Kiddushin 75b — the Talmud in English

I Rabi Yishmael soglasen s Rabi Akivoy.

Rav Dimi razyasnyaet ego slova:

Rabi Elazar soglasen s Rabi Yishmaelem, kotoryy govorit: kutim — eto obrashchennye tol'ko iz-za l'vov.

Oni prinyali obrashchenie tol'ko iz-za strakha pered l'vami, kotorykh Gospod' naslal na nikh, i ne namerevalis' prisoedinit'sya k evreystvu. Poetomu ikh obrashchenie ne yavlyaetsya deystvitel'nym obrashcheniem, i oni polnye neevrei.

I Rabi Yishmael soglasen s Rabi Akivoy, kotoryy govorit: esli neevrey ili rab vstupaet v svyaz' s evreyskoy zhenshchinoy, rebenok yavlyaetsya mamzerom.

Rabi Akiva posledovatelen v svoey pozitsii, chto mamzer rozhdaetsya takzhe ot zapreshchennoy svyazi, za kotoruyu nakazyvayut lashes, no ne karetem. Ved' neevrey i rab zapreshcheny v svyazi s evreyskoy zhenshchinoy zapoved'yu, narushenie kotoroy nakazyvaetsya lashes.

Therefore, a Kuti may not marry a female Kuti, because perhaps this particular Kuti’s father was a Kuti, whose status is that of a gentile, and his mother was Jewish. It follows that he is a Jewish mamzer, having been born from intercourse involving those prohibited by a negative commandment. Whereas this female Kuti was born to a Kuti and a female Kuti, and is a complete gentile [and does not have mamzer status]. It follows that a Jewish mamzer is marrying a gentile woman.

Alternatively, perhaps the male Kuti is a gentile, having been born to a Kuti and a female Kuti [and he is a gentile, but does not have mamzer status], while the female Kuti is Jewish [and has mamzer status], since her father was a Kuti and her mother was Jewish. It follows that a Jewish female mamzer is marrying a gentile man.

I my sprosili: razve

Rabi Yishmael soglasen s Rabi Akivoy,

chto rebenok ot neevreya ili raba i evreyskoy zhenshchiny yavlyaetsya mamzerom?!

No ved' Rabi Yohanan skazal ot imeni Rabi Yishmaela: otkuda izvestno, chto neevrey i rab, vstupiv v svyaz' s zhenshchinoy iz roda koenov, s leviykoy ili s evreyskoy zhenshchinoy, lishayut ee statusa

vyhodit' zamuzh za koena i est' terumu, esli ona doch' koena? —

Skazano [Vayikra 22:13]: «

Leviticus 22:13:

A esli doch' koena stanet vdovoy ili razvedennoy i u nee net detey,

ona vozvrashchaetsya v dom svoego ottsa, kak v dni svoey yunosti».

I tolkuem: tol'ko esli doch' koena stala vdovoy ili razvedennoy ot

togo, kto mozhet

imet' s ney supruzheskie otnosheniya, i u nee est' status

vdovy ili razvedennoy

ot nego, togda, vozvrativshis' v dom ottsa, ona snova mozhet est' terumu.

No eto ne otnositsya k neevreyu i rabu —

u nego net

statusa supruzheskoy svyazi s ney [ved' ego kiddushin s evreyskoy zhenshchinoy ne imeyut yuridicheskoy sily], i u nee net statusa

vdovy ili razvedennoy

ot nego. Esli ona vstupila s nim v svyaz', ona lishaetsya prava byt' zhenoy koena i vnov' est' terumu.

A esli ty schitaesh',

chto Rabi Yishmael

soglasen s Rabi Akivoy,

zachem nuzhno etot vyvod? Ved' i tak ochevidno, chto on lishaet ee etogo statusa.

Ved'

teper',

esli rebenok, rodivshiysya ot svyazi raba ili neevreya,

yavlyaetsya mamzerom,

—

lishit'

zhenshchinu prava na brak s koenom

ego svyaz'yu — tem bolee

nuzhno li voobshche govorit', chto ona lishaetsya etogo prava?!

Ved' napisano: «A doch' koena, esli stanet zhenoy chuzhogo, ne mozhet est' iz svyatyni, posvyashchennoy Koenam», i my tolkuem: kak tol'ko ona vstupila v svyaz' s tem, kto zapreshchen ey, ona lishaetsya etogo prava.

I my delaem vyvod:

znachit, Rabi Elazar,

kotoryy zapreshchaet kutimu zhenit'sya na kutiyke,

soglasen s Rabi Yishmaelem,

kotoryy govorit, chto kutim — obrashchennye tol'ko iz-za l'vov.

I

imenno

on soglasen s Rabi Akivoy,

kotoryy govorit, chto rebenok ot neevreya ili raba i evreyskoy zhenshchiny — mamzer, kak bylo obyasneno vyshe.

No sam Rabi Yishmael ne soglasen s Rabi Akivoy; po ego mneniyu, rebenok ot neevreya i evreyskoy zhenshchiny validen.

Dalee my sprosili:

i

razve

mozhet

on

byt' soglasen s Rabi Akivoy,

schitaya rebenka mamzerom?!

