ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 75
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) The basic Machlokes between ...
1. ... the Tana Kama of the Beraisa ('Ger Amoni u'Mo'avi ... she'Ba'u al bas
Yisrael, Pasluhah'), and Rebbi Yossi ('Kol she'Zar'o Posel, Pasul, ve'Chol
she'Ein Zar'o Pasul ... ') is - the Almanah of a Mitzri Sheini, who is
forbidden to marry a Kohen, but whose children is not?
(b) All three Tana'im derive their respective opinions from Kohe Gadol
be'Almanah - the Tana Kama learns from an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, who Bi'ah,
which is forbidden, renders her a Chalalah; Rebbi Yossi adds that her
children become Chalalim too, precluding the wife of a Mitzri Sheini, whose
children are Kasher; Raban Shimon ben Gamliel adds that all her children
become Chalalim too, precluding the wife of an Amoni or Mo'avi, whose
daughter at least, is Kasher.
2. ... Rebbi Yossi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ('Kol sha'Atah Nosei es
Bito, Atah Nosei Almenaso; ve'Chol she'Ein Ata Nosei Bito ... ') is - the
Almanah of a Ger Amoni u'Mo'avi, whose son is Pasul, but whose daughter is
(c) We learn that a Kohen Gadol renders an Almanah a Chalalah with his Bi'ah
(even though the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o" is referring to their
children) - from the extra 'Lamed' in "Lo Yechalel" (since the Torah could
have written "ve'Lo Yachel Zar'o").
(a) All the above Tana'im agree, says Rav Chisda, that an Almanas Iysah does
become a Chalalah through the Bi'ah of one of the Pesulim. 'An Almanas
Iysah' (according to one explanation) is the widow of a Safek Chalal who
threw her a Get that was a Safek (to whom it was closer, him or her).
(b) Rav Chisda say this on the grounds - that when all's said and done, her
daughter is forbidden to marry a Kohen (in case his father is a Chalal), in
which, she does not possess the requirements that permit her to marry a
Kohen, even according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (the most lenient of all
(c) This opinion is not however, unanymous. What is the reason of Rebbi
Yehoshua and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah in a Mishnah in Iduyos, who declare
an Almanas Iysah Kasher is - because it is (not just a Safek, but) a S'fek
S'feika (which overrides the fact that her daughter is forbidden to marry a
(a) 'Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Halachah ke'Rebbi Eliezer' (who differentiates
between Vada'an be'Vada'an and Vada'an bi'S'feikan). Shmuel expressed
surprise when Rav Yehudah told him that this is what Rav had ruled - because
it clashes with the opinion of Hillel (the author of our Mishnah), who
specifically permits S'feikan be'Vada'an as well Vada'an be'Vada'an.
(b) Elsewhere, Rav rules that if an Arusah became pregnant, Rav declares the
child a Mamzer; Shmuel says - that he is a Shesuki.
1. Their respective reasons are - that Rav goes after the majority of
people, who are forbidden to her, turning the Safek (Mamzer) into a Vaday;
whereas according to Shmuel, because maybe the child is from the Arus,
makinig it a Safek.
(d) This Machlokes now appears to clash with the previous one - inasmuch as
Rav now follows our Mishnah (which considers a Safek Mamzer like a Vaday,
whereas Shmuel does not.
2. The ramifications of their Machlokes is - that, according to Rav, the
child will be permitted to marry a Mamzeres, whereas according to Shmuel, he
(a) We initially amend the second Machlokes to conform with the previous
one - by switching their opinions 'Rav Amar ha'V'lad Shesuki' u'Sh'muel Amar
(b) Having presented their Machlokes in the case of a Shesuki who is born to
1. ... an unmarried woman, they see fit to repeat it in the case of an
Arusah who became pregnant - to teach us that even there, where most people
are forbidden to her, the child is a Shesuki and not a Mamzer.
(c) Alternatively, we reconcile their second Machokes with the first, even
without amending their opinions, but by reinterpretating what they say. In
the case of Arusah she'Ibrah, when Rav says 'ha'V'lad Mamzer', he means (not
that he is permitted to marry a Mamzeres, but) that he is Asur to marry a
2. ... an Arusah who became pregnant, why do they see fit to repeat it in
the case of an unmarried woman - to teach us that there, where we do have an
Arus whose child it probably is, Rav still considers it a Shesuki and not a
(d) We cannot interpret Shmuel ('ha'V'lad Shesuki') to mean ...
1. ... 'de'Asur be'Bas Yisrael' - because that is what Rav says.
2. ... 'she'Meshaskin Oso mi'Din Kehunah' (assuming the Arus to be a
Kohen) - because if he is Asur to marry a Yire'elis, he is obviously Pasul
3. ... 'she'Meshaskin Oso mi'Nechsei Aviv' - because, seeing as we do not
know who his father is, this too, is obvious.
