{"id":12292,"date":"2008-12-18T16:17:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-18T16:17:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_kiddushin_7278\/"},"modified":"2016-11-28T07:40:34","modified_gmt":"2016-11-28T12:40:34","slug":"masechet_kiddushin_7278","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_kiddushin_7278\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Kiddushin 72a-78b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

Kiddushin 72a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

As we have learned, the fourth perek<\/em> of Masechet<\/a> Kiddushin<\/a><\/em> focuses on family history, and discusses which communities had more reliable traditions of reliability. The Gemara<\/a> taught that the Jewish community in Bavel was more reliable than the community in Israel or in other places in the Diaspora. On our daf<\/em> Rav Yehuda<\/a> quotes Shmuel<\/a> as teaching that these attitudes are only the opinion of Rabbi Meir<\/a>, but that the Chachamim<\/a><\/em> argue and rule that all Jewish communities, wherever they are found, are assumed to be reliably Jewish.<\/p>\n

In a similar statement, the Gemara brings a baraita<\/a><\/em> that discusses the status of mamzerim<\/em> (children born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship) le-atid la-vo <\/em>(literally “in the future” but in this context it refers to Messianic times). According to Rabbi Yossi<\/a>, with the arrival of the Messiah mamzerim<\/em> will become purified; Rabbi Meir disagrees and states that they will remain in their status as mamzerim<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The rishonim<\/a><\/em> argue about the specific ruling about which Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi disagree. According to some (the Ritva<\/a> quoting the Re’ah<\/a>, the Ran<\/a>‘s understanding of the Rambam<\/a>, and others) it is dealing only with cases where there is a safek mamzeirut<\/em> – where it is not clear whether a given family had this problem. Even though the Messiah is supposed to clarify unknown issues, Rabbi Yossi believes that he will not declare which families are truly problematic. The Ramban<\/a>, Rashba<\/a> and others suggest that Rabbi Yossi believes that the Messiah will really release mamzerim<\/em> from their status.<\/p>\n

The Ramban explains that this is done as a hora’at sha’ah<\/em> – a one-time ruling made for a specific purpose – which is allowed by a prophet for a particular reason. After the arrival of the Messiah, however, all of the normal laws of forbidden relationships – and mamzeirut<\/em> – will remain in force. This is based on his view of the Messianic period as one when Israel will live in a state of peace, but that we will remain in a physical world and that all normative laws will still apply.<\/p>\n

\n

Kiddushin 73a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Mishnah<\/a> (69a<\/a>) teaches that there were various types of people who traveled with Ezra the Scribe from Bavel to Israel at the beginning of the Second Temple<\/a> period. The people divide into different groups, each of which is limited in who they can marry. Thus, for example, families that were known to reliably be kohanim<\/a><\/em>, Levi\u2019im<\/a><\/em> or regular Yisraelim<\/a><\/em> could marry one another, but kohanim<\/em> could not marry a halal<\/em> (a child born from a forbidden union between a kohen<\/em> and a divorcee, for example). A mamzer<\/em> (someone born from an adulterous or incestuous relationship), a shetuki<\/em> (literally, someone who is “quiet”) or an asufi<\/em> (literally, someone who is “gathered in”), can marry one another, but they cannot marry people from families established as kohanim<\/em>, Levi\u2019im<\/em> or regular Yisraelim<\/em>. The Mishnah explained that a shetuki<\/em> is someone who knows his mother, but does not know who his father is, and an asufi<\/em> is someone who was found as a newborn abandoned in the marketplace who does not know his parents.<\/p>\n

With regard to establishing someone as an asufi<\/em>, our Gemara<\/a> brings the opinion of Rava<\/a> bar Rav Huna<\/a> who rules that if there are indications that the child was well cared for and was not abandoned to die \u2013 e.g. if the baby had been circumcised, if he had a note attached to him, if he was placed in a position where it was clear that he would be found \u2013 then the child should not be deemed an asufi<\/em>, and can marry like any regular Jewish person.<\/p>\n

One of the questions that the rishonim<\/a><\/em> ask is how to reconcile the ruling that placement can determine the child’s status \u2013 that if he was found in the public thoroughfare he is deemed an asufi<\/em>, but if he was placed carefully on the side he is not \u2013 with all of the other indications (circumcision, a note, etc.) that save the child from that status. One approach is to say that these indications will help us determine whether being left in the public place was with the intent of having the baby found, or for the purpose of being trampled and killed. Another approach is to say that if the child has been well cared for it indicates to us that the child must have been left in a more secure place and somehow was moved into the street.<\/p>\n

\n

Kiddushin 74a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

In the context of discussing family backgrounds, our Gemara<\/a> discusses how we can be certain that a child is a bechor<\/em> – the first-born child to his father – a status that would give him certain advantages with regard to inheritance, for example. Rav Nachman<\/a> teaches that three people can be trusted to declare that one child is the bechor<\/em> – the midwife who delivers him, his mother and his father. The mid-wife is believed at the time of birth (if, for example, twins were born), the mother during the week after birth and the father at any point in time.<\/p>\n

