Kiddushin 67aקידושין ס״ז א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
67aס״ז א

גר שנשא ממזרת דיש קידושין ואין עבירה הולד הולך אחר הפגום דתניא גר שנשא ממזרת הולד ממזר דברי רבי יוסי אמר ליה מי סברת מתני' ר' יוסי היא מתניתין ר' יהודה היא דאמר גר לא ישא ממזרת ויש קידושין ויש עבירה הולד הולך אחר הפגום

there is the case of a convert who married a mamzeret, where there is a valid betrothal and there is no transgression, as they are permitted to marry each other, and yet the offspring follows the flawed lineage and is a mamzer. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who married a mamzeret, the offspring is a mamzer. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon: Do you maintain that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? Not so; the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A convert may not marry a mamzeret, and therefore in this case there is betrothal and there is a transgression, which is why the offspring follows the flawed lineage.

וניתנייה תנא כל מקום דסיפא לאתויי

The Gemara asks: But if so, let the mishna teach this case as one of its examples. The Gemara answers: The mishna taught the principle: Any case where there is betrothal and a transgression, in the latter clause, precisely to include this kind of case. There is a guiding principle of the Gemara’s interpretation of the Mishna that a mishna does not include extraneous phrases. Every apparently superfluous phrase in the context of a principle serves to include or exclude a certain case from that principle. This is the basis of the discussion of the Gemara here and below.

ואיבעית אימא לעולם רבי יוסי היא ותנא איזו זו למעוטי

And if you wish, say a different answer: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it taught the phrase: In which case is this applicable, to exclude cases of betrothal without a transgression other than those listed in the mishna. The offspring follows the lineage of the father only in those cases specified by the mishna.

ואיזו זו ותו לא והרי חלל שנשא בת ישראל דיש קידושין ואין עבירה הולד הולך אחר הזכר הא לא קשיא כר' דוסתאי בן ר' יהודה ס"ל

The Gemara asks: But does the list that follows the phrase: In which case is this applicable, include all applicable cases? And are there no more? But there is the example of a ḥalal who married an Israelite woman, where there is betrothal and there is no transgression, and yet the offspring follows the male, as he too is a ḥalal. The Gemara rejects this claim: This is not difficult, as one can say that the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dostai ben Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the offspring of this union is entirely fit.

והרי ישראל שנשא חללה דיש קידושין ואין עבירה הולד הולך אחר הזכר תנא כל מקום דרישא לאתויי

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of an Israelite who married a ḥalala, where there is betrothal and there is no transgression, and the offspring follows the male, and yet this case is not mentioned in the mishna. The Gemara responds: The mishna taught the principle: Any case where there is betrothal and no transgression, in the first clause, to include this situation.

וניתנייה בהדיא משום דלא מתני לה היכי ניתני כהנת ולויה וישראלית וחללה שנשאת לכהן לוי וישראל וחללה לכהן מי חזיא

The Gemara asks: But let the tanna of the mishna teach explicitly this example of an Israelite who married a ḥalala. The Gemara answers: He did not do so because he cannot teach it, i.e., the tanna cannot mention this halakha in brief as part of the list. The Gemara clarifies its answer: How can the tanna teach it? He cannot state: A daughter of a priest; and a daughter of a Levite; and a daughter of an Israelite; and a ḥalala, who married a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite, as, is a ḥalala fit for a priest? This marriage involves a transgression. Consequently, the sentence of the mishna cannot be constructed so as to include a ḥalala.

והאיכא דרבה בר בר חנה דאמ' רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מצרי שני שנשא מצרית ראשונה בנה שלישי הוי

The Gemara asks: But there is also the halakha of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to a second-generation Egyptian man, i.e., the son of an Egyptian convert, who married a first-generation Egyptian woman, a woman who herself converted, her son is considered a third-generation Egyptian who may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage. This is an example of a betrothal without a transgression where the offspring follows the father.

תנא כל מקום דרישא לאתויי ולרב דימי דאמר שני הוי תנא איזו זו למעוטי

The Gemara answers: The mishna taught the principle: Any case where there is betrothal and no transgression, in the first clause, to include this example. The Gemara adds: And according to the opinion of Rav Dimi, who said that this son is a second-generation Egyptian, the mishna taught: In which case is this applicable, at its beginning, with regard to betrothal that does not involve a transgression, to exclude this case. Rav Dimi maintains that this son may not marry a Jew of unflawed lineage.

והאיכא דכי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן באומות הלך אחר הזכר

The Gemara asks: But there is the following case, which apparently contradicts the principle of the mishna: As when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to the nations, i.e., if members of two different nations married when they were gentiles, follow the male to determine the status of their child. This is the case whether he is a regular gentile, who may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage as soon as he converts, or whether he is an Ammonite or an Egyptian, who may not marry a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage. In either case the child’s status follows that of the father.

נתגיירו הלך אחר הפגום שבשניהם תנא איזו זו למעוטי

If these members of two different nations converted, follow the flawed lineage of the two. These converts are permitted to marry one another and their betrothal is effective. If either the father or mother is Egyptian, the child follows the parent with the flawed lineage and would be Egyptian, whereas according to the principle stated in the mishna, one should follow the male. The Gemara answers: The mishna taught: In which case is this applicable, in the first clause, to exclude this case.

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא מתניתין רבי יהודה היא כל מקום דרישא לאתויי ישראל שנשא חללה ודרבה בר בר חנה איזו זו למעוטי דרב דימי ורבין

The Gemara returns to an earlier point: What is this claim, that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? Granted, if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one can explain that the phrase: Any case, of the first clause, serves to include an Israelite who married a ḥalala, as the child follows the father in that case too, and also to include the ruling of Rabba bar bar Ḥana that the son of a second-generation Egyptian who married a first-generation Egyptian woman is a third-generation Egyptian. Furthermore, the expression: In which case is this applicable, serves to exclude the ruling of Rav Dimi that her son is a second-generation Egyptian, and the statement of Ravin citing Rabbi Yoḥanan.