Kiddushin 76b — the Talmud in English

The one who teaches in a beraita “twelve,” that is fine;

he establishes it

for this beraita

with a Levite woman and an Israelite woman, since this is what we learned in our Mishna: “A Levite woman and an Israelite woman—we add one more to them.”

.

Rather, the beraita that says “sixteen”—does

the beraita that says “sixteen”

say that it disagrees,

that it disputes our Mishna? And we answer:

No.

It does not disagree. Rather, the beraita, too, speaks of a Levite woman and an Israelite woman. And our Mishna, too, maintains that sixteen maternal ancestors are examined in them.

And

what

does it teach in our Mishna, “We add to them

one more”?

The intention is not only one mother, but

one pair.

That is, for each pair among the four pairs that are examined, one further pair of two maternal ancestors is added: a mother and her mother. It follows that there are four maternal ancestors in each of the four pairs, which are sixteen maternal ancestors.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Our Mishna

is

only according to

the words of Rabbi Meir,

who requires an examination of the lineage of every family, even when no challenge of disqualification has arisen against it.

But the Sages say: All

the

families

stand with the presumption of validity,

and they require examination only if a challenge of disqualification has arisen against them.

And the Gemara is astonished:

Is that so!

It is impossible that Rav said that our Mishna is only according to Rabbi Meir and not according to the words of the Sages.

For

did not Rav Hama bar Gurya say in the name of Rav: Our Mishna,

which requires examination of the maternal ancestors for lineage, speaks only

when a challenge is called against it,

against this family, when two witnesses testified concerning it that a report of disqualification had arisen against it. But an ordinary family stands with the presumption of validity.

And from the fact that Rav established our Mishna specifically with a family against which a challenge was called, and not with an ordinary family, it is proved that he interprets it even according to the Sages, who likewise maintain that ordinary families stand with the presumption of validity. And how did Rav Yehuda say in his name that our Mishna is only according to Rabbi Meir?

And we answer: The two amoraim disagreed concerning Rav’s words.

The one who teaches

the following in Rav’s name,

this,

the statement that our Mishna is not according to the Sages,

does not teach

the following in Rav’s name,

this,

the statement that our Mishna speaks of a family against which a challenge was called.

Some say

that the words of the two amoraim were taught in Rav’s name as follows:

a.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

But the Sages say: All families stand with the presumption of validity.

b.

Rav Hama bar Gurya said in the name of Rav: If a challenge is called against it

against this family,

it is necessary to examine after it,

even according to the words of the Sages.

And Rav did not say this as an interpretation of our Mishna, but as an independent law. And according to this, there is no contradiction in Rav’s words.

We learned in our Mishna:

They do not examine from the altar and above.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the reason?

And we answer: Because

if they had not examined him,

if they had not examined his father and found him valid,

they would not have raised

him

to it,

to the service.

We learned in our Mishna:

And they do not

examine

from the platform and above.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the reason?

And we answer: Because

the Master said: There

in the Chamber of Hewn Stone

they would sit,

the Sanhedrin in the morning, beginning from the time of the offering of the morning daily offering until the time of the offering of the afternoon daily offering, and they would

establish the priestly lineage and the Levitical lineage,

for they would select the priests of established, valid lineage for service on the altar, and the Levites valid to stand on the platform to sing. And they would also examine the Israelites who slaughtered the offering—for slaughter by a non-priest is valid—that they, too, should be of established lineage.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they do not

examine

from the Sanhedrin and above.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the reason?

And we answer: Because

Rav Yosef taught: Just as a court

must be

cleansed with regard to justice

—fearers of God, men of truth, and haters of unjust gain—

so

they must be

cleansed of every blemish.

That is, of disqualification of lineage.

And specifically this applies to the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one, or the Lesser Sanhedrin of twenty-three. But this law does not apply to an ordinary court of three.

Marimar said: What is the verse

from which the Sages derived this law?

As it is written

in the Song of Songs [chapter 4]: “

You are altogether beautiful, my beloved, and there is no blemish in you.”

And we reject this:

Perhaps

the verse intended

an actual blemish,

that there should be no bodily blemish in them; and from where do we know that the verse refers to disqualification of lineage?

Rather,

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said:

This may be learned from

what the verse says

concerning the seventy elders [Numbers 11]: “

And they shall stand there with you”

with Moses. And we expound: “

With you”—

similar to you!

