Kiddushin 76a (עו.) — the Talmud in English

And they exempt the married women

from yibbum and from halitza. For the Kutim did not perform yibbum for a brother’s widow who had been married to him, but only for his widow who had been betrothed to him

What

verse did

they expound

, from where did the Kutim derive this ruling? From what is written in the passage concerning yibbum [Deuteronomy 25:5]: “

The wife of the deceased shall not be outside, to a foreign man.”

And the Kutim expounded the verse as follows:

This

wife of the deceased,

who

was

sitting outside

sitting outside her husband’s house, since he had not yet brought her into his home], namely, a betrothed woman—

she

is the one who

shall not be to a foreign man when her husband dies, but must undergo yibbum or halitza

.

But this

wife of the deceased who had been married to him,

who was not sitting outside,

but had already entered and lived in the house of her deceased husband,

shall be to a foreign man,

even without halitza.

And since they exempted the married women from halitza, and they went and married outside the community, they violated this prohibition. Consequently, children born among them from relationships involving those liable for prohibitions were intermingled with them; therefore, they prohibited them from marrying into the congregation.

And Rabbi Akiva follows his own reasoning, as he says: There is a mamzer from those liable for prohibitions,

and therefore the Kutim are of uncertain mamzer status.

c.

And some say:

They are prohibited from entering the congregation

because they are not

sufficiently

expert in the fine details of the mitzvot,

and perhaps there was uncertainty concerning the betrothals of their ancestors; because they were not expert, they assumed that a woman was not betrothed, and she went and married another man, with the result that her children were mamzerim.

And we inquire:

Who is referred to by “

and some say”?

Rav Idi bar Avin said: It is Rabbi Eliezer.

As it was taught in a beraita: Matzah of a Kuti is permitted

to eat on Passover, and there is no concern that it is leaven, since they are careful to prevent it from becoming leavened.

And

even

a person may fulfill his obligation with it on Passover.

Although on the first night eating an olive-bulk of matzah is obligatory, and it must have been guarded for the sake of matzah, the Kutim are expert even in guarding it for the sake of matzah of the mitzva.

And Rabbi Eliezer

prohibits

eating this matzah throughout all the days of Passover,

because

the Kutim are not

expert in the fine details of the mitzvot,

and perhaps they caused it to become leavened.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to every mitzva that the Kutim adopted, they are more meticulous in its observance than Jews.

And since they adopted the mitzva of matzah, they are expert in all its details, careful to prevent it from becoming leavened, and Jews may eat from it. Elsewhere it is explained what the difference is between the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

This is also Rabbi Eliezer’s position in our Mishna. And for this reason he prohibited even a Kuti from marrying a Kutiyya. We are concerned that perhaps one of them is fit, because his ancestors were expert and no disqualification occurred in their marriages, while the other is descended from those who were not expert and is a mamzeret.

And the Gemara challenges this:

But if so,

with regard to lineage,

what

relevance does the concern

that they are not expert have?

Because they are not expert in the laws of betrothal and divorce,

therefore there is a concern of mamzer status among them. Perhaps one of their ancestors betrothed a woman, and through lack of knowledge they invalidated the betrothal; the woman then married another man and gave birth to a mamzer.

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: A mamzer from his sister and a mamzer from his brother’s wife became intermingled among them,

among the Kutim, and therefore they are prohibited from entering the congregation.

And we inquire:

What does Rav Naḥman teach us

and why was it not sufficient for him to say: “Mamzerim became intermingled among them”?

If he means to say that

there is a mamzer

even

from those liable for karet,

in contrast to the one who says that there is a mamzer only from those liable for prohibitions—

If so,

let him teach one

case alone, “a mamzer from his sister” or “a mamzer from his brother’s wife.” Why did he mention both?

And we answer: He stated it this way because

that is how the event occurred.

It was not because of any novel point contained in it.

And

Rava said:

They prohibited the Kutim because

a male slave and a maidservant became intermingled among them.

And we raise an objection:

The prohibition

of the Kutim

is due to what?

Surely it is necessarily

due to

the

maidservant who became intermingled among them, and not due to the male slave who became intermingled among them, since “a male slave who has intercourse with a Jewish woman produces a child of fit status.”

from her family [that none of them was a mamzeret, disqualified from marriage into the Jewish community, or disqualified from the lineage of kohanim]: two maternal ancestors on her father’s side and two on her mother’s side.

If so,

let him teach one case, “a maidservant became intermingled among them.” Why did Rava mention the male slave as well?

in total,

And we answer: Indeed, the reason for the prohibition is only the maidservant. He nevertheless stated that a male slave also became intermingled, because

that is how the event occurred.

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses the obligation of investigation imposed upon a man who wishes to marry a woman, to investigate the fitness of her lineage.

One who marries a woman,

if the woman was

a daughter of a kohen,

as the daughter of a kohen, whose family is more careful concerning lineage,

must investigate her only

the

four maternal ancestors

of her family [that is, that they had no mamzerim, no women disqualified from entering the congregation, and no halalot]: two maternal ancestors on her father’s side and two on her mother’s side.

