ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 67
KIDUSHIN 67 (Tamuz 22) - dedicated by Zvi and Tamara Sand of Har Nof,
Yerushalayim, for the Yahrzeit of Tamara's father, Shlomo Zevulun ben Yakov
(a) Rebbi Yossi rules in a Beraisa that the child of a Ger who marries a
Mamzeres is a Mamzer. According to Rebbi Yossi - the Torah permit such a
union (and nevertheless, the child is a Mamzer, like its mother).
(b) When Resh Lakish queried this Beraisa from the principle in our Mishnah
'Kol Makom she'Yesh Kidushin ve'Ein Aveirah, ha'V'lad Holech Achar
ha'Zachar', Rebbi Yochanan replied that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi
Yehudah, who holds - that a Ger is forbidden to marry a Mamzeres.
(c) Nevretheless, the Tana of our Mishnah does not need to include it in the
list of 'Kol Makom she'Yesh Kidushin ve'Yesh Aveirah, ha'V'lad Holech Achar
ha'Pagum' - because it is included it in the words 'Kol Makom'.
(d) In an alternative answer, Rebbi Yochanan even reconciles Rebbi Yossi
with our Mishnah - by pointing out that it is pecluded via the Klal 've'Eizo
(a) 've'Eizo Zu' in our Mishnah precludes all other cases not mentioned in
our Mishnah (or so we currently think), yet the Tana omits the case of a
Chalal who married a bas Yisrael (about whom the Tana will later rule 'bas
Chalal Zachar Pesulah li'Kehunah') - because the author of our Mishnah is
Rebbi Dustai ben Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'B'nos Yisrael Mikveh Taharah
la'Chalalin' (in disagreement with the Tana later).
(b) The child of a Yisrael who married a Chalalah (whose union the Torah
permits) - goes after his father (and is Kasher li'Kehunah).
(c) The Tana does not insert it - because it is included in 'Kol Makom'.
(d) The Tana does not insert it explicitly - because it would not fit
smoothly into the Lashon, seeing as 'Kohenes, Leviyah Yisre'elis ve'Chalalah
she'Nises le'Kohen, Leviyah ve'Yisrael' would imply that the Chalalah is
permitted to the Kohen too. Note; see Tosfos DH 've'Nisnayah' (as to why we
did not this Kashya earlier).
(a) According to Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, the child of a
Mitzri Sheini who marries a Mitzris Rishonah goes after the father. The
D'rashah "Asher Yavo Lahem" ('Lahem Halach Achar Pesulan') pertains
specifically to where a Mitzri was married to a Yisre'elis or vice-versa.
(b) Rav Dimi holds - that the child of a Mitzri Sheini who marries a Mitzris
Rishonah goes after the mother (because the Torah writes "Asher *Yivaldu*
(c) According to Rabah bar bar Chanah, the Tana does not insert this case in
the Mishnah - because it is included in 'Kol Makom ... '.
(d) We reconcile Rav Dimi with the Klal in our Mishnah 'Kol Makom she'Yesh
Kidushin ve'Ein Aveirah, ha'V'lad Holech Achar ha'Zachar' - by pointing to
the K'lal 've'Eizo Zu'.
(a) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan says with re. to a Nochri couple where the man
and the woman have different nationalities - that the children that they
1. ... before they converted - go after the father.
(b) To reconcile this latter statement with the principle 'Kol she'Yesh
Kidushin ve'Ein Aveirah, Halach Achar ha'Zachar' - we exclude it from
2. ... after they converted - go after the Pagum.
(c) We cannot ask why Ravin's first statement is not inserted in the
Reisha - because our Mishnah speaks when the Kidushin is valid, whereas by
Nochrim, there is not.
(a) Both according to Rebbi Yehudah (who holds that a Ger is forbidden to
marry a Mamzeres) and Rebbi Yossi (who permits it), 'Kol Makom' in the
Reishah comes to include Yisrael she'Nasa Chalalah and perhaps Mitzri Sheini
she'Nasa Mitzris Rishonah (like Rabah bar bar Chanah); and 've'Eizo Zu'
comes to preclude 'Nisgayru, Halach Achar ha'Pagum' (Ravin) and possibly
Mitzri Sheini she'Nasa Mitzris Rishonah (like Rav Dimi). We ask 'Kol Makom
de'Seifa la'Asuyei Mai' - on Rebbi Yossi, because (seeing as according to
him, Ger she'Nasa Mamzeres is a case of Yesh Kidushin ve'Ein Aveirah, which
belongs in the Reisha), it doesn't come to include anything.