Just as you, Moses, are of established lineage, so too the Sanhedrin of seventy elders must be of established lineage.

And we reject this:

And perhaps

the judges of the Sanhedrin at that time were required to be of established lineage only

because of the Divine Presence

that rested upon them then, as it is written there: “And the Lord descended in the cloud, and spoke to him, and drew from the spirit that was upon him, and placed it upon the seventy elders.” But ordinary judges of a Sanhedrin, whose role is only to judge, do not need to be of established lineage.

Rather,

Rav Naḥman said: The verse says

in Jethro’s words to Moses [Exodus 18]: “

And you shall lighten it from upon you, and they shall bear it with you.”

And we expound: “

With you”—

similar to you!

They should be of established lineage like you.

We learned in the Mishna:

Anyone whose ancestors were established as officers of the populace

does not require examination. “

Officers of the populace” means courts of three judges, who judge monetary cases.

And we inquire concerning it:

Does this mean,

is the intention of the Mishna to say,

that we do not appoint

an ordinary court

of

judges who are

disqualified

from entering the congregation?!

And we raise a contradiction

to this from the words of the Mishna in tractate Sanhedrin:

All are qualified to judge monetary cases, but not all are qualified to judge capital cases.

And we inquire concerning it: “

All

are qualified”—

what does it come to include?

What does “all” come to include?

And

concerning this

Rav Yehuda said: To include,

to include a judge who is a

mamzer,

to teach that even he is qualified to judge.

And since even a mamzer is qualified to judge monetary cases in a court of three, how did our Mishna say that the judges, even in a court of three, stand with the presumption of validity with regard to lineage?

Abaye said:

Our Mishna speaks of judges who are

in Jerusalem,

where they were particular about judges of established lineage even for monetary cases judged by three.

And so Rav Shimon bar Zeira taught, in the tractate of Kiddushin

in the Kiddushin tractate

of the school of Levi:

Our Mishna speaks of judges who are

in Jerusalem.

We learned in the Mishna:

And charity collectors may cause women to marry into the priesthood,

and it is not necessary to examine after them.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the reason

that they have the presumption of validity?

And we answer: Because

they quarrel with people,

for people regularly quarrel with them.

For the Master said,

as we learned:

Collateral is taken for charity, even on the eve of Shabbat!

That is, the collectors forcibly take collateral from one who is obligated in charity if he does not give it, even on the eve of Shabbat, when people are busy. And for this reason those from whom payment was demanded were accustomed to disgrace them and speak ill of them,

and

therefore,

if it is indeed the case,

if there truly was

that there is,

a family disqualification among the charity collectors, people would already have hurled at them that they were disqualified,

and it would have a public report,

and there would be a report of their disqualification. And if no report of disqualification has arisen against them until now, it is a sign that they are valid.

The host

of

of

Rav Adda bar Ahava

was a convert

a convert he was.

And he and Rav Bibi were quarreling

over the authority of the city.

One said: I shall perform the authority of the city

I shall be appointed over matters of authority in the city!

And one said: I shall perform the authority of the city!

They came

both of them, Rav Bibi and the convert, accompanied by Rav Adda bar Ahava,

before Rav Yosef,

so that he would decide their dispute.

He said to them

Rav Yosef:

We learned,

we learned in a beraita: It is written [Deuteronomy 17]: “

You shall surely set a king over you, from among your brothers.”

And we expound from the meaning of the words “You shall surely set”:

Every appointment

of authority

that you make shall be only from among your brothers,

literally, and not from among converts.

He said to him,

asked

Rav Adda bar Ahava

who had lodged at the convert’s inn, to Rav Yosef: Is

even

one

whose mother is an Israelite

and only his father converted also disqualified from authority? For my host, his mother is an Israelite!?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef: If

his mother is an Israelite,

that is fine; “

from among your brothers”

we read it with regard to him,

for this verse excluded only one whose mother is a female convert.

And Rav Yosef concluded his words and said: Since both of you are fit for authority, let us divide it between you.

Therefore, Rav Bibi, who is a great man,

a great man in Torah

he is, let him oversee

let him supervise

heavenly matters.

He should be appointed over charity collection, the determination of its obligation, and its distribution, and likewise over the appointment of the translators and those who read the haftara from the Torah.

