Kiddushin 74b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said:

In fact, Rabbi Yehuda came to prohibit a convert from marrying a mamzeret, since he understood from the words of the first tanna that he permitted this, and he came to dispute the words of the first tanna, who permitted them to one another.

For when the tanna said, “All those who are prohibited from entering the congregation are permitted to enter one with another,” his intention is not those who are prohibited from entering the congregation of Israel [and the difficulty for us is: where was a convert mentioned in our Mishna]— ![](pamud.bmp "

precise column location") but

this is what the first tanna said:

таннай:

all those who are prohibited from entering the congregation of the priesthood—

And the first tanna came to add to his words in the previous Mishna: not only are those who are prohibited from entering the congregation of Israel permitted to one another, but even all those who are prohibited from entering the congregation of the priesthood are permitted to one another.

And who are they?

Whom did the first tanna come to add?—That even a

female convert

is included, for she is prohibited to a priest and permitted to a mamzer.

And even if she converted when she was

less than three years and one day old,

when her intercourse is not considered intercourse and she did not engage in licentious intercourse, she is prohibited to a priest.

And not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai [

who permits her to a priest, and does not prohibit her under the category of a licentious woman, since her intercourse before the age of three years is not considered intercourse]—

And so the first tanna said: all those who are prohibited from entering the congregation of the priesthood—that is, a female convert, a mamzer, a netin, a shtuki, and an asufi—

are permitted to enter one with another.

It follows that a female convert is permitted to the other disqualified persons, such as a mamzer, a netin, a shtuki, and an asufi,

because according to his opinion, the congregation of converts is not called the congregation of the Lord.

And Rabbi Yehuda disputed this and held that the congregation of converts is indeed the congregation of the Lord, and that it is prohibited for a mamzer to marry a female convert.

It is written concerning priests: “A divorced woman, a licentious woman, and one profaned they shall not take.” And the Sages’ method is that a female convert is included in the category of “licentious woman.” And even if she was not possessed sexually during her gentile status, she is nevertheless prohibited to priests. And we learn this from what is written in Ezekiel: “But only virgins of the seed of the House of Israel shall they take.”

However, Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai disputed this and held that a female convert who was less than three years and one day old is fit for the priesthood. For according to his opinion, the Torah prohibited under the category of “licentious woman” only one who was fit for intercourse before she converted. But one who is less than three years old has no intercourse that is considered intercourse.

And the Gemara is astonished: Why do we need to establish the words of the Mishna specifically with regard to one who was less than three years old, and not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

And let us establish it as referring to one who was three years and one day old,

and concerning her the first tanna directed his statement when he said, “All those who are prohibited from entering the congregation of the priesthood,” and permitted her to the disqualified members of the congregation.

And

our Mishna

would then be even in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai,

who holds that a female convert who converted before three years is permitted to the priesthood.

And we reject this: It is impossible to interpret it in this manner.

For if

we establish

so,

that the Mishna speaks specifically of a female convert who converted at an age above three years,

it has its refutation on its side!

That is, the refutation is prepared and stands alongside this explanation. Namely, it is fundamentally refuted.

For the Mishna said that all those disqualified from entering the congregation of the priesthood are permitted to one another. And according to this,

rather, the reason

that the first tanna permitted a female convert to the disqualified members of the congregation is that he permitted her specifically where

she

converted

at three years and one day old,

because only then is she prohibited to the congregation of the priesthood according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai.

But

if she converted

when she was less than three years and one day old, for

then she is

permitted to enter the congregation of the priesthood

according to Rabbi Shimon,

she is prohibited from entering one with another [

that is, a female convert is prohibited to the disqualified members of the congregation].

And this is not so.

For

behold,

even a female convert who converted

when she was less than three years and one day old, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, who is permitted to enter the congregation of the priesthood, and

nevertheless

they are permitted to enter one with another,

even with a mamzer and a netin, since the female convert is not included in “the congregation of the Lord”; and concerning this matter it makes no difference at what age she converted.

Rather, necessarily our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. Rather, even a female convert who was less than three years old is prohibited to the priesthood; therefore she too is included among those permitted to the disqualified members of the congregation.

And now the Gemara discusses this rule itself and raises two difficulties:

a.

And

is it

a general rule that all those prohibited from entering the congregation of the priesthood are permitted to enter one with another?!

But behold, a widow,

who is prohibited to a High Priest,

and a divorced woman, one profaned, and a licentious woman, who are prohibited from entering the congregation of the priesthood, and

nevertheless

are prohibited from entering one with another,

for all these women are prohibited to the disqualified members of the congregation.

b.

