THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
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.
1) THE TZADIK OF A NEW GENERATION
QUESTION: The Gemara says that at the moment that Rebbi Akiva died, Rebbi
was born. When Rebbi died, Rav Yehudah was born. When Rav Yehudah died, Rav
Ashi was born. This shows us that a Tzadik does not leave this world until
another Tzadik like him has been created, as we learn from the verse, "The
sun rises, and the sun sets" (Koheles 1:5) -- before the sun (referring to a
Tzadik) sets (i.e. dies), another sun has risen.
2) HALACHAH: THE LINEAGE OF JEWS FROM ALL LANDS OTHER THAN BAVEL
(a) The verse, however, seems to be describing the regular course of natural
events, sunrise and sunset. What indication is there in the verse that
alludes to the birth and death of Tzadikim?
(b) Why does the verse compare the continuing chain of Tzadikim to the
rising and setting of the sun, and not to any other event that expresses
(a) The IYUN YAKOV explains that if the verse was referring only to the
beginning and end of the day, then the order should have been reversed --
"The sun *sets*, and the sun *rises*," because the day begins at nightfall
with regard to all Halachic matters (except for Kodshim), and like the verse
in Parshas Bereishis says, "It was night, and it was morning." From the
change in the order of the verse, the Gemara saw an allusion to this
(b) The SEFER HA'MIKNAH explains that sunset does not indicate the end and
demise of the sun, but rather it merely marks the moment that the sun leaves
our range of vision. When darkness descends, the darkness is not a sign that
the sun no longer exists, but rather that it has gone beyond us. The same is
true with the death of a Tzadik The radiance of the Tzadik does not cease
when he dies. Rather, it continues in all of its grandeur and strength, and
we are just unable to see it in this world. It can be seen only in Olam
The SEFER HA'MIKNAH points out further that there is a degree of Yeridas
ha'Doros, a decrease in the spiritual quality of the generations, as the
generations move further away from the time that the Torah was given at Har
Sinai. The verse compares the rising of the new sun to the setting of the
old sun, to teach that the new Tzadik who is born into the new generation is
only comparable to the "setting sun" of the previous generation, and does
not shine with the same splendor with which the rising sun of the previous
generation shined (this is similar to the Gemara in Bava Basra 75a).
OPINIONS: The Mishnah (69a) implies that only the Jews who ascended to Eretz
Yisrael from Bavel are "b'Chezkas Kashrus," while Jews from other places are
not "b'Chezkas Kashrus." Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel says that this is
the view of Rebbi Meir, and that the Chachamim argue and say that Jews from
*all* lands are "b'Chezkas Kashrus."
3) THE FUTURE OF MAMZERIM
The Gemara relates an incident in which Ameimar ruled in accordance with the
view of the Chachamim, as expressed by Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel,
and permitted Rav Huna bar Nasan to marry a woman from an area outside of
Bavel. The Gemara says that even though a number of Amora'im dispute this
ruling of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel and maintain that the Chachamim
do not argue with Rebbi Meir, Ameimar was relying on Rav Zevid of Neherda'a,
who agreed with this statement of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel.
What is the Halachah with regard to Jews who come from lands other than
The SHULCHAN ARUCH (EH 4:2) rules according to the Chachamim, that families
from all lands are "b'Chezkas Kashrus" and one may marry someone from any
family, even l'Chatchilah. The BI'UR HA'GRA points out that even though all
of the Sugyos in the beginning of this Perek assume that "Kol ha'Artzos Isah
b'Bavel" -- "all lands are considered 'Isah' when compared to Bavel," in
addition to the Gemara earlier on this Daf that discusses the borders of
Bavel with regard to Yuchsin (implying that all other lands are *not* like
Bavel), we nevertheless rule in accordance with this statement of Rav
Yehudah in the name of Shmuelę, since Ameimar ruled like that in practice,
and therefore that is the Halachah.
The Gemara states that all families are "b'Chezkas Kashrus." Does this refer
only to families living among Jews, who -- until today -- are assumed to be
part of the community of Kosher and valid Jews and can thus be considered to
have a Chazakah of Kashrus, or does it refer even to a family that comes
from a far-away land and that no one knew about until today?
The BEIS SHMUEL (EH 4:3) cites a Machlokes Rishonim on this matter.
(a) The TUR maintains that only a family that was previously known by the
Jewish community is considered to have a "Chezkas Kashrus." If the family
was not known, there is a fear of Mamzerus and Avdus.
(b) The ROSH and RAMBAN maintain that even a family that was not known
heretofore is considered to have a "Chezkas Kashrus" (except with regard to
QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which records a Machlokes between Rebbi
Yosi and Rebbi Meir regarding the status of Mamzerim and Nesinim in the
future, when Mashi'ach comes. Rebbi Yosi says that Mamzerim and Nesinim will
become Tahor, and Rebbi Meir says that they will not become Tahor.
How can Rebbi Yosi maintain that Mamzerim will be Mutar? The Torah
explicitly states that "a Mamzer shall not come into the congregation of
Hashem" (Devarim 23:3)! How can Rebbi Yosi say that an Isur d'Oraisa will be
uprooted in the future?
(a) The RASHBA explains that the purification of Mamzerim at the time of the
arrival of Mashi'ach will be in the context of a "Hora'as Sha'ah," a
temporary ruling necessary for the circumstances of the time. All Mamzerim
alive at that time, and at that time only, will become Mutar. After that
time, though, the Isur will again be in effect (if such an unfortunate
situation arises again). Even though no Mitzvah can be changed by any Navi,
the concept of "Hora'as Sha'ah" enables us to temporary suspend a Mitzvah
(as in the case of Eliyahu ha'Navi with regard to the Isur of building
(b) The RITVA explains that the Gemara is not referring to a *Vadai* Mamzer,
a definite Mamzer, but rather to "Mishpachos she'Nit'me'u," families into
which a Mamzer married and whose status is unknown. It is Rebbi Yosi, points
out the Ritva, who holds of the principle that "once they have become mixed
in, they have become mixed in." Rebbi Meir apparently argues with that
According to the Ritva, it is unclear what the question of the Gemara is
from the verse, "v'Yashav Mamzer b'Ashdod" -- "And a Mamzer will dwell (be
separated, -Rashi) in Ashdod" (Zecharyah 9:6), on the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.
Perhaps the verse is referring to a *Vadai* Mamzer! The Ritva explains that
if the Mamzer mentioned in the verse is a Vadai Mamzer, then there would be
no need to separate him, since his Pesul would be known to all. On the
contrary, since a special act of separation had to be made, it must be that
his status is that of a Safek Mamzer.