The investigation of the maternal lineage is performed by examining the maternal ancestor herself and her mother. Thus, the obligation to investigate these “four maternal ancestors” actually means investigating four pairs of maternal ancestors, each mother together with her mother,

which are,

in total,

eight

maternal ancestors.

These are the two maternal ancestors [which are four] on her mother’s side:

a.

Her mother and her mother’s mother,

which makes two.

b.

Her mother’s father’s mother and her mother,

[her mother’s mother’s mother], which makes four.

And

these are the two which are four on her father’s side:

c.

Her father’s mother and her mother

[her father’s mother’s mother], which makes six.

d.

Her father’s father’s mother and her mother

[her father’s father’s mother’s mother], which makes eight.

But if he marries a woman who is

a Levite

or

an Israelite,

whose families are not as particular about lineage as kohanim,

they add to them

in the investigation

another

mother

one

in each of the four pairs being investigated.

For example, in the first pair: her mother, her mother’s mother, and her mother’s mother’s mother. In the second pair: her mother’s mother’s father’s mother, her mother’s mother’s father’s mother’s mother, and her mother’s mother’s father’s mother’s mother’s mother. And so on. In total, twelve maternal ancestors are investigated.

They were more stringent with a Levite and an Israelite because concern about the admixture of disqualified persons is more common among them than among priestly families.

They do not investigate

a woman who is the daughter of a kohen

from

the altar and above.

If he began investigating the maternal lineage and found that her father’s father had served in the Temple service, it is certain that he was of proper lineage and fit, and there is no need to investigate his mother.

And

likewise, they do not investigate a Levite

from the platform and above.

If it was testified concerning one of her ancestors that he stood with the Levites on the platform to sing, there is no need to investigate his mother, since it is certain that he was fit.

And

likewise, they

do not

investigate any of them

from the Sanhedrin and above.

If one of her ancestors was appointed to the Sanhedrin, there is no need to investigate his mother, since it is certain that he was fit.

And

likewise,

anyone whose ancestors were established as public officers

[the Gemara will explain who these were], or

charity collectors,

they are

permitted to marry

their daughters

to kohanim, and there is no need to investigate them,

since they too have the presumption of fitness.

Rabbi Yosei says: Even one who was a signatory

as

a witness in the old register of Tzippori

[the court of a city called “Old,” located near Tzippori] requires no investigation of his lineage, since only witnesses of proper lineage testified there.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Even one who was listed in the king’s military register

requires no investigation; this will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who marries a daughter of a kohen must investigate her four maternal ancestors.

This indicates that the husband must investigate the lineage of the women who are the woman’s maternal ancestors, but he need not investigate the lineage of the men who are her paternal ancestors.

And we inquire:

What is different,

why

with regard to women

[women]

do we investigate, and what is different,

why

with regard to men do we not investigate?!

Why should we not investigate her four paternal ancestors as well—for example, her father, her father’s father, and so on—in case there is a mamzer disqualification among them? And we answer: The practice of

women

is that,

when they quarrel with one another,

[when they fight among themselves],

over

matters of

forbidden sexual relations is what they quarrel,

as they denigrate one another regarding sexual misconduct. But they do not denigrate one another concerning family matters, saying of one another that she is a mamzeret or otherwise disqualified.

And

therefore,

if indeed

there was indeed

some matter

[some disqualifying matter] concerning a woman,

it would not have a public reputation

[the rumor would not spread] concerning this disqualification, and therefore the women require investigation.

But the practice of

men is that, when they quarrel with one another, they quarrel over lineage,

and they call one another “mamzer” or “disqualified.”

Therefore,

if indeed there is some matter

of lineage disqualification concerning one of them,

it has a public reputation

of this disqualification. Therefore, anyone concerning whom no rumor of disqualification has emerged has the presumption of fitness and does not require investigation.

It follows from the Mishna that only the husband must investigate the woman’s lineage, but the woman need not investigate the husband’s lineage.

And we inquire:

Should she too not investigate him, concerning himself

[the woman, concerning the husband], through his maternal ancestors, to determine whether he is fit or not?

And we answer:

It supports

the tanna of the Mishna

the

words of

Rav.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Fit women who are daughters of kohanim were not warned

against

marrying men disqualified

from marrying into the status of kohanim, such as halalim, converts, and emancipated slaves. For the Torah prohibited these disqualified men only to male kohanim.

Although they are prohibited to mamzerim as well, since the Torah was not particular about priestly lineage with regard to females, the Sages likewise did not institute an enhancement of lineage for them, requiring them to investigate because of disqualifications affecting eligibility to enter the congregation.

Rav Adda bar Ahava taught

in a beraita:

Four

pairs of

maternal ancestors, which are twelve

women. There are three maternal ancestors in each pair, since every maternal ancestor requiring investigation is investigated together with her mother and her mother’s mother.

In another teaching it was taught: Four

pairs of

maternal ancestors, which are sixteen

women. For each pair mentioned in the Mishna, he adds two more generations above it. Every maternal ancestor investigated is investigated together with her mother, her mother’s mother, and her mother’s mother’s mother.

And we inquire:

Granted, according to Rav Adda bar Ahava,