Daf Yomi - Yevamos 45 - Highlights

Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Everyone agrees that a Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Jewess, the child born will be a mamzer.

The Gemora explains: Even Shimon Hatimni, who maintains that a marriage which is subject to a negative prohibition will not produce a mamzer, will agree in this case since kiddushin does not take effect with them. It would be similar to the halacha regarding women who are subject to the penalty of kares.

The Gemora asks from a braisa: A Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Jewess, the child born will be a mamzer. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah maintains that a mamzer can only be produced from a marriage which is punishable by kares. This Tanna follows Shimon Hatimni’s opinion and nevertheless, he does not agree by a Canaanite slave or an idolater.

Rav Yosef explains Rabbi Yochanan’s statement differently: Rabbi Yochanan is referring to Rebbe. Although Rebbe quoted Rabbi Akiva who holds that a chalutzah is like an ervah in respect to the child being a mamzer (since he maintains that any union with a relative subject to a negative prohibition will produce a mamzer), Rebbe does not subscribe to this view; nevertheless, Rebbe would agree that a Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Jewess, the child born will be a mamzer.

This is known because Rav Dimi arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisroel, he said in the name of Rav Yitzchak in the name of Rebbe that a Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Jewess, the child born will be a mamzer.

Rabbi Acha Lord of the Birah and Rabbi Tanchum son of Rabbi Chiya, who was a resident of Kfar Acco ransomed Jewish Captive women who were coming from Armon to Teveria. There was one woman among them who became pregnant from an idolater. They came before Rabbi Ami, and he said: Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Elozar and Rabbi Chanina all say that a Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Jewess, the child born will be a mamzer.

Rav Yosef asked: What is special about listing names who all hold the same way? Rav and Shmuel from Bavel, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Bar Kappara from Eretz Yisroel (and some omit Bar Kappara’s name and insert instead the Elders of the South) say: A Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Jewess, the child born will be fit.

Rav Yosef said: The child is indeed a mamzer because Rav Dimi arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisroel, and said in the name of Rav Yitzchak in the name of Rebbe that a Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Jewess, the child born will be a mamzer. Rebbe’s opinion is authoritative.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the child is damaged.

The Gemora analyzes this ruling: The child cannot be a mamzer because Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said before that the child is fit. He must mean that the child is tainted for the Kehunah.

This is derived through a kal vachomer from the prohibition of a widow to a Kohen Gadol. The prohibition regarding a widow is not applicable to all men, only to a Kohen Gadol, and nevertheless, a child from such a union will be tainted for the Kehunah; then certainly regarding a Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Jewess, which is applicable to everyone, the child should be tainted for the Kehunah.

The Gemora asks on this kal vachomer: We cannot bring proof from a widow because we rule strictly there; a widow who cohabitates with a Kohen Gadol becomes disqualified herself. Perhaps that is the reason that the child will be tainted for the Kehunah. A Jewess, who cohabits with a Canaanite slave or an idolater does not become disqualified for Kehunah; perhaps the child is not tainted either.

The Gemora answers: A Jewess, who cohabits with a Canaanite slave or an idolater does become disqualified for Kehunah. Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: From where do we know that a Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Kohenes, Leviah or Yisraelis will render her unfit to eat terumah? He cites a verse in Vayikra 22:13 which teaches us that a Kohenes who marries a non-Kohen is not permitted to eat terumah. If she should become widowed or divorced without having any children, she returns to her father’s house and may eat terumah. This is only when she was legally married to someone who can cause her to become a widow or get divorced; a Canaanite slave or an idolater are excluded because they cannot cause her to become a widow or get divorced. We learn from here that a Jewess, who cohabits with a Canaanite slave or an idolater does become disqualified for Kehunah. (44b – 45a)

Abaye asked Rav Yosef: Why were you relying on Rav Dimi’s report in the name of Rebbe; why don’t you rely on Ravin? When Ravin came to Bavel from Eretz Yisroel he said: Rabbi Nosson and Rebbe ruled that the child is fit.

The Gemora states that Rav also ruled that the child is fit. There was once a man who came to Rav and asked him: “What is the law regarding a Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Jewess?” Rav said: “The child is fit.” The man said: “If so, give me your daughter to marry (the man was from such a union).” Rav replied: “I will not give her to you.” Shimi bar Chiya said to Rav: “People say, ‘A camel in Medea dances in a kav (a camel can dance with its four legs in a small jar – an saying which means that people invent far-fetched stories from far away places that cannot be substantiated).’ We have the kav and the camel, and this is Medea, but it is not dancing (if you ruled that it is permitted, give your daughter to him in marriage).” Rav answered: “Even if he were as great as Yehoshua son of Nun, I would not give my daughter to him.” Shimi told Rav: “If he were as great as Yehoshua son of Nun, even if you will not give him your daughter, others would certainly give him theirs; however, regarding this man, if you do not give him your daughter, nobody will.” Rav refused to change his mind and the man did not leave Rav. Rav gazed upon the man, and he died.

The Gemora states: Rav Masneh also ruled that the child is fit. Rav Yehudah also permitted the child. A man from such a union came to Rav Yehudah and Rav Yehudah said to him: “Go to a place where they will not recognize you, and you can marry a Jewess, or stay here and marry someone of your same type. Rava told the man the same advice. (45a)

The residents of Bei Michsei inquired of Rabbah: One who is a half slave and half free who cohabits with a Jewess, what is the halacha regarding the child? He said to them: If the halacha regarding a complete slave is that the child is fit, certainly regarding half a slave, the halacha should be the same?

Rav Yosef said: Rav Yehudah said that a Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Jewess, the child born will be fit, but yet he also said that a half slave and half free who cohabits with a Jewess, the child does not have any remedy (he is a mamzer). How can this be?

The Gemora answers: Rav Yehudah is referring to a case where the half slave, half free man married a Jewess and then cohabited with her. It emerges that the portion of him that is still enslaved (where kiddushin is not effective) is cohabitating with a married woman (albeit, his own, and that would render the child a mamzer). (The ruling issued above that the child is fit and not a mamzer was referring to cases where the Jewess was unmarried, but if she would have been married, the child would be a mamzer.)

The Gemora asks: Didn’t the Nehardeans say in the name of Rabbi Yaakov that the one who considers this child a mamzer does so even in the case of an unmarried woman; and the one who maintains that the child is fit does so even in the case of a married woman?

The Gemora answers: Rav Yehudah is referring to a case where the half slave, half free man cohabited with a married woman (not his own). Here, the child is certainly a mamzer based on his free half. (45a – 45b)

Ravina said: Rav Gaza told me that Rabbi Yosi bar Avin visited our city, and there was a situation where a slave cohabited with an unmarried Jewess, and he ruled that the child is qualified; there was another situation regarding a married woman, and he ruled that the child is a mamzer.

Rav Sheishes related this incident differently: Rav Sheishes said: It wasn’t Rabbi Yosi bar Avin, but rather Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Zevida. He ruled that the child is qualified in the case of the unmarried woman and in the case of the married woman.

The Gemora issues a ruling: The halacha is that a Canaanite slave or an idolater who cohabits with a Jewess, the child born will be qualified whether in the case of the unmarried woman and whether in the case of the married woman. (45b)

Rava ruled that Rav Mari bar Rachel is qualified and he appointed him as an officer in Bavel. (Rav Mari’s mother, Rachel, was taken captive and Issur, one of her captors, cohabited with her. She gave birth to Mari. Issur later converted.) Rav Mari could be appointed an officer because his mother was Jewish, and therefore he was a Jew as well. (45b)

[END]