Kiddushin 72: וְזָרַח הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וּבָא הַשָּׁמֶשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 72

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Mamzerut is as old as the Torah but remains shrouded in stigma, secrecy, and shame.

It is so taboo that people don’t utter the word mamzer in polite company outside of Torah study. It’s used as a curse word, roughly equivalent to bastard.

The Torah mentions the word only twice, in passages that fail to define who a mamzer is or the prohibitions he or she faces.

For the last few pages, the Talmud has been focussed on the status of various classes of Jews, Gentiles, and those in-between.

The last Mishnah of the previous chapter detailed a method devised by Rabbi Tarphon (who lived between the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 CE) to allow the descendants of a mamzer to marry into the Jewish people, and the laws of genealogy continue in this, the last chapter of the last tractate of Nashim.

Mamzerut is as old as the Torah but remains shrouded in stigma, secrecy, and shame.

Deuteronomy 23:2 states that “a mamzer shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” Zachariah 9:6 states that “a mamzer shall dwell in [the port city of] Ashdod and will cut off the pride of the Philistines.”

We explore the work of Prof Meir Bar Ilan in his cultural analysis of Mamzerut and the Late Antique Period.

Kiddushin 71: הַנּוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה לְשׁוּם מָמוֹן

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 71

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The fourth chapter of Massekhet Kiddushin, Perek Asarah Yuhasin, began on daf 69a with a Mishna that discussed the levels and characteristics of the families that returned to Israel from Bavel at the beginning of the Second Temple period. Specifically, the Mishna focused on which types of families were permitted to marry other families, and which were limited regarding the families that they were allowed to marry.

Converts are like Sapachas Rabbi Chelbo said: Converts are as harmful to the Jewish people as sapachas (a type of tzara’as). Rashi explains that this is because converts are not so meticulous in the performance of mitzvos, and those Jews who observe this behavior will become influenced by them.

We explore the notion of yichus and genealogy with specific focus on the convert.

Kiddushin 70: הַנּוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה לְשׁוּם מָמוֹן

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 70

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The fourth chapter of Massekhet Kiddushin, Perek Asarah Yuhasin, began on daf 69a with a Mishna that discussed the levels and characteristics of the families that returned to Israel from Bavel at the beginning of the Second Temple period. Specifically, the Mishna focused on which types of families were permitted to marry other families, and which were limited regarding the families that they were allowed to marry.

Converts are like Sapachas Rabbi Chelbo said: Converts are as harmful to the Jewish people as sapachas (a type of tzara’as). Rashi explains that this is because converts are not so meticulous in the performance of mitzvos, and those Jews who observe this behavior will become influenced by them.

We explore the notion of yichus and genealogy with specific focus on the convert.

Kiddushin 69: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל גְּבוֹהָה מִכׇּל אֲרָצוֹת מְנָלַן

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 69

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our new Perek begins with Ten different genealogical classes went up from Bavel (in the times of Ezra): Kohanim, Leviim, Yisroelim, chalalim, converts, and freed Canaanite slaves, mamzeirim, nesinim, shetukim (someone whose father is unknown) and asufim (his mother and father are unknown).

The Gemora asks: Why does it say, “They came up from Bavel”? It should have said, “They went to Eretz Yisroel”!? The Gemora answers: It is teaching us a point in passing. This is as the braisa states: “And you will arise and ascend to the place that Hashem, your God, will choose.” This teaches us that the Beis Hamikdash is higher than the rest of Eretz Yisroel, and that Eretz Yisroel is higher than all other lands.

We explore the notion of Israel being higher than all others lands as well as the use of Jewish genealogy in Timothy (by Prof Sandmel).

Kiddushin 68: בִּנְךָ הַבָּא מִיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית קָרוּי בִּנְךָ

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 68

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora had cited the verse You shall not make marriage with them as the source which teaches us that kiddushin does not take effect with a gentile.

The Gemora asks: But that verse is discussing the Seven Nations of Canaan. How do we know that kiddushin does not take effect with members of the other nations? The Gemora answers: It is written (with respect to marrying them): For he will turn your son away. This would include all those who would turn the Jewish people away from Hashem.

We explore the halachot of marrying out or extra marital relations.

Kiddushin 67: בָּאוּמּוֹת הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 67

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz says:

The Mishna (66b) offers guidelines for determining the family and legal status of a child. If a child is born from a union of two people who can marry each other, the child’s status follows the father (e.g. if he is a kohen or a levi). If the relationship that produced the child is a forbidden relationship, sometimes the child is defined by the relationship itself (e.g. a kohen who marries a divorcee, where the child is a halal – he is not a kohen and cannot marry into a priestly family), sometimes it follows the status of the mother (e.g. a shifha kena’anit – a non-Jewish maidservant’s child would be a slave), and sometimes the child is a mamzer.

We explore the history and switch between patrilineal and matrilineal descent and how it informed the liberal and conservative movements in their deliberations.