And furthermore,

there is another difficulty: Since he says, “All those who are prohibited in the congregation of the priesthood are permitted to one another,” it follows that

but

one who is

permitted

in the congregation of the priesthood is

prohibited

to the disqualified members of the congregation—

and

this is not so.

For behold, a convert, who is permitted to a female priest,

and

even so he is

permitted to a mamzeret, because “the congregation of converts” is not called a congregation.

Rather, Rav Natan bar Hoshaya said:

When the tanna said, “All those who are prohibited from entering the congregation are permitted to one another,” his intention indeed is that they are prohibited from entering the congregation of the priesthood. However, the tanna did not intend to say that they themselves are prohibited to the priesthood; rather,

this is what

the first tanna said:

Every

person

whose daughter a priest is prohibited from marrying—

And who is that [

whom did he come to add to his words in the previous Mishna, that those prohibited from entering the congregation of Israel are permitted to one another]?—

A convert who married a female convert,

whose daughter is prohibited to a priest.

And in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who disqualifies for the priesthood [below, 77a] the daughter of a convert who married a female convert—

They are permitted,

all those whose daughters a priest is prohibited from marrying, such as these converts and mamzerim,

to enter one with another.

It follows that the first tanna permitted a convert with a mamzeret and a mamzer with a female convert. And Rabbi Yehuda disputed this in our Mishna and prohibited it.

And now the first difficulty, from a widow, one profaned, a licentious woman, and a divorced woman, who are prohibited to the priesthood and nevertheless prohibited to a mamzer, is not difficult, because the tanna did not speak about all those prohibited from entering the congregation of the priesthood, but only about those whose daughters are prohibited to the priesthood.

And the second difficulty also is not difficult: the inference that everyone permitted to enter the congregation of the priesthood is prohibited to a mamzeret, while a convert is permitted to a female priest. For now the inference is only that one whose daughter is permitted to the priesthood is prohibited to a mamzeret, whereas a convert’s daughter is disqualified for the priesthood.

But the Gemara asks:

And

is this

a general rule,

this

that every

person

whose priest is prohibited

to him

from marrying his daughter is permitted to enter one with another,

even with a netin and a mamzer?!

And

behold, a profaned man who married an Israelite woman, for a priest is prohibited

to him

from marrying his daughter [

for the daughter of a profaned man is also profaned like her father],

and

nevertheless

they too are prohibited from entering one with another,

for a profaned woman is prohibited to a netin and a mamzer.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

Because the first tanna of the Mishna holds

in accordance with Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda,

who says in a beraita [below, 77a]: Israelite daughters are a ritual bath of purity for profaned men! That is, a profaned man who marries an Israelite woman does not have profaned offspring, and his daughter is fit for the priesthood. And according to his words, the profaned man is prohibited to a mamzeret, because the daughter of the profaned man from an Israelite woman is fit for the priesthood.

But the Gemara still asks:

And behold, a profaned man who married a profaned woman, and

according to everyone

a priest is prohibited from marrying

her

daughter, and

nevertheless

they too are prohibited to one another [

the profaned man to a mamzeret]. And it is proven that it is not a general rule that everyone whose daughter is prohibited from being married to a priest is permitted to a mamzeret.

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty: Since he says that everyone whose daughter is prohibited to a priest is permitted to a mamzeret, it follows

but

everyone whose daughter is

permitted

for a priest to marry

is prohibited

to a mamzeret—

But behold,

this is not so. For

behold, a convert who married an Israelite woman, and

the law is [according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov] that

a priest is permitted

to him

to marry

his

daughter,

since her mother is an Israelite,

and

nevertheless

the converts and the mamzerim are permitted

to one another

to enter one with another.

Rather, Rav Nahman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

The Sages and Rabbi Yehuda did not dispute whether a convert is permitted to a mamzeret.

Rather,

here, a mamzer born from his sister and a mamzer born from a married woman—

whether they are permitted to one another

is the difference between them.

For they disputed which mamzer is prohibited from entering the congregation.

The first tanna holds:

Everyone born from intercourse for which there is a liability of karet is a mamzer. Therefore, even a

mamzer

who was born to a man

from his sister,

with whom he had intercourse,

is also a mamzer.

Therefore, this mamzer is permitted to a mamzeret who was born from the prohibition of a married woman. For both of them are mamzerim, and they are not included in “the congregation.”

