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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

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.



(a) According to Rav Papa, just as the Amora'im argue about the borders with re. to Yuchsin, so too, do they argue with re. to Gitin - meaning that a Sheli'ach who brought a Get from one Medinah to another in Bavel (where they were experts in writing Gitin Lishmah like they were in Eretz Yisrael), did not need to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav u'be'Fanai Nechtam' like in other countries, where they were not experts in writing Gitin Lishmah).

(b) Rav Yosef says that as far as Gitin is concerned, they all agree that the border extends as far as 'Arba Tinyana de'Gishra'.

1. 'Arba' - a marsh in which reeds grow.
2. 'Arba Tinyana' - is the second marsh which was lower down to the north of the first one.
(c) When Rami bar Aba said ...
1. ... 'Chavil Yama Techelta de'Bavel' - he meant that the place Chavil Yama on the River P'ras by Bursi was supreme territory Yuchsin-wise.
2. ... 'Shunya ve'Guvya Techelta de'Chavil Yama' - he meant that in Chavil Yama itself, Shunya and Guvya were supreme.
(d) Ravina adds Tzitzura to the latter pair - and his opinion has the support of a Beraisa.
(a) What caused Rav Papa to think that Chavil Yama was no longer reliable re. Yuchsin - was the fact that a Kuti requested one of their daughters in marriage. He thought that his request was granted, but in fact, it was turned down.

(b) The other reason (which we reject as unlikely) that might Rav Papa have had for stating his opinion - is because he requested one of their daughters in marriage and was turned down.

(a) When a man claimed that he was a resident of Shut Meishut, Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha arose and declared that Shut Meishut was situated between the two rivers.

(b) Abaye explained this declaration with a statement of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. When the latter declared that between the rivers is like Golah, he was referring to Pumbedisa, whose Yichus was known to be exemplary.

(c) Abaye reconciles Rebbi Yochanan, who places Shut Meishut south of Ihi de'Kiri, which is the most southernmost point mentioned to date, with his own opinion (cited earlier), that the eastern border ends at the crossing of Gizma (which is further north) - by referring to a strip of land which jutted from Bavel southwards into the area that was not part of Bavel, and which contained Shut Meishut.

(a) Rav Ika bar Avin Amar Rav Chananel Amar Rav - compared area of the River Nihavand to 'Golah' re. Yuchsin.

(b) When Abaye (unaware that he had quoted Rav Chananel Amar Rav) announced not to take any notice of him, since he only issued this ruling because a Yevamah had fallen to him from that area - Rav Ika bar Avin replied that the statement was not his own, but a quote from Rav Chananel (which Rav Chananel subsequently corroborated).

(c) Rav Aba bar Kahana disagreed with the previous ruling. He named each of the places specified by the Pasuk in Shmuel "va'Yanchem be'Chalach u've'Chavor, Nahar Gozen ve'Arei Madai". "Chalach" is Chilazon', and "Arei Madai", according to some, Nihavand ve'Chavrosehah. Rebbi Yochanan declared all these areas - Pasul (contrary to the previous ruling of Rav Ika bar Avin).

(d) According to Shmuel, 've'Chavrosehah' refers to Mushchi, Chuski and Rumki. 'Mushchi' cannot be synonymous with Mushchani - because Rebbi Chiya bar Avin Amar Shmuel earlier compared Mushchani to 'Golah' re. Yuchsin.

(a) In Nevuchadnetzar's dream, the first of the four beasts (which corresponded to Bavel and resembled a lion), had "three ribs in its mouth, between its teeth", representing Chilazon, Hadayav and Netzivin. "in its mouth" - implies that they were inside the lion, whereas "between its teeth" - implies that they protruded outside, because these three cities were constantly rebelling against Bavel; sometimes they were under Bavel's jurisdiction, sometimes it was not.

(b) The second beast, which resembled a bear - corresponded to Persia.

(c) The Persians resembled bears in four ways, says the Beraisa quoted by Rav Yosef: They ate like bears and were fat like a bears - they were hairy like bears and they were restless like bears.

(d) When Rebbi Ami saw a Persian astride a horse - he would comment how much he resembled a moving bear.

(a) When Rebbi asked Levi to describe various nationalities, he described ...
1. ... the Persians - as being strong like the soldiers of Beis David.
2. ... the Chavrin (neighbors of the Persians, who were wilder than them) - as resembling destructive angels.
3. ... Yishme'elim - as resembling demons that haunt the bathroom.
4. ... the Talmidei-Chachamim of Bavel - like administering angels.
(b) On his deathbed, Rebbi prophesied about various cities in Bavel. About ...
1. ... Humnaya, he said - that the residents were all Amonim.
2. ... Misgarya - that they were all Mamzeirim.
3. ... Birka, he said - that two brothers had swapped wives.
(c) In Birsa de'Satya, they strayed from the path. When ...
1. ... the pool swarmed a lot of fish - they caught them on Shabbos.
2. ... Rav Acha b'Rebbi Yashiyah placed the culprits in Cherem - they Sh'mad themselves (converted).
(d) In Akra de'Agma, Rav Ada bar Ahavah sat in the bosom of Avraham Avinu. Assuming this to mean that he died on that day - then he cannot have been the Rav Ada bar Ahavah who appears in Shas (because he was still alive in the days of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, many generations after Rebbi died); whereas if it means that he was circumcised - then it was indeed the same one.



