Commentary for Kiddushin 4:20

עשרה יוחסין עלו מבבל – that Ezra set aside all of the ineligibles who were in Babylonia and they were brought up with him, in order that she shouldn’t be mixed with traced genealogies, because there was no Jewish court there.

Ten genealogical classes went up from Babylonia [in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah]: Priests, Levites, Israelites, halalim, converts, freed slaves, mamzerim, netinim, hushlings and foundlings.
Priests, Levites and Israelites may marry each other.
Levites, Israelites, halalim, converts, and freed slaves may marry each other.
Converts, freed slaves, mamzerim and netinim, hushlings and foundlings, may marry each other.
This mishnah introduces a concept that was very important in marital law in the mishnaic/talmudic times and continued to be a prominent factor in the choice of spouse throughout Jewish history: genealogical class. In Hebrew this is called: yichus. There are some genealogical “classes” who may not marry each other (Israelites and mamzerim, priests and converts). As I have stated before, in our modern society it is hard to grasp the importance of such categories in the ancient world. Until recently it was believed that a person is qualitatively reflected in their class; belonging to a social/religious class is an integral part of one’s identity. However, we should realize that in rabbinic halakhah class structure is only legally relevant to choice of marriage, and occasionally to positions of leadership. When it comes to other elements of society, Jews seem to have mingled relatively freely. The rabbis recognized well that a person’s integrity, wisdom and virtue did not depend upon his social class. Nevertheless, it was an important criterion in choosing a spouse.
Section one: The mishnah attributes the separation of the Israelites into ten genealogical classes to the return to Zion from the Babylonian exile in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. It is clear from the book of Ezra that genealogical lineage was an important issue to the authors of the book and to the leaders of that time period. Ezra demands that the men send away their foreign born wives. In the lists of returning exiles lineages are listed and there are verses which show that priests who couldn’t demonstrate their lineage were denied their priestly rights. In other words, although this mishnah may contain what is basically a legend, in may be based on some historical recollections.
According to the mishnah, which is probably legend, lineage was so important to Ezra that when he gathered up the exiles and brought them back to the land of Israel, he separated them into classes. When they returned to Israel, each person would therefore know their proper status.
Most of the classes mentioned in this mishnah should be familiar by now. Natinim are descendents of Temple slaves, and are actually mentioned in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (see for instance Ezra 8:20 and Nehemiah 7:62). Halalim are the children of disqualified priests. Hushlings and foundlings will be explained in tomorrow’s mishnah.
Sections 2-4: Here the mishnah lists who may marry whom. Subsequent mishnayot will clarify some of these statements. For now we should note that converts can marry Israelites and can marry mamzerim. Other sages hold that converts may not marry mamzerim. There is also some debate over whether certain types of converts may even marry priests.

חללי – Kohanim who were born from those who had been ineligible for the priesthood, such as a widow [married to] to a High Priest or a divorcee, the female issue of a Kohen’s illegitimate connection (or a Kohen’s wife illegitimately married to him), and/or a harlot to a common Kohen.

חרורי – freed slaves.

נתיני – Gibeonites who were circumcised in the days of Joshua, and were prohibited from marrying into the community [but would serve as water drawers and hewers of wood].

שתוקי ואסופי – we will explain them further on (Mishnah 2).

גיורי וחרורי ממזרין כו' כולם מותרים לבא זה בזה – for a community of converts is not considered a community, and Mamzerim are not warned about that they should not enter the community of converts, but Levites, and Israelites cannot [marry] with a Mamzer. And the illegitimate child of unknown fatherhood and the foundling, whose father and mother are unknown, are doubtful Mamzerim (i.e., illegitimate) and are permitted to be mixed with certain Mamzerim, for we say that into a clear congregation he may not enter, but into a doubtful congregation he may enter.

שתוקי. כל שהוא מכיר את אמו – that he calls, “Daddy,” but his mother silences him.

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned of two genealogical categories which we previously have not encountered: the foundling and the hushling. Our mishnah defines these two categories.

בדוקי – that they examine the mother. If she said that she was impregnated by an appropriate individual, the child is appropriate. And the Halakha is according to Abba Shaul.

These are they: a hushling (: he who knows who his mother is but not his father; A shtuki or a hushling is a kid who knows who his mother is, but doesn’t know who his father is. The word “shtuki” comes from the word for silence. When you ask the kid who his father is he is quiet because he doesn’t know.

A foundling (: he who was gathered in from the marketplace and knows neither his father nor his mother. An asufi or a foundling is a kid found in the streets who doesn’t know who his parents are. The word “asufi” comes from the word to be gathered, because he is gathered in from the streets.