And Rabbi Yehuda holds:

Only one born from prohibited intercourse for which there is a judicial death penalty is a mamzer. But one born from intercourse involving those liable for karet is not a mamzer, and is permitted to enter the congregation.

Therefore, only one born from a married woman is a mamzer, since she is subject to a judicial death penalty; but one born

from

the intercourse of a brother with

his sister,

which involves only the punishment of karet,

is not a mamzer.

Therefore, they are prohibited to one another.

And this is the explanation of the Mishna: The first tanna said, “All those who are prohibited from entering the congregation”—that is, all those born from forbidden sexual relations, whether those liable for karet or those liable for judicial death penalties, are mamzerim—“and are permitted to enter one with another.”

“And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits”: the children of those liable for karet from entering among the children of those liable for judicial death penalties, since according to his opinion the former are not mamzerim, whereas the latter are mamzerim.

And we ask:

What does it teach us

our Mishna? Why did Rabbi need to repeat here this dispute concerning who are mamzerim?

But surely we have already

learned it,

we have learned this dispute elsewhere in the Mishna.

As we learned in tractate Yevamot [49a]:

Who is a mamzer?—

Anyone who is subject to “

he shall not enter.”

For even one born from intercourse involving those liable for prohibitions is a mamzer—

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Shimon the Timnite says: Everyone

born from intercourse

for which one is liable to karet at the hands of Heaven

is a mamzer.

And the halakha is in accordance with his words,

of Shimon the Timnite.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

Only

everyone for whom one is liable to a judicial death penalty

is a mamzer.

It follows that the first tanna holds like Shimon the Timnite, and Rabbi Yehuda holds like Rabbi Yehoshua. If so, why did Rabbi state them in two separate places? He should have stated them together. While stating the words of Rabbi Yehoshua, let him say: And Rabbi Yehuda likewise would say in accordance with his words!

Rather, Rava said:

The first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda did not dispute this. Rather,

an Ammonite convert and a Moabite convert are the difference between them.

For Ammonites and Moabites who converted are prohibited from entering the congregation of Israel, and are permitted to the disqualified members.

And this is what

the first tanna said:

All those who are prohibited from entering the congregation—

and who are they?

An Ammonite convert and a Moabite convert [

who are included among those prohibited together with mamzerim and netinim]—

are permitted to enter one with another.

And we are astonished:

If so, what is “[A0233]]Rabbi Yehuda prohibits”?

рабби Иеуда запрещает»?

But Ammonites and Moabites who converted certainly are not called the congregation of the Lord, for they were prohibited from entering it; why, then, should they be prohibited to mamzerim?

And we answer: In fact, they did not dispute this matter. And Rabbi Yehuda is the same as the first tanna.

And this is what

he said: All those prohibited from entering the congregation, including an Ammonite and a Moabite, are permitted to one another even according to Rabbi Yehuda. For

although Rabbi Yehuda prohibits a convert

from all the nations

to a mamzeret,

he concedes with regard to an Ammonite and Moabite convert that he is permitted to a mamzeret.

For

these words

that he prohibited a mamzeret specifically to

a convert

in general, he prohibited. Because

he

is

fit to enter the congregation,

therefore he too is called “the congregation of the Lord.”

But an Ammonite and Moabite convert, who are not

являются

fit to enter the congregation, are not

called “the congregation of the Lord,” and are permitted to a mamzeret.

The Sages taught:

A minor who is

nine years and one day old

or older—if he is

an Ammonite convert and

or if he is a

Moabite convert, or a

convert who is

an Egyptian, or a

convert who is

an Edomite, or

a

Kuthite, or

a

netin, or

a

profaned man, or

a

mamzer—

who had intercourse with a female priest,

or

with a Levite woman,

or

with an Israelite woman, disqualified her

from marrying a priest. For all these are prohibited from entering the congregation, and their intercourse is sinful intercourse. And every woman who was possessed through prohibited intercourse becomes disqualified for the priesthood. And if she is a female priest, she is also prohibited from eating teruma; and if she is a Levite woman or an Israelite woman, she is disqualified from marrying a priest.

Rabbi Yose says: Everyone

who

has disqualified offspring

for the priesthood—that his daughter is prohibited from marrying a priest—even

disqualifies

the woman with whom he had intercourse from the priesthood.

And

anyone whose offspring is not disqualified

for the priesthood also

does not disqualify

a woman for the priesthood through his intercourse. And below it will be explained in what he disputes with the first tanna.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: