Kiddushin 76a — the Talmud in English

And exempt the married women

from yibum and from halitza. For the Kutim did not perform yibum with the widow of a brother who had been married, but only with his widow from betrothal.

What

verse

did they expound? From where did the Kutim derive this law? — From that which is written in the passage of yibum [Deuteronomy 25:5]: “

The wife of the dead shall not be outside, to a strange man.”

And the Kutim expounded the verse in this manner:

This

wife of the dead,

wife of the deceased,

that

was

sitting outside [sitting outside her husband’s house, for he had still not brought her into his house], namely, a betrothed woman —

she

is the one who

shall not be to a strange man

when her husband dies, but she must undergo yibum or halitza.

But this wife of the dead from marriage,

who was not sitting outside,

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

shall be to a strange man,

even without halitza.

And since they exempted the married women from halitza, and they went and married outside, they transgressed this negative commandment. And it was found that among them were sons of those liable for negative commandments, and therefore they prohibited them to the congregation.

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

and it follows that the Kutim are doubtful mamzerim.

c.

And some say:

They are prohibited from entering the congregation,

because they are not expert in the precise details of mitzvot,

and perhaps uncertainty occurred in the betrothals of their ancestors, and because they were not expert, they thought that she was not betrothed, and she went and married another, and her sons were found to be mamzerim.

And we raise the matter:

Who is the “

some say”? —

Rav Idi bar Avin said: It is Rabbi Eliezer.

As it was taught: The matza of a Kuti is permitted

to eat it on Passover,

and there is no concern of leaven in it, for they are careful regarding leavening.

Rav Idi bar Avin said: It is Rabbi Eliezer.

And

also a person fulfills his obligation with it on Passover. And even though on the first night eating an olive’s bulk of matza is an obligation, and it must have been guarded for the sake of matza, the Kutim are expert even in guarding it for the sake of matza of the mitzva.

And Rabbi Eliezer

And Rabbi Eliezer

prohibits

eating this matza on all the days of Passover,

because the Kutim

are not expert in the precise details of mitzvot,

and perhaps they caused it to become leavened.

Since they adopted the mitzva of matzah, they are careful about all its details, take precautions against its becoming leavened, and Jews may eat it.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any mitzva that the Kutim adopted, they are more precise in it than Israelites.

And since they adopted the mitzva of matza, they are expert in all its precise details, and they are careful against its becoming leavened, and Israelites may eat from it.

And elsewhere it was explained what difference there is between the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And this is the position of Rabbi Eliezer in our Mishna. And for this reason he also prohibited a Kuti to a Kutiyya. For we are concerned lest one of them is fit, because his ancestors were expert, and no disqualification occurred in their marriages, while the other is from the seed of those who were not expert, and is a mamzeret.

And the Gemara asks: But rather, in this manner, regarding lineage,

what

is the relevance of the concern “

they are not expert”? —

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

therefore there is a concern of mamzerut regarding them, for perhaps the ancestor of one of them betrothed a woman, and because of lack of knowledge they invalidated the betrothal, and the woman married another and bore a mamzer.

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

among the Kutim, and therefore they are prohibited to the congregation.

If he meant to teach that there is a mamzer

even from relationships punishable by excision,

And we raise the matter:

What does Rav Nahman teach us

and why was it not sufficient for him to say: “Mamzerim became intermingled among them”? If he came to say that there is a mamzer

even

from those liable for excision,

to exclude the one who says that there is a mamzer only from those liable for negative commandments —

If so,

let him teach one

only: “A mamzer from his sister” or “a mamzer from a brother’s wife”; why did he mention both?

And we answer: He stated it so because

the incident that occurred, so it occurred.

It was not because of a novelty contained in this.

And

Rava said:

They prohibited the Kutim because

a male slave and a maidservant became intermingled among them.

And we are astonished:

The prohibition

of the Kutim

because of what

is it? — It is necessarily

because of

the

maidservant

who became intermingled among them, and not because of the male slave who became intermingled. For: “A male slave who has relations with an Israelite woman—the offspring is fit.”

If so,

let him teach one: “A maidservant became intermingled among them”; why did Rava also mention a male slave?

And we answer: Indeed, the cause of the prohibition is only because of the maidservant. But he stated that even a male slave became intermingled, because

the incident that occurred, so it occurred.

Mishna:

Our Mishna deals with the obligation of investigation imposed upon a man who comes to marry a woman, to investigate the fitness of his wife’s lineage.

in total,

One who marries a woman,

if the woman was

a daughter of a kohen,

who was the daughter of a kohen, and the kohanim are more careful regarding their lineage,

must investigate after her only

four mothers

from her family [that there were no mamzerim or women disqualified from the congregation among them, or disqualification of halalut]: two mothers on her father’s side and two on her mother’s side.

And the investigation of the mothers is performed by investigating the mother herself and her mother’s mother. It follows that the obligation to investigate these “four mothers” is in practice the investigation of four pairs of mothers, each mother together with her mother,

which are,

in total,

eight

mothers.

And these are the two mothers [which are four] on her mother’s side:

a.

Her mother and her mother’s mother,

that is two.

b.

And her mother’s father’s mother, and her mother [her mother’s mother’s mother],

that is 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],

that is six.

d.

And her father’s father’s mother, and her mother [her father’s father’s mother’s mother],

that is eight.

But if he is marrying a woman who is

a Levite

or

an Israelite,

for they are not as particular regarding their lineage as the kohanim,

they add to them

in the investigation

one more

mother

one

in each pair 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. And in the second pair: her mother’s father’s mother, her mother’s mother’s father’s mother, and her mother’s mother’s mother’s father’s mother. And so on. It follows that twelve mothers are investigated.

And they were more stringent regarding a Levite and an Israelite, because the concern of the intermingling of disqualified persons is more common among them than in priestly families.

They do not investigate

a woman who is the daughter of a kohen,

not from

the altar and above.

For if he began investigating the mothers and found that her father’s father served in the service of the altar, it is certain that he is of proper lineage and fit, and it is unnecessary to investigate after his mother.

And

likewise, they do not investigate a Levite

from the platform and above,

for if testimony was given concerning one of her ancestors that he stood with the Levites on the platform to sing, it is unnecessary to investigate after his mother, for it is certain that he is fit.

And

likewise,

they do not

investigate all of them

from the Sanhedrin and above.

For if one of her ancestors was appointed to the Sanhedrin, there is no need to investigate after his mother, for it is certain that he is fit.

And

likewise,

anyone whose ancestors were established as public officers [and it will be explained in the Gemara who they are], or

charity collectors,

they are

permitted to marry

their daughters

into the priesthood, and there is no need to investigate after them,

for they too have the presumption of being fit.

Rabbi Yose says: Even one who was signed

as an

attesting witness in the old registers of Tzippori [a court of a city named “Old,” located near Tzippori] need not be investigated regarding his lineage, since only witnesses of proper lineage testified there.

what is the difference—

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Even one who was listed in the army register of a king,

need not be investigated after him. And it will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who marries a woman who is a daughter of a kohen must investigate after her four mothers.

And it implies that the husband must investigate the lineage of the women who are the woman’s mothers, but he need not investigate the lineage of the men who are the woman’s fathers.

And we raise the matter:

What is different, why

with regard to the women

[women]

do we investigate, and what is different,

why

with regard to the men did they not investigate?!

And why should we not investigate also regarding her four fathers—for example, her father, her father’s father, and the like—lest there be a disqualification of mamzerut among them? And we answer: The way of

women

is that

when they quarrel with one another,

it is

about matters of forbidden sexual relations that they quarrel,

they disgrace one another concerning matters of sexual immorality. But they do not disgrace one another in matters of family, saying of one another that she is a mamzeret or disqualified.

And

therefore,

if indeed

there was

some matter [some disqualifying matter] in the woman,

it would not have a public voice [the report would not go out], and therefore the women require investigation.

But the way of

men is that when they quarrel with one another, it is regarding lineage that they quarrel,

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

Therefore,

if indeed there is some matter

of lineage disqualification in one of them,

it has a public voice

regarding this disqualification. And therefore, every person concerning whom no report of disqualification has gone out has the presumption of fitness and does not require investigation.

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

And we raise the matter:

And she too should investigate him, as regards himself [the woman, as regards the husband],

regarding his mothers, whether he is fit or not?

And we answer:

It supports him

the tanna of the Mishna,

in

the words of

Rav.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Fit daughters of kohanim were not warned against marrying those disqualified

for the priesthood,

such as those with a disqualified priestly status, converts, and emancipated slaves.

For the Torah prohibited these disqualified persons only to male kohanim.

And even though they are prohibited to mamzerim—since the Torah was not particular regarding priestly lineage with regard to females, the Sages likewise did not make an elevation for them regarding lineage, to require them to investigate because of disqualifications from the congregation.

Rav Adda bar Ahava taught

in a beraita:

Four

pairs of

mothers, which are twelve

women. For in each pair there are three mothers. And every mother who requires investigation is investigated together with her mother and her mother’s mother.

In the teaching of the Mishna it was taught: Four

pairs of

mothers, which are sixteen

women. For regarding each pair in the Mishna, he adds two more generations above. And every mother who is investigated is investigated together with her mother, her mother’s mother, and her mother’s mother’s mother.

And we raise the matter:

Granted, according to Rav Adda bar Ahava,

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,