Abba Saul used to call the hushling (, “checked one” (b’. Abba Saul would call the shtuki a b’duki (a checked one). The different name reflects a different halakhic position. According to Abba Shaul the child’s mother is believed to testify that the father is so-and-so. This is according to Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer in Ketubot 1:8-9.

כל האסורים לבא בקהל – even though we have taught in the beginning (Mishnah 1), that illegitimate children and Gibeonites who were circumcised at the time of Joshua are permitted to marry each other, it comes to tell us, for example, that an Ammonite or Moabite convert may marry an illegitimate child, an illegitimate child of unknown fatherhood and a foundling whose mother and father are unknown.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with the question of who can marry whom.

ר"י אוסר – It explains in the Gemara (Kiddushin 74a-b) that this is how it should understood. Rabbi Yehuda who prohibits a convert [marrying] an illegitimately-born woman, that these words refer to a convert of all the other heathens who is permitted to enter the congregation [of Israel], he is the one who is prohibited to marry an illegitimately-born woman, according to Rabbi Yehuda who holds that a congregation of converts is a congregation. But an Ammonite or Moabite convert who is prohibited from entering the congregation [of the LORD], Rabbi Yehuda would admit that he is permitted to [marry] an illegitimately-born woman.

All who are forbidden to enter into the assembly may intermarry with each other. According to this opinion, any person who cannot marry into the assembly (see Deuteronomy 23:1-9), meaning mamzerim, natinim, the shtuki and asufi (see yesterday’s mishnah for a definition of these terms) can marry each other. A mamzer, for example, could marry an asufi.

ודאן בודאן מותר – such as an illegitimately-born child with a Gibeonite.

Rabbi Judah forbids it. Seemingly Rabbi Judah says that every person from a class forbidden to enter into the assembly must marry another person from the same class. A mamzer would have to marry a mamzer, a shtuki would marry a shtuki, etc. The problem with this interpretation of his words is that there is no inherent logic to it. The Talmud explains that Rabbi Judah prohibits converts from marrying mamzerim. The Torah states that a mamzer should not come into the assembly of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:3). The question is: are converts considered part of the “assembly of the Lord”? According to Rabbi Judah the convert is part of the assembly of the Lord, and therefore they cannot marry mamzerim.

ודאן בספיקן – An illegitimately born child and a Gibeonite with an illegitimate child of unknown fatherhood and a foundling whose mother and father are unknown.

Rabbi Elazar says: those who are certain [may marry] those who are certain, but those who are certain with those who are doubtful and those who are doubtful with those who are certain and those who are doubtful with others who are doubtful this is prohibited. Rabbi Elazar says that those who are certainly prohibited from marrying into the assembly may marry others who are certainly prohibited. However, those who are doubtfully prohibited cannot marry anyone. The problem is that they don’t really know whether or not they are prohibited. If they are prohibited than they can’t marry priests, Levites or Israelites, but if they are not prohibited they can’t marry mamzerim, natinim, shtukim and asufim. A shtuki, for instance, couldn’t even marry another shtuki, lest one is “fit” and the other not “fit.” Therefore, they can’t marry anyone.

ספיקן בספיקן – an illegitimate male child of unknown fatherhood with an illegitimate female child of unknown fatherhood and a male foundling whose mother and father are unknown with a female foundling whose mother and father are unknown and [the case of] a male foundling whose mother and father are unknown with an illegitimate female child of unknown fatherhood. Even though each of these contains a doubt, it is prohibited, lest one was really “kosher/fit” and the other was unfit. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer.

Who are “those who are doubtful”? The shtuki, the asufi and the Samaritan. A shtuki and an asufi are in the category of “doubtful” because they don’t even know who their parents are. The Samaritans are “doubtful” because the very halakhic status of the Samaritans is questionable. Without delving into the history of the Samaritans (see the Encyclopedia Judaica for more details), they were (and still are) a group in the northern part of Israel that separated from those Jews living in Judea at an early period. They observed some of the same laws as did other Jews, but not in the same way. Marriage laws, namely kiddushin and gittin, were not observed in the same way that the rabbis prescribed and therefore any Samaritan is by definition of doubtful lineage.

וכותי – this is its doubt, since they are not expert in the laws of Jewish divorce and betrothal. And nowadays, they (i.e., the Rabbis) made them to be like complete heathens for all their matters.

ארבע אמהות – two from the side of the father and two from the side of the mother.

