant from their husbands and nevertheless cast away their children

because of hunger.

And these two minorities too combine to make up half of the women who cast away their children.

It follows that it is an equal doubt. And

it is half

of the possibilities that he is fit,

and half

of the possibilities that he is disqualified.

And the Torah said:

“A mamzer shall not enter

the assembly of the Lord.”

A certain mamzer is the one who shall not enter; but a doubtful mamzer may enter.

And he is likewise permitted with a mamzeret, because it is a doubtful assembly. And the Torah said:

In a certain assembly is the one who shall not enter

a mamzer,

but in a doubtful assembly he may enter.

And for what reason did

the Sages say:

An abandoned child is disqualified

for the assembly? —

Lest he marry

the

sister from his father, for his father is not known to us.

since his father is unknown to us.

But there is no concern lest he marry his maternal sister, for we recognize his wife's mother, and she is presumed fit. Therefore there is no room for doubt that she is his mother and had relations with another].

And we challenge:

But from now on, a foundling

even

a female foundling should not marry, lest he marry

his

sister, whether from his father or from his mother.

For we do not recognize her mother, and perhaps she is also the mother of the foundling.

And we answer: But

does she throw away all these and go?!

Did this woman throw away all her offspring? For it is not plausible that the two foundlings came from the same mother.

And likewise, with regard to his father there is no concern lest he had relations with two women and the two foundlings are his children, for it is not plausible that the same man had relations with both of them, as stated above.

And again we challenge: But from now on,

the daughter of a

female foundling who was born from a marriage with a fit husband—the foundling should not marry her,

lest he marry his sister.

For perhaps the husband of the female foundling is his father, and the female foundling turns out to be his sister.

Rather

necessarily,

it is not common

for this coincidence to occur.

And if so, the difficulty returns to its place:

here too,

with regard to a foundling and an Israelite woman,

it is not common

that his sister should happen to be available to him, and we should not enact a prohibition.

And we conclude:

Rather,

the reason for the matter is that

the Sages imposed a higher standard

the Sages

in matters of lineage!

And they prohibited a doubtful mamzer from entering the community.