(a) We nevertheless do adopt the final suggestion ('she'Meshaskin Oso
mi'Nechsei Aviv'). And we eliminate the problem 'Mi Yad'inan Avuhah Menu' -
by establishing the case when he actually siezed the money of the Arus,
claiming that the Arus was his father. Shmuel now teaches us that we take it
away from him.
(b) We might also interpret 'Shesuki' to mean - that we examine the woman,
believing her shen she says that the Ubar is from a Kasher person (like Aba
(c) This is indeed the opinion of Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer in the
Mishnah is Kesuvos ('Haysah Me'uberes ... Ish P'loni ve'Kohen Hu'), like
whom Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel has already ruled - but that was in a case when
most people were permitted to her, whereas here, Shmuel follows that ruling
even by Arus, where most people are forbidden to her (like Aba Shaul, as we
(a) Rebbi Elazar in a Beraisa rules - that a Kuti may not marry a Kutis.
(b) The Tana of another Beraisa - forbids a Ger after ten generations to
marry a Mamzeres, because the Ger's Yichus is likely to have been forgotten,
and people will think that a Yisrael is permited to marry a Mamzeres.
(c) Yesh Omrim says - that the determining factor is not the time period of
ten years, but from the time that the Ger stops mentioning the names of
(d) Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's suggestion that the Chachamim gave a Kuti and
a Kutis the same Din as a Ger after ten generations - on the grounds that
whereas the passing of time is good reason to assume that the latter's
Yichus has been forgotten, there is no reason to assume this to be the case
in the former.
(a) Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) established Rebbi Elazar (ben
Shamua)'s Din ('Kuti Lo Yisa Kutis') - like Rebbi Yishmael - who categorizes
the Kutim as 'Gerei Arayos' (insincere Geirim who converted only out of fear
of as plague of lions. This occurred when, after Sancheriv moved them from
Kuta to Eretz Yisrael, they continued to worship idols).
(b) And Rebbi Yishmael in turn, holds like Rebbi Akiva - who describes the
status of the child of an Akum or Eved who had relations with a bas Yisrael
as a Mamzer.
(c) The problem with Rav Dimi's latter statement is - a statement by Rebbi
Yochanan Amar Rebbi Yishmael, who says that an Akum or Eved who had
relations with a Kohenes, a Leviyah or a bas Yisrael invalidates her. Now if
the child was a Mamzer, as Rebbi Akiva maintains, why would Rebbi Yishmael
then need to inform us that the woman is Pasul? Is this not obvious?
(d) So we suggest - that it is Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) who holds both like
Rebbi Yishmael and like Rebbi Akiva.
(a) Beis Shamai permit a Tzaras Ervah to perform Yibum - Beis Hillel permit
her to marry le'Shuk, without even requiring Chalitzah.
(b) The children of those who practice like ...
1. ... Beis Shamai, according to Beis Hillel - are Mamzeirim (because they
have transgressed the La'av of Eishes Ach she'Lo be'Makom Mitzvah (for which
one is Chayav Ka'res).
(c) This latter ruling is part of a statement of Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das).
The gist of his statement is - ' ... Modim she'Ein Mamzer Ela mi'Mi
she'Isuro Isur Ervah ve'Chayav Ka'res'.
2. ... Beis Hillel, according to Beis Shamai - are not Mamzeirim, because a
Yevamah le'Shuk is only a La'av, and not Chayav Ka'res.
(d) This statement refutes our previous contention, equating Rebbi Elazar
with Rebbi Akiva - who considers the child of Chayvei La'avin (incorporating
Akum ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael) a Mamzer.
(a) So we quote Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Chanina or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi,
who lists three different opinions re. the Kutim. Rebbi Yishmael considers
them Geirei Arayos, as we explained earlier, and the Kohanim who mixed with
them - Pesulim.
(b) Rebbi Yishmael interprets "Vaya'as Lahem *Miktzosam* Kohanei Bamos" - to
mean 'min ha'Kotzim' (the thorns) or 'min ha'Muktzin' (those who were
disqualified - either way, a derogatory term).
(c) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael's interpretation. He ...
1. ... categorizes the Kutim as - Geirei Arayos (as we explained above).
(d) The Chachamim declared the Kutim Mamzeirim, according to Rebbi Akiva -
because they performed Yibum only with women whom their brothers had
betrothed, but permitted those whom they had married, to marry le'Shuk
without Yibum or Chalitzah. And Rebbi Akiva follows his reasoning elsewhere,
where he declares children of all Chayvei La'avin Mamzeirim.
2. ... defines the Kohanei Bamos who mixed with them - as the elite 'min
ha'Bechirim she'be'Am (or, reinterpreting the word "mi'Ketzosam", 'min
ha'Ketzinim she'be'Am' [the captains]).