Introduction Before marrying, men were supposed to make “background checks” of their potential wives to uncover any potential “flaws” in their lineage. Our mishnah teaches that there are eight mothers whom he must check; if these eight mothers are fit to marry priests, then the man may assume that the woman whom he wants to marry is fit as well.

שהם שמונה – four from [the side of] the father and four from [the side of] the mother. And what are they? Her mother, her mother’s mother, the mother of her father’s mother, the mother of the mother of her father’s mother, the mother of her father, the mother of her father’s mother, the mother of her father’s father, the mother of the mother of her father’s father. We examine them so that there was not among one of them a disqualification/blemish.

He who marries a the daughter of a priest must investigate her lineage up to four mothers, which are eight: her mother and her mother’s mother, her mother’s father’s mother and her mother, her father’s mother and her mother, her father’s father’s mother and her mother. The first clause deals with priests who wish to marry the daughters’ of priests. In ancient times it was common for priestly families to intermarry with one another. The “four mothers” are 1) her mother; 2) her mother’s father’s mother; 3) her father’s mother; 4) her father’s father’s mother. For all four of these mother’s he must also check her mother. The Talmud explains that the mothers are checked and not the fathers since if there was a “flaw” in the male lineage, the men, when they argued with each other, would have cursed each other based on their faulty lineage. However, women don’t argue in such a manner and therefore if there were flaws in their lineage they would not have been made known. Therefore, he must check the mothers and not the fathers. The man must check and not the woman because women who are fit to marry priests are allowed to marry men disqualified from the priesthood, whereas priests are prohibited from marrying women disqualified from marrying priests.

ואם היתה לויה וישראלית – And a Kohen comes to marry her.

[In the case of] the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite, one more is added. Those men who wish to marry women of Levitical or Israelite families must check one more mother. It is unclear exactly what “one more mother” means. It either means that he goes back one more generation for each mother already checked (bringing us to 12 mothers), or that he checks one more mother on each side (for a total of 10). The reason that he must check back further is that it is more common for there to be faulty lineage in Levitical and Israelite families than it is in priestly families.

מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחת – one mother for each and every pair, such as her mother, and her mother’s mother, and the mother of her mother’s mother, and similarly for all of them, and that we examine the mothers, but we don’t examine the fathers, lest there is a disqualification in her father or in her father’s father, because it is the manner of people, when they put each other to shame through a dispute, they put each other to shame through traced genealogy for if there was any disqualification from the side of the fathers, it was known. But the women do not put each other to shame with disqualification of genealogy but rather through unchastity, and if there is within them a matter of disqualification of genealogy, it has no voice. And this obligatory examination is not mentioned, other than with a family that raises a protest against her legitimacy, but a family that does not have an suspicion about he, does not require an examination, for all families stand under a presumption of fitness, and the man alone must check when he comes to marry a woman from a family where there is a doubt, but the daughter of Kohen who comes to marry does not have to check upon the man [and his family], for there is no specific law prohibiting women of legitimate birth to marry men of illegitimate birth (see Talmud Yevamot 84b), and the daughter of a Kohen is permitted, ab initio, to marry a convert and a man unfit for the priesthood because of his father’s illegitimate connection, and the same law, all the more so, applies for the daughter of a Levite and an Israelite woman.

אין בודקין מן המזבח ולמעלה – He began to examine the mothers, and found that her father’s father served at the Altar, there is no need to examine after the mother of her father’s father, since her son served at the Altar, it is known that he is of legitimate descent.

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that men need to check their wives’ lineage before marriage. The normal check was eight mothers. Our mishnah teaches that if the woman father’s or one of the mother’s father’s served in a role where disqualified priests were not allowed, then they need not check back any further. I would make the following analogy: sometimes companies do background checks on potential employees. However, if the company for which the person previously worked is known for doing thorough background checks, a fresh check need not be done.

ולא מן הדוכן ולמעלה – if he found that he as a singer on the platform.

They do not check from the altar and upwards, nor from the duchan [dais] and upwards, nor from the Sanhedrin and upwards. If one of the woman’s fathers either served as a priest at the altar, or sung as a Levite from the duchan in the Temple or served in the Sanhedrin, the man who wishes to marry her need not check back in that branch any further. We should note that it is clear from here that lineage was a criterion for serving in the Sanhedrin.

ולא מן הסנהדרין ולמעלה – and especially from the Sanhedrin/Jewish court that was in Jerusalem, and even from those who adjudicated only monetary cases, for they would not place anyone from the Sanhedrin other than a Kohen, Levite or Israelite of legitimate descent, as it is states (Numbers 11:16): “And let them take their place there with you,” those that are similar to you in descent and in wisdom.