Kiddushin 66: וָיו דְּשָׁלוֹם קְטִיעָה הִיא

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 66

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In our sugya we encounter a particularly strange dispute. The Gemara cites a difference of opinion about how to write the vav in the word shalom in the pasuk, “Behold I give him My covenant of peace” (Bamidbar 25:12).

Some maintain that this vav should be a vav katia, meaning that it is it is not written exactly like other vav’s in the Torah. However, others are of the opinion that it is written just like any other vav.

We explore the nature of this curious deviation from the usual scribal practice and the implications for a fractured barbaric world where shalom has been forever fractured.

Kiddushin 65: כּוֹפִין וּמְבַקְּשִׁין

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 65

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf discusses cases where someone claims to have married another person and the alleged spouse denies that the marriage had taken place. In cases where it is one person’s word against the other, the ruling is that the person who claims that the marriage took place cannot marry any of the other person’s immediate relatives (e.g. their alleged brother-in-law or sister-in-law), while the person who denies that the marriage took place can marry anyone – including immediate relatives of the alleged spouse.

We further explore eidut le-kiyum ha-davar as well as the ethics of sexuality using Kant and Hermann Cohen as our guides.

Kiddushin 64: אֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 64

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Of great concern to the Torah is keeping up the honor and purity of the Jewish women.

Thus, in two places, the Torah lists forbidden sexual relationships (see Vayikra, Chapter 18 and Chapter 20:10-24), most of which are incestuous relationships. For these relationships, the punishment will be either karet (being “cut off” from the community, i.e. a symbolic death sentence) or mitat beit din (a capital offense).

Our daf presents the rejected position of Rabbi Akiva, who disagrees with Shimon ha-Temani and rules that any sexual relationship that is forbidden by the Torah – even a simple prohibition that will not carry with it the punishment of karet or mitat beit din – will preclude the possibility of marriage (i.e. not only is marriage forbidden.

We explore the exploitation of captive women in antiquity and in Devorim (Ki Setzei) informing us how to process the unspeakable horrors perpetrated last week in Israel.

Kiddushin 63: עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה אַבָּא

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If someone says to a woman, and says, “Become betrothed to me on condition that my father consents,” if the father agrees, the kiddushin is valid; otherwise, it is not. If the father died, she is mekudeshes. If the son died, we teach the father to say that he does not want (for this will retroactively uproot the kiddushin, and she will not fall for yibum).

We continue our exploration of conditional betrothals.

Kiddushin 62: הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי לְאַחַר שֶׁאֶתְגַּיֵּיר

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna teaches us that a woman is betrothed even if her husband believed he was marrying a priest but she is a levite, or vice versa. As long as this omission was not intentional, the betrothal holds. However, if a man says that he will betroth a woman after something else has happened - for example, if you/I convert, if you/I are emancipated, after your husband or sister dies, when you are able to perform chalitza, or when another man's wife gives birth to a female - in all of these cases, there is no betrothal.

We review the sugya of R. Meir who holds that a kinyan (an act of acquisition) can be done on something which is "lo ba la-olam" (not yet existant).

According to this view, a person can conclude a transaction which, under the existing conditions, is halakhically invalid, and the transaction will take effect when conditions permit.

Kiddushin 61: תְּנַאי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִּתְנַאי בְּנֵי גָּד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 61

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf brings the opinion of Rabbi Me’ir, who requires a set of rules according to which the condition must be made in order for it to be effective. Turning to a conditional agreement that appears in the Torah, Rabbi Me’ir argues that any condition that is made that does not follow the rules of the agreement between the tribes of Re’uven and Gad with Moshe, has no effect on the agreement.

We explore this demand and the source critical material analysis of Num 32.

Kiddushin 60: עַל מְנָת שֶׁאַרְאֵךְ מָאתַיִם זוּז

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our new mishah(s) states If someone says, “You are betrothed to me on the condition that I will give you two hundred zuz,” she is betrothed to him and he should give the money. If he says, “on the condition that I give you the money from now until thirty days,” if he gives it within the thirty days, she is mekudeshes; otherwise, she is not. If he says, “on condition that I have two hundred zuz,” she is mekudeshes if he has the money. If he says, “on the condition that I will show you two hundred zuz,” she is mekudeshes if he shows her the money.

We explore the intrusion of money in marriage and its breakdown…

Kiddushin 59: מַעֲשֶׂה מוֹצִיא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וּמִיַּד מַחְשָׁבָה

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 59

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan: All vessels descend into their state of contracting ritual impurity by means of thought. Although an unfinished vessel cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided not to work on it any further, it immediately assumes the status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. But they ascend from their state of ritual impurity only by means of a change resulting from an action. A ritually impure vessel, once it undergoes physical change, is no longer ritually impure.

We explore the idea of thought vs action in early Jewish/Christian theology and the work of Michael Wyschogrod.

