Kiddushin 75b (עה:) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yishmael agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

Rav Dimi explains his statement:

Rabbi Elazar agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: The Kutim are converts out of fear of lions.

They converted only because of their fear of the lions that the Lord had sent against them, and they did not intend to convert for the sake of Judaism. Therefore, their conversion is not a valid conversion, and they are complete gentiles.

And Rabbi Yishmael agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: A gentile or a slave who engages in intercourse with a Jewish woman produces a mamzer.

And Rabbi Akiva follows his own consistent view that there is mamzer status even in cases involving those liable for transgressing negative commandments. A gentile and a slave are prohibited to a Jewish woman by a negative commandment.

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.

And we raise an objection: Is it so that

Rabbi Yishmael agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva

that a gentile or a slave who engages in intercourse with a Jewish woman produces a mamzer?!

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is it derived that a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a daughter of a koen, a daughter of a Levite, or a Jewish woman disqualified her

from marrying into the priesthood and from eating teruma if she is the daughter of a koen? —

As it is stated [Leviticus 22:13]: “

Leviticus 22:13:

And when a koen’s daughter becomes a widow or divorced, and she has no offspring,

she shall return to her father’s house as in her youth.”

And we derive: Only if she is the daughter of a koen who became a widow or was divorced from

one who has

a marital relationship with her, and she has the status of

widowhood and divorce

from him, does she return to eat teruma when she returns to her father’s house.

This excludes a gentile and a slave—

who has no

marital relationship with her [since betrothal to a Jewish woman does not take effect for him], and she has no status of

widowhood or divorce

from him. If she engages in intercourse with him, she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood and may no longer return to eat teruma.

And if it enters your mind that

Rabbi Yishmael

agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva,

why do I need this exposition? Surely it is obvious that he disqualifies her.

For

now,

the child born from intercourse with a slave or a gentile

is a mamzer

in any event.

That he disqualifies

the woman from marrying into the priesthood

through his intercourse, is it necessary

to say so? Is there really a need to state that she is disqualified?!

Is it not written: “And when a koen’s daughter marries a non-koen, she may not eat from the sacred offerings,” and we derive: Once she engages in intercourse with one who is disqualified to her, she is disqualified?

And we conclude:

Rather, Rabbi Elazar,

who prohibits a male Kuti from marrying a female Kuti,

agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael,

who says that the Kutim are converts out of fear of lions.

And

so

he agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva,

who says that a gentile or a slave who engages in intercourse with a Jewish woman produces a mamzer, as his view was explained above.

However, Rabbi Yishmael himself does not agree with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva; rather, he maintains that a gentile who engages in intercourse with a Jewish woman produces a child of unflawed status.

And we raise another objection:

And

is

it

possible that

Rabbi Elazar agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva,

that the child has mamzer status?!

But Rabbi Elazar said: Although the schools of

Shammai and Hillel disagreed concerning

the rival wives of a forbidden relative,

whether they enter into yibbum or are exempt from yibbum,

they agree

that they

there is mamzer status only through one whose prohibition is a prohibition of forbidden relations and whose intercourse is punishable by karet

for engaging in intercourse with her.

We learned at the beginning of tractate Yevamot: Fifteen women who are forbidden as forbidden relatives are exempt from yibbum and from ḥalitza, and they also exempt their rival wives. That is, if the wife of his brother falls before him for yibbum, and she is also his relative, such as his daughter or his maternal sister, and the like, she is exempt from ḥalitza and yibbum.

And not only this; if the second wife of his brother [who is not a forbidden relative to him] also falls before him for yibbum together with her, the forbidden relative exempts even her rival wife from ḥalitza and yibbum.

This is the view of the school of Hillel. But the school of Shammai says that the forbidden relative does not exempt her rival wife. The rival wife of the daughter may enter into yibbum or perform ḥalitza.

And Rabbi Elazar says: According to the school of Hillel, if they acted in accordance with the school of Shammai and performed yibbum with the rival wife of the daughter, the child born from this yibbum has mamzer status. For according to their view, this involves the prohibition of the wife of one’s brother when there is no mitzva of yibbum, which is punishable by karet. And there is mamzer status through those liable for karet.

But according to the school of Shammai, if they acted in accordance with the school of Hillel and exempted the rival wife of the daughter from yibbum, and she then married one of the general population, the child does not have mamzer status.

And although the levirate woman is prohibited to the general population by the negative commandment, “The wife of the deceased shall not go outside,” nevertheless, this prohibition does not confer mamzer status. For there is no mamzer status through those liable only for negative commandments.

It is explicit, then, that Rabbi Elazar does not agree with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rather, he maintains: There is mamzer status only through those liable for karet; and even a gentile who engages in intercourse with a Jewish woman, which involves only a negative-commandment prohibition, produces a child of unflawed status.

If so, the difficulty returns to its original place: Why did Rabbi Elazar prohibit a male Kuti and a female Kuti from marrying one another?

The Gemara answers:

Rather, when Ravin came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said; and some say: Rav Abba bar Zavda said that Rabbi Ḥanina said; and some say: Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said that Yehoshua ben Levi said:

There are three disputes

imeyutsya

concerning the matter

of the Kutim: Why are they prohibited from entering into the Jewish community, and who were the koens mentioned in the verse who became assimilated among them?

a.

Rabbi Yishmael maintains: The Kutim are converts out of fear of lions,

and they are not genuine converts, but rather gentiles.

However, koens became assimilated among them.

And

those

koens who became assimilated among them were disqualified koens.

As it is stated [II Kings 12:37]: “

As it is stated [II Kings 12:37]: “

And they made for themselves, from the extremities of the people, koens of the high places.”

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

“From the extremities” means

from the thorns among the people

were these koens; “thorns” is an expression referring to disqualified people.

And for this reason he disqualified them

from entering into the Jewish community, because they are gentiles.

b.

And Rabbi Akiva maintains: The Kutim are genuine converts,

who intended their conversion for the sake of Judaism.

And the koens who became assimilated among them were valid koens, as it is stated:

“

And they made for themselves, from the extremities of the people, koens of the high places.”

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Akiva expounded “from their extremities” to mean

from the distinguished members of the people

whom they appointed as their koens.

But why did the Sages prohibit them

from entering into the Jewish community?

Because they performed yibbum with betrothed women

alone.