(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 72

KIDUSHIN 72-75 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.


QUESTION: The Gemara says that at the moment that Rebbi Akiva died, Rebbi was born. When Rebbi died, Rav Yehudah was born. When Rav Yehudah died, Rav Ashi was born. This shows us that a Tzadik does not leave this world until another Tzadik like him has been created, as we learn from the verse, "The sun rises, and the sun sets" (Koheles 1:5) -- before the sun (referring to a Tzadik) sets (i.e. dies), another sun has risen.
(a) The verse, however, seems to be describing the regular course of natural events, sunrise and sunset. What indication is there in the verse that alludes to the birth and death of Tzadikim?

(b) Why does the verse compare the continuing chain of Tzadikim to the rising and setting of the sun, and not to any other event that expresses continuity?

(a) The IYUN YAKOV explains that if the verse was referring only to the beginning and end of the day, then the order should have been reversed -- "The sun *sets*, and the sun *rises*," because the day begins at nightfall with regard to all Halachic matters (except for Kodshim), and like the verse in Parshas Bereishis says, "It was night, and it was morning." From the change in the order of the verse, the Gemara saw an allusion to this Derashah.

(b) The SEFER HA'MIKNAH explains that sunset does not indicate the end and demise of the sun, but rather it merely marks the moment that the sun leaves our range of vision. When darkness descends, the darkness is not a sign that the sun no longer exists, but rather that it has gone beyond us. The same is true with the death of a Tzadik The radiance of the Tzadik does not cease when he dies. Rather, it continues in all of its grandeur and strength, and we are just unable to see it in this world. It can be seen only in Olam ha'Ba.

The SEFER HA'MIKNAH points out further that there is a degree of Yeridas ha'Doros, a decrease in the spiritual quality of the generations, as the generations move further away from the time that the Torah was given at Har Sinai. The verse compares the rising of the new sun to the setting of the old sun, to teach that the new Tzadik who is born into the new generation is only comparable to the "setting sun" of the previous generation, and does not shine with the same splendor with which the rising sun of the previous generation shined (this is similar to the Gemara in Bava Basra 75a).

OPINIONS: The Mishnah (69a) implies that only the Jews who ascended to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel are "b'Chezkas Kashrus," while Jews from other places are not "b'Chezkas Kashrus." Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel says that this is the view of Rebbi Meir, and that the Chachamim argue and say that Jews from *all* lands are "b'Chezkas Kashrus."

The Gemara relates an incident in which Ameimar ruled in accordance with the view of the Chachamim, as expressed by Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel, and permitted Rav Huna bar Nasan to marry a woman from an area outside of Bavel. The Gemara says that even though a number of Amora'im dispute this ruling of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel and maintain that the Chachamim do not argue with Rebbi Meir, Ameimar was relying on Rav Zevid of Neherda'a, who agreed with this statement of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel.

What is the Halachah with regard to Jews who come from lands other than Bavel?

The SHULCHAN ARUCH (EH 4:2) rules according to the Chachamim, that families from all lands are "b'Chezkas Kashrus" and one may marry someone from any family, even l'Chatchilah. The BI'UR HA'GRA points out that even though all of the Sugyos in the beginning of this Perek assume that "Kol ha'Artzos Isah b'Bavel" -- "all lands are considered 'Isah' when compared to Bavel," in addition to the Gemara earlier on this Daf that discusses the borders of Bavel with regard to Yuchsin (implying that all other lands are *not* like Bavel), we nevertheless rule in accordance with this statement of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuelę, since Ameimar ruled like that in practice, and therefore that is the Halachah.

The Gemara states that all families are "b'Chezkas Kashrus." Does this refer only to families living among Jews, who -- until today -- are assumed to be part of the community of Kosher and valid Jews and can thus be considered to have a Chazakah of Kashrus, or does it refer even to a family that comes from a far-away land and that no one knew about until today?

The BEIS SHMUEL (EH 4:3) cites a Machlokes Rishonim on this matter.

(a) The TUR maintains that only a family that was previously known by the Jewish community is considered to have a "Chezkas Kashrus." If the family was not known, there is a fear of Mamzerus and Avdus.

(b) The ROSH and RAMBAN maintain that even a family that was not known heretofore is considered to have a "Chezkas Kashrus" (except with regard to Pesulei Kehunah).

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which records a Machlokes between Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Meir regarding the status of Mamzerim and Nesinim in the future, when Mashi'ach comes. Rebbi Yosi says that Mamzerim and Nesinim will become Tahor, and Rebbi Meir says that they will not become Tahor.

How can Rebbi Yosi maintain that Mamzerim will be Mutar? The Torah explicitly states that "a Mamzer shall not come into the congregation of Hashem" (Devarim 23:3)! How can Rebbi Yosi say that an Isur d'Oraisa will be uprooted in the future?


(a) The RASHBA explains that the purification of Mamzerim at the time of the arrival of Mashi'ach will be in the context of a "Hora'as Sha'ah," a temporary ruling necessary for the circumstances of the time. All Mamzerim alive at that time, and at that time only, will become Mutar. After that time, though, the Isur will again be in effect (if such an unfortunate situation arises again). Even though no Mitzvah can be changed by any Navi, the concept of "Hora'as Sha'ah" enables us to temporary suspend a Mitzvah (as in the case of Eliyahu ha'Navi with regard to the Isur of building Bamos).

(b) The RITVA explains that the Gemara is not referring to a *Vadai* Mamzer, a definite Mamzer, but rather to "Mishpachos she'Nit'me'u," families into which a Mamzer married and whose status is unknown. It is Rebbi Yosi, points out the Ritva, who holds of the principle that "once they have become mixed in, they have become mixed in." Rebbi Meir apparently argues with that Heter.

According to the Ritva, it is unclear what the question of the Gemara is from the verse, "v'Yashav Mamzer b'Ashdod" -- "And a Mamzer will dwell (be separated, -Rashi) in Ashdod" (Zecharyah 9:6), on the opinion of Rebbi Yosi. Perhaps the verse is referring to a *Vadai* Mamzer! The Ritva explains that if the Mamzer mentioned in the verse is a Vadai Mamzer, then there would be no need to separate him, since his Pesul would be known to all. On the contrary, since a special act of separation had to be made, it must be that his status is that of a Safek Mamzer.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,