And all those whose fathers were established to have been among the public officers or charity collectors may marry [their daughters] into the priesthood, and he doesn’t need to check after them. Furthermore, if the father held a position of public trust then the husband need not check any further. Again we can note that lineage was a criterion in appointing men to positions of leadership. This section probably refers to the post-destruction period, whereas the previous section referred to positions held when the Temple still stood.

וגבאי צדקה – since they would quarrel with these people, they would seize the Tzedakah, and even on Fridays, if they had with them a matter, it would have a voice.

And all those whose fathers were established to have been among the public officers or charity collectors may marry [their daughters] into the priesthood, and he doesn’t need to check after them. According to Albeck, Rabbi Yose is referring to people appointed to approve documents in the old court in Tsippori. Normal witnesses would not undergo such thorough background checks.

בערכי ישנה של צפורי – In the Sanhedrins of the city whose name is Yeshanah, which is near to Sepphoris.

Rabbi Yose says: even one who was signed as a witness in the old court of Tzippori. While all sorts of people with all sorts of lineages could certainly serve as soldiers, only those with proper lineage were listed in the king’s list of officers (see I Chronicles 7:40).

ערכי – Sanhedrins where they would arrange and establish the genealogies.

אסטרטיא של מלך – in the monthly division of each month to go out to the wars of the House of David, a particular family in a certain month. And they would not go out to war other than those with legitimate descent , so that their merit and the merit of their ancestors would help them.

בת חלל זכר פסולה מן הכהונה לעולם – the daughter of his son or the daughter of his son’s son, until the end of all the generations, but the daughter of his daughter from an Israelite [father] is fit for [marriage into] the priesthood.

Introduction If a woman who is prohibited to a priest (a divorcee or a convert) has relations with a priest, she becomes a “halalah”, or a “profaned woman.” Her male child from such a union is a “halal”. A priest may not marry a “halalah”, as we learned in the first mishnah of this chapter. The word “halal” or “halalah” comes from Leviticus 21:7 where it states, “[He shall not take] a harlot (zonah) or a ‘halalah’”. While JPS translates this word as describing the harlot “a woman defiled by harlotry”, the rabbis understand the vav between harlot and halalah to be conjunctive. “Halalah” is not a description of the harlot but a woman of a different category. The final clause of the mishnah compares the rules for converts with those for the halal and halalah. A priest cannot marry a convert, as it says in Ezekiel 44:22, “They may marry only virgins of the stock of the House of Israel.”

בת גר זכר – even from an Israelites woman, is ineligible for [marriage into] the priesthood, just like the daughter of one unfit for the priesthood on account of his father’s illegitimate connection.

The daughter of a male halal is unfit for the priesthood for all time. The daughter of a male halal is a halalah. She may not marry a priest. Furthermore, the daughter of the son of a halal is also a halalah. The flaw of being a “halal” is passed down through the sons and therefore the daughter of any subsequent son of one of these halalim is herself a halalah and prohibited from marrying a priest.

If an Israelite marries a halalah, his daughter is fit for the priesthood. As stated above, being a halal is not passed down through the mother but through the father. Therefore the daughter of a marriage between an Israelite male and a halalah is permitted to marry a priest.

If a halal marries the daughter of an Israelite, his daughter is unfit for the priesthood. This section repeats the rule which we learned from section one. It serves as a contrast to section two and an intro to section four.

Rabbi Judah says: the daughter of a male convert is as the daughter of a male halal. Just as halalot (the plural of halalah) cannot marry priests, so too female converts may not marry priests. Rabbi Judah adds that just as the descent of halalot is determined by the father, so too is the descent of the convert. The daughter of a convert may not marry a priest. According to Rabbi Judah if an Israelite male married a female convert, their daughter could marry a priest. The next mishnah will continue to discuss this subject.

ור"א בן יעקב אומר וכו' – We bring to a conclusion in the Gemara (Kiddushin 78b) that he (i.e., a Kohen) who comes to take counsel, we give him a ruling in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, that a Kohen should not marry the daughter of a male and female convert, but if he marry [the daughter of converts], the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi, and we do not compel him to divorce her (literally: “we do not withdraw her from his hand), and his seed from her is fit [for the priesthood].

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss which descendents of converts may marry priests.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if an Israelite marries a female convert, his daughter is fit for the priesthood, and if a male convert marries the daughter of an Israelite, his daughter is fit for the priesthood. But if a male convert marries a female convert, his daughter is unfit for the priesthood. [The same law applies to] a convert as to freed slaves, even for ten generations, [