No ved' Rabi Elazar skazal: hotya shkoly

Shammai and Hillel disagreed concerning

sopernitsakh zapreshchennoy zheny»

whether they enter into yibbum or are exempt from yibbum,

oni soglasny

v tom,

chto mamzer rozhdaetsya tol'ko ot togo, s kem svyaz' yavlyaetsya zapreshchennoy kak s zapreshchennoy blizkoy rodstvennitsey i nakazyvaetsya karetom

za etu svyaz'.

My uchim v nachale traktata Yevamot: pyatnadtsat' kategoriy blizkikh rodstvennits, s kotorymi zapreshchen brak, osvobozhdeny ot yibuma i khalitsy i takzhe osvobozhdayut ot etikh deystviy svoikh sopernits. To est', esli vdova po bratu okazalas' dolzhna byt' peredana emu v yibum, no ona odnovremenno yavlyaetsya ego rodstvennitsey, naprimer ego doch'yu ili edinoedokoy po materi i tomu podobnoy, ona osvobozhdena ot khalitsy i yibuma.

I ne tol'ko eto: esli vmeste s ney v yibum emu okazalas' dolzhna byt' peredana i vtoraya zhena ego brata [kotoraya ne yavlyaetsya dlya nego zapreshchennoy rodstvennitsey], to zapreshchennaya rodstvennitsa osvobozhdaet ot khalitsy i yibuma dazhe ee sopernitsu.

Takovo mnenie shkoly Hillelya. No shkola Shammaya govorit, chto zapreshchennaya rodstvennitsa ne osvobozhdaet ot etogo sopernitsu. I sopernitsa dochki dolzhna libo byt' vzyata v yibum, libo vypolnit' khalitsu.

I skazal Rabi Elazar: po mneniyu shkoly Hillelya, esli postupili po mneniyu shkoly Shammaya i vzyali sopernitsu dochki v yibum, rebenok, rodivshiysya ot etogo yibuma, yavlyaetsya mamzerom. Ved' po ikh mneniyu zdes' narushen zapret zheny brata ne v ramkakh zapovedi yibuma, a za eto polagaetsya karet. I mamzer rozhdaetsya ot svyazi, za kotoruyu polagaetsya karet.

No po mneniyu shkoly Shammaya, esli postupili po mneniyu shkoly Hillelya, osvobodili sopernitsu dochki ot yibuma, a ona posle etogo vyshla zamuzh za drugogo muzhchinu, rebenok ne yavlyaetsya mamzerom.

I hotya yevama zapreshchena drugomu muzhchine zapoved'yu «zhena umershego ne dolzhna vykhodit' naruzhu», vse zhe etot zapret ne sozdaet mamzerstva, tak kak mamzer ne rozhdaetsya ot svyazi, zapreshchennoy zapoved'yu, nakazyvaemoy lashes.

Znachit, yasno, chto Rabi Elazar ne soglasen s Rabi Akivoy. Po ego mneniyu, mamzer rozhdaetsya tol'ko ot svyazi, za kotoruyu polagaetsya karet; dazhe esli neevrey vstupaet v svyaz' s evreyskoy zhenshchinoy, rebenok validen, tak kak zdes' imeet mesto tol'ko zapret, nakazyvaemyy lashes.

Esli tak, vopros vozvrashchaetsya na prezhnee mesto: pochemu zhe Rabi Elazar zapretil kutimu i kutiyke zhenit'sya drug na druge?

Gemara otvechaet:

no kogda priekhal Ravin, on skazal

ot imeni

Rabi Hiyya bar Abba, skazavshego ot imeni Rabi Yohanana; a nekotorye govoryat: Rav Abba bar Zavda skazal ot imeni Rabi Haniny; a nekotorye govoryat: Rabi Yaakov bar Idi skazal ot imeni Yehoshua ben Levi:

V etom voprose sushchestvuet tri razlichayushchikhsya mneniya

imeyutsya

o tom,

pochemu kutim zapreshcheno vstupat' v brak s evreyami i kakimi byli koeny, o kotorykh govorit Pisanie, chto oni smeshalis' s nimi.

A.

Rabi Yishmael schitaet: kutim — obrashchennye tol'ko iz-za l'vov,

a ne nastoyashchie gerim, a neevrei.

No sredi nikh smeshalis' koeny.

I

te

koeny, kotorye s nimi smeshalis', byli koenami s porochashchim statusom.

Skazano [Melakhim II 12:37]: «

Млахим II 12:37]: «

I oni postavili dlya sebya iz poslednikh lyudey koenov kapishch».

I Rabba bar bar Hana skazal ot imeni Rabi Yohanana:

«Iz poslednikh» —

iz ternov sredi naroda

byli eti koeny, tak kak slovo «terny» oznachaet lyudey s porochashchim statusom.

Poetomu on lishil ikh prava

kutim vstupat' v brak s evreyami, tak kak oni neevrei.

B.

Rabi Akiva schitaet: kutim — nastoyashchie gerim,

tak kak pri obrashchenii oni namerevalis' prisoedinit'sya k evreystvu.

A koeny, kotorye s nimi smeshalis', byli validnymi koenami, kak skazano: «

I oni postavili dlya sebya iz poslednikh lyudey koenov kapishch».

I Rabba bar bar Hana skazal ot imeni Rabi Yohanana:

Rabi Akiva tolkoval «iz poslednikh» tak:

iz luchshikh sredi naroda

oni vzyali sebe koenov.

V takom sluchae pochemu zhe mudretsy zapretili ikh

vstupat' v brak s evreyami?

Because they performed yibbum with betrothed women

tol'ko.