The Gemara supplies a source for the father’s believability with regard to declaring his son a bechor<\/em>. The passage in Devarim<\/a> (21:17<\/a>) that forbids the father from transferring the advantage of the bechor<\/em> to the first-born of his beloved wife (if there was an older child from a different wife), requires him to recognize the status of the oldest son. “Recognizing” the oldest son implies that he is believed to say who is the oldest.<\/p>\n

Rashi<\/a> explains that the mother’s believability stems from the fact that she is in constant contact with the baby during the first week of his life. Once the baby is taken from her on the day of the brit milah<\/em> – his circumcision – we can no longer be certain of her identification. The Me’iri<\/a> suggests that during the first week the mother makes certain to keep track of the first-born (e.g. if twins were born) in order to be sure which baby should be circumcised first, but after the brit<\/em> takes place there is no longer any need to remember which child was born first.<\/p>\n

According to the Talmud Yerushalmi<\/a><\/em>, the midwife is believed based on the story in Sefer<\/a> Bereshit<\/a><\/em> (38:28<\/a>) where Tamar gives birth to twins and the midwife tied a string around the baby’s wrist saying “this one was born first.”<\/p>\n

\n

Kiddushin 75a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Among the groups of people whose lineage and connection with the Jewish people is discussed in our Gemara<\/a> are Kutim<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The term Kutim<\/em> refers to the nations (not all of whom were truly Kutim<\/em>, as there were people from other nations, as well) that were exiled to the Land of Israel by the kings of Assyria who were interested in populating the land after they had removed the Israelite people from it. According to Sefer<\/a> Melachim<\/a><\/em> (see II Melachim<\/em>, chapter 17<\/a>), these nations converted to Judaism because of their fear of lions that had begun attacking them (from which derives the term gerei arayot<\/em> \u2013 “lion converts”), but they continued worshiping their gods at the same time.<\/p>\n

Upon the return of the Jews to Israel at the beginning of the Second Temple<\/a> period, the Samaritans, descendants of the Kutim<\/em>, were active in trying to keep the returnees from rebuilding the Temple and the walls of the city of Jerusalem. Even so, there were families \u2013 including members of the kohanim<\/a><\/em> \u2013 who intermarried with the Samaritans.<\/p>\n

During the following years there were continued tensions between the two communities, and Yochanan Hyrcanus led his troops into battle against the Samaritans and destroyed the temple that they had built on Har Gerizim. Nevertheless, there were also periods of cooperation, such as the period of the Bar Kochba<\/a> rebellion. As is clear in our Gemara, the attitude of the Sages towards them differed, although after a period of time a final conclusion was reached and they were ruled to be treated as non-Jews, due to their continued involvement with different types of idol worship.<\/p>\n

It is important to note that the Gemara in Yevamot<\/a><\/em> concludes that while a bet din<\/a><\/em> should not accept potential converts whose reason for converting is anything other than a sincere desire to join the Jewish People, nevertheless, if such a person does undergo a full conversion process they are considered Jewish according to halacha<\/a><\/em>. It is possible that the Kutim<\/em> did not fall into that category because they continued with their idolatrous practices even at the moment of their conversion. Nevertheless, today the community of Samaritans living in Israel are no longer idol worshipers, and there has been some level of acceptance of them into the larger Jewish community.<\/p>\n

\n

Kiddushin 76a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Mishnah<\/a> on our daf<\/em> teaches that there are many families about which we can be certain that they are reliably Jewish and that there are no issues with their family histories. For example, if we trace a family tree and discover that the patriarch was a kohen<\/a><\/em> who performed service in the Temple<\/a>, or that the patriarch served on the Sanhedrin<\/a>, there is no need to check any further, since those positions were only given to individuals who were known to be from reliable families. According to Chanina ben Antigonos<\/a>, another indication of a family with a reliable history is recorded service in the army.<\/p>\n

The Gemara<\/a> brings Rav Yehuda<\/a> quoting Shmuel<\/a> who explains the last case to be talking about a family whose ancestors had served in King David<\/a>‘s army, as the pasuk<\/em> clearly indicates in I Divrei HaYamim<\/em>, or Chronicles (7:40<\/a>). Rav Yehuda quotes Rav<\/a> as explaining the reason for this – the belief that the merit of their forefathers would put them in good stead in times of battle.<\/p>\n

The Gemara points out that the names of many of King David’s soldiers – e.g. Tzelek the Ammonite, Uriah the Hittite, Ittai the Gittite – seem to point to their being converts, or, perhaps, non-Jewish mercenaries. Furthermore, Rav Yehuda quotes Rav as teaching that there were 400 soldiers in King David’s army who were the offspring of relations with an eshet yefat to’ar<\/em> (see Devarim<\/a> 21:10<\/a>) who behaved like non-Jews, cutting their hair, for example, in the fashion of non-Jews, and growing a blorit<\/a><\/em>. The Gemara suggests that the non-Jews were not active soldiers in the army, but played other supportive roles, specifically to keep everyone in a state of alarm.<\/p>\n

Many suggestions are offered to define the term blorit<\/em>, but no word in Greek or Latin is a perfect match for it. The hairstyle involved allowed the hair to grow long particularly on the sides and in the back of the head, and the hair was tied and braided into different shapes. Later on, the braided hair was shaved off in a special pagan ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n

\n

Kiddushin 77a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Torah<\/a> forbids a kohen<\/a><\/em> from marrying the following women:<\/p>\n