Kiddushin 58: שֶׁנָּהַג בּוֹ מִנְהַג רַמָּאוּת

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The third Perek of Kiddushin begins with the following scenario:

A person who sends an agent out to betroth a woman on his behalf and then the agent betroths the woman to himself. The second section deals with a man who betroths a woman but sets the betrothal date to occur in thirty days. The question is, if someone else betroths her within those thirty days, is she betrothed to the first man or to the second?

The Gemara relates: Ravin the Pious was appointed an agent and went to betroth a woman to his son, but in the end he betrothed her to himself. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in the aforementioned baraita: What he did is done, but he has treated him in a deceitful manner? שֶׁנָּהַג בּוֹ מִנְהַג רַמָּאוּת How could a pious individual act in this fashion?

We explore the limits of halachic deceit שֶׁנָּהַג בּוֹ מִנְהַג רַמָּאוּת and the conflict between the letter and spirit of the law with Prof Daniel Statman’s analysis.

Kiddushin 57: עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַשָּׂדֶֽה

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 57

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, objects that appear to have value, but whose use is forbidden by Jewish law, cannot be used for kiddushin, which can only take effect if the object that is transferred from the husband to his wife has some minimal value. The Gemara on our daf examines each of the examples cited in the Mishna as being assur be-hana’ah – objects from which someone cannot derive any benefit – and searches for a source for them.

The Gemora had stated: One verse comes to include the metzora bird that is set free in the category of permitted birds. Another verse comes to include the slaughtered metzora bird in the category of forbidden birds.

The Gemora asks: Perhaps it is exactly the opposite!? Rava answers: It is not logical to assume that the Torah said that the bird should be sent away in a matter where it will create a stumbling block (for if this would be the bird that is forbidden, someone might mistakenly find this bird and eat it, for there is no way to recognize that this was a metzora bird).

We explore the Metzorah bird ritual and its ANE parallels.

Kiddushin 56: דּוֹרֵשׁ כׇּל אֶתִּין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 56

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Shimon Ha’amsoni, and others say that it was Nechemia Ha’amsoni, would expound on every word es that was written in the Torah. (This means that he would teach what the word es was coming to include.) When he reached the verse that states you shall revere es Hashem your G-d, he stopped expounding on the word es.

Shimon Ha’amsoni felt that it is impossible to equate the reverence of Hashem to anything else, so he retracted from all of his previous interpretations of the word es. When questioned by his students what would happen to all the words es that he had expounded upon previously, Shimon Ha’amsoni replied, “Just as I received reward for expounding on those words, I will receive reward for retracting my interpretations.

Rabbi Akiva arrived later and expounded the verse to mean you shall revere es Hashem your G-d, to include Torah scholars. Just like one is obligated to revere Hashem, so too, one must revere Torah scholars.

We explore the hermeneutical approach of Rabbi Akiva (vs Rabbi Ishmael).

Kiddushin 55: מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד מִגְדַּל עֵדֶר

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 55

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf continues its discussion of the desacralizing of consecrated property. We learnedin a mishna there (Shekalim 20a): If there was an animal fit for the altar that was foundstraying, from Jerusalem and as far as Migdal Eder, and similarly if it was found within that distance from Jerusalem in any other direction, it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. Males are presumed to be burnt-offerings, as only males can be brought as burnt-offerings. Females are presumed to be peace-offerings, as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering.

Where was Migdal Eder and how far from Jerusalem? How was it related to Rachel’s tomb and why did it become so central to the birthplace of Jesus?

Kiddushin 54: אַבְנֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf deals with further Mei'lah examples...Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yitzḥak said: With regard to stones of the walls and towers of Jerusalem that fell, one is liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple by using them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

This indicates that according to Rabbi Meir, the use of even such stones renders one liable, despite the fact that it is not possible for people to avoid benefiting from them.

We explore symbolism of the stones of Jerusalem and the Kotel.

Kiddushin 53: מָעוֹת הֵיאַךְ יֵצְאוּ לְחוּלִּין

For the source text click/tap here: Kiddushin 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The mishna teaches: And if he betrothed a woman with consecrated property belonging to the Temple treasury, if he does so intentionally, he has betrothed her, and if he does so unwittingly, he has not betrothed her; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says the opposite: If he did so unwittingly, he has betrothed her, but if he does so intentionally, he has not betrothed her.

According to the Mishna (52b) a portion from an animal that was brought as a sacrifice in the Temple cannot be used as kesef kiddushin. This is true for both kodashei kodashim – sacrifices like a sin-offering where the meat is given to the kohanim – as well as for kodashim kalim – sacrifices like a korban shelamim, where the meat is divided between the kohanim and the owner of the sacrifice.

We review the THE LEGAL CHARACTER OF JEWISH MARRIAGE in the works of SAMUEL HOLDHEIM and Zecharia Fraenkel’s response from the more conservative position.