And the other one,

the son of the convert,

let him oversee the matters of the city.

He should be appointed over the other public needs involving discretionary matters.

Abaye said: One who gives lodging to a Torah scholar in his inn should lodge one like Rav Adda bar Ahava.

One who wishes to host a Torah scholar at his inn should host one who is like Rav Adda bar Ahava. For he

knows how to turn it for him,

to engage in and turn

in his merit,

for the sake of his host, and to make efforts on his behalf so that he would be appointed to authority.

Rabbi Zeira

was

tending to them,

he exerted himself and occupied himself on behalf of converts, to honor them and seat them in positions of authority.

And even

Rabba bar Avuha

was

tending to them.

But in contrast,

in the West,

in the Land of Israel,

even

a simple appointment such as

head of measures,

an official responsible for examining measures, from the term “kor” and “lethekh,”

they did not appoint from among them

they did not appoint converts from among them. That is, they did not appoint converts even to such a simple position.

In Nehardea, even a head of the irrigation channel

an officer responsible for distributing water for irrigating fields of irrigation,

they did not appoint from among them,

from among them.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says: Even one who was

a signatory witness on the old deed of assessment of Sepphoris does not require examination after him.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the reason?

And we answer: Because in that court they

were precise

they examined,

and they would sign,

that is, they did not have one who was not of established lineage sign their documents.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus

says: Even one who was listed in the army of a king.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: It spoke of the troops of the House of David,

our Mishna, who were enlisted in rotation for a month and returned to their homes. And again they returned after a month, and so repeatedly. And this is the meaning of the term “army.”

And they would write on the document: “The family of so-and-so and so-and-so, its time is in such-and-such a month,” and they would clarify their lineage.

Rav Yosef said: What is the verse,

what is the verse from which we learned this?

As it is written [I Chronicles 7]: “

And their genealogy was in the army for war.”

And what is the reason

that they were careful about lineage with regard to the army?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: So that their merit and the merit of their ancestors would assist them

in war.

And we raise an objection:

But there is,

for we find among the heads of David’s mighty warriors also

Zelek the Ammonite—

Is it not

that he was called “Ammonite” because

he came

who came

from “

Ammon,”

and converted? And it is proved that David was not particular about the lineage of his soldiers.

And we answer:

No.

He was not descended from Ammon; rather, he was called “Ammonite” because

he dwelled

he sat and lived

in Ammon.

And we further raise an objection:

But there is,

for among David’s soldiers we find

Uriah the Hittite—

Is it not

that he was called this because

he came from “

Heth,”

and converted?

And we answer:

No.

He was a Hittite; rather,

he dwelled

he lived

in Heth.

And we further raise an objection:

But there is,

among David’s soldiers,

Ittai the Gittite—

And if you would say,

perhaps you would answer,

so too,

he too was not descended from the Gittites, but

he dwelled in Gath—

that is not so.

We hold as established: An Israelite cannot annul the idolatry of a gentile; only the gentile can annul it.

And it is written concerning David: “And he took the crown of their king [the idolatry of Ammon, whose name was ‘Milcom’] from upon his head.”

And we inquire concerning it: How did David take it, for idolatry is forbidden for benefit?

And did he not say

in explanation

Rav Naḥman: Ittai the Gittite came and annulled it,

and through this it became permitted for benefit?

And it is proved that he was a gentile. For if not, he could not have annulled it. And this is difficult for Rabbi Hanina, who said that in David’s army there were only Israelites of established lineage.

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: David had four hundred boys

young men

in his army,

in his forces,

and all of them were sons of a beautiful captive woman,

who were born to Israelites [and were not David’s children] from women whom Israelites captured in war, and for this reason they acted according to the laws of the gentiles.

And all of them

were

cutting their hair “

in front”

from the front,

and growing a lock of hair

behind their necks,

and all of them

were

sitting in golden carriages.

And they would march at the head of the armies.

And these are those who are “

masters of fists”

of the House of David.

of the House of David.

And it is proved that there were also men of unestablished lineage in David’s army, for they were sons of a beautiful captive woman, who is a gentile!?

And we answer: These did not participate with the Israelites in the war itself; rather,

they went to frighten them

they went with them only to cast fear upon the enemies

merely.