(b) We counter this from the Seifa de'Seifa 've'Eizo Zu', which, according
to Rebbi Yehudah, doesn't come to peclude anything either (seeing as Ger
she'Nasa Mamzeres is included in 'Kol Makom' in the Reisha).
(c) We answer the Seifa de'Seifa, and subsequently the Reisha de'Seifa - by
explaining that the Tana mentions each one to balance the equivalent K'lal
in the Reisha (so it doesn't matter if they don't come to teach us
(a) Re. the K'lal of Rabah bar bar Chanah that we cited earlier 'be'Umos
Halach Achar ha'Zachar', the Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Gam mi'B'nei ha'Toshavim ha'Garim Imachem Mehem Tiknu" - that
even children that are born to Cana'ani women from men from other
nationalities are not subject to "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah"
(b) 'Cana'anim' in this context incorporates - any members of the seven
nations who live in Eretz Cana'an.
2. ... Asher Holidu be'Artzechem" - that this concession does not extend to
Cana'ani men who bore children from Shefachos of other nationalities.
(c) "Asher Holidu be'Artzechem" *'ve'Lo min ha'Garim Artzechem'* - refers to
the children of Cana'ani men who bore children in other countries and who
come to visit their fathers in Eretz Cana'an.
(d) 'Nisgayru, Halach Achar ha'Pagum she'bi'Sheneihem'. Until now, we have
been talking about the Din of retaining the children of Cana'anim as Avadim.
Now we are talking - about Yuchsin, not of Cana'anim, but when one of the
parents is an Amoni or a Mo'avi, and the other, a Mitzri or an Edomi.
(a) The latter Halachah cannot be referring to the children of a Mitzri who
married an Amonis - because 'Pagum she'bi'Sheneihem' implies that each
parent has a stringency that the other one does not have, whereas in this
case, the Amonis does not have any.
(b) It therefore refers to an Amoni who married a Mitzris?
(c) The stringency of ...
1. ... the Amoni have over the Mitzris - is that he is forbidden forever.
2. ... the Mitzris have over the Amoni - is that a female is forbidden too.
(a) We learn ...
1. ... initially from the Pasuk "ve'Yatz'ah mi'Beiso ve'Halchah *le'Ish
Acher*" - "Acher" 've'Lo li'Kerovim' (that Kidushin does not take effect on
(b) We suggest that perhaps "le'Ish Acher" comes to preclude her husband's
son (but nobody else) - refuting the counter-argument that we already have
the Pasuk "Lo Yikach Ish es Eishes Aviv", by establishing the latter by
Lechatchilah (prohibiting the marriage, but not invalidating it should it
2. ... from the Pasuk there "Lo Yikach Ish ... ve'Yigaleh K'naf Aviv ... Lo
Yavo Mamzer" - that a child born from a union for which one is Chayav
Kareis, is a Mamzer.
(c) We reject this suggestion on the basis of the Pasuk "ve'Ishah el Achosah
Lo Sikach" - which teaches us that the Kidushin is not vaid by Achos Ishah
(for which one is Chayav Kareis), 'Kal va'Chomer' for Eishes Aviv (which is
Chayav Miysas Beis-Din).
(d) So we establish the two Pesukim (" ... Lo Sikach" and " ... le'Ish
Acher") - by Achos Ishah, the former, forbidding the Kidushin Lechatchilah,
the latter, rendering it invalid it.
(a) The problem in learning from Achos Ishah that Kidushin is not effective
1. ... by Eishes Ach - is that the latter has a leniency inasmuch as there
is a Heter to marry her by the Mitzvah of Yibum.
(b) Rebbi Yonah (or Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua) ultimately learns that
Kidushin are not effective by all the Arayos from Achos Ishto - by means of
a Hekesh ("Kol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'Tei'avos ha'Eil ve'Nichresah").
2. ... by Eishes Ish - is that the latter has a leniency inasmuch as there
is a Heter to marry her in the lifetime of the one who forbade her (by means
of a Get).
(c) We establish the source for all Chayvei K'riysus as Achos Ishto (by whom
Kidushin do not take effect and whose union produces Mamzeirim), and not
from Nidah (by whom Kidushin does take effect and whose union does not
produce Mamzeirim) - by virtue of the princple 'Kula ve'Chumra, le'Chumra