(a) On the day that ...
1. ... Rebbi Akiva died - Rebbi was born.
2. ... Rebbi died - Rav Yehudah was born.
3. ... Rav Yehudah died - Rava was born.
4. ... Rava died - Rav Ashi was born.
(b) We learn from here - that one Tzadik does not pass away from the world before another Tzadik is born to take his place, as the Pasuk writes in Koheles "ve'Zarach ha'Shemesh u'Va ha'Shemesh".

(c) Based on the Pasuk "ve'Ner Elokim Terem Yichbeh", we learn - that Shmuel was born before Eli died.

(d) Rav Yehudah connects the Pasuk in Eichah "Tzivah Hashem le'Ya'akov Sevivav Tzarav" to Humnaya and Pum Nahara - on the basis of Rebbi's prophesy, that the residents of Humnaya were Amonim. Together with Mo'av, they proved to be our bitterest enemies, causing us harm at every opportunity.

(a) When Yechezkel cried out at the death of Paltiel ben Benayahu, Rav and Shmuel argue over whether he cried out for the good or for the bad. What was unusual about his death that caused the Navi to react in this way, assuming that he cried out ...
1. ... for the good was - that he died very young.
2. ... for the bad was - that he died a natural death.
(b) The one who interprets it ...
1. ... for the good ascribes the Navi's anguish at his untimely death - to the fact that, when Nevuchadnetar's son-in-law, governer of Meishan, asked his father-in-law why he had not sent any of the captives from Yerushalayim to serve *him*, the king wanted to send him Jewish captives. Paltihu ben Benayahu, however, who was a distinguished man, then volunteered to serve the King in person, if he would send slaves to Meishan to serve his son-in-law, thereby relieving other Jews from having to go.
2. ... for the bad ascribes his crying out in dismay at his painless death - to his having been one of the twenty-five men who standing in the Beis Hamikdash, turned their backs towards the Kodesh Kodshim and bowed down eastwards towards the rising sun.
(c) Having already written (with re. to the previous incident) "P'neihem Keidmah", Yechezkel saw fit to add "Achoreihem el Heichal Hashem" - to indicate that, not satisfied with that, they actually bared themselves and defacated as an additional indignity.
(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Avin Amar Shmuel compares Mushchani to 'Golah' re. Yichus (as we learned earlier). Re. Meishan, he says, they were not worried about Avadim nor Mamzeirus. What they *were* worried about was - the Kohanim, who were not particular about marrying divorcees.

(b) We try and prove that Shmuel is the one who interpretated the Navi's cry negatively - from his statement that 'they were not worried about Avadim' (implying that there were no Avadim there, contrary to the one who interprets it positively, as we explained above).

(c) We answer that Shmuel may well interpret it positively, but that he follows his own reasoning elsewhere. He extrapolates from the Pasuk "Kol Eved Ish Miknas Kesef" - that when an Eved is stolen from his maaster, and the latter despairs from getting him back, he is free and does not require a Get Shichrur.

(d) That explains the fact that the Chachamim were not concerned about Avadim in Meishan - because in this case too, the Avadim who were sent to Meishan were stolen by Nevuchadnetzar and their masters had despaired from getting them back. Consequently, they were no longer considered Avadim.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel maintains that the author of our Mishnah, which differentiates between Bavel and other lands re. Yichus, is Rebbi Meir. According to the Chachamim - all lands are be'Chezkas Kashrus (and there is no reason to automatically suspect that any family is Pasul).

(b) Ameimar permitted Rav Huna bar Nasan to marry a woman from Mechuza, which was situated outside the borders of Bavel, because he relied on Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel. Rav Ashi objected - because in the Batei Hamedrash of Rav Kahana, Rav Papa and Rav Z'vid, they disagrees with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's statement.

(c) Ameimar nevertheless overrode Rav Ashi's objection - because that is what he heard from Rav Z'vid from Neherda'a.

(a) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa declares that, when Mashi'ach comes, Mamzeirim and Nesinim will be accepted. Rebbi Meir says - they won't.

(b) Rebbi Meir counters Rebbi Yossi's proof from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Zarakti Aleichem Mayim Tehorim u'Tehartem" - by quoting the words follow "mi'Kol Tum'oseichem u'mi'Kol Giluleichem", from which he extrapolates 've'Lo min ha'Mamzeirus'.

(c) And Rebbi Yossi quotes the words after that - "Ataher Eschem" 'to include Mamzeirus'.

(a) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk "Veyashav Mamzer be'Ashdod" refers to the future, it poses a Kashya on Rebbi Yossi - inasmuch as it implies that, even in the days of Mashi'ach, it will be necessary to sort out the Mamzeirim.

(b) Rebbi Yossi therefore interprets the Pasuk with reference to Yisrael - who were previously expelled from Eretz Yisrael (of which Ashdod is part, since Yehoshua distributed it to Yisrael together with the rest of Eretz Yisrael, even though they did not succeed in capturing it), but who will then be able to dwell there in safety when Mashi'ach arrives.

(c) Rav Yosef says that, had Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel not ruled like Rebbi Yossi - in the days of Mashi'ach there would be so many Mamzeirim that they would have to be separated in droves.

(a) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa permit a Ger to marry a Mamzeres - because he holds that the community of Geirim is not called a community ('Kehal Geirim Lo Ikro Kahal', in which case the Pasuk "Lo Yavo mamzer bi'Kehal Hashem" does not pertain to them). The child will be - a Mamzer (because of the principle 'Lo Halach Achar Pesulo').

(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees - because he holds 'Kehal Geirim Ikri Kahal).

(c) And the Tana permits a Ger, an Eved Meshuchrar and a Chalal to a Kohenes - because of the principle 'Lo Huzharu Kesheiros Linasei li'Pesulin', as we learned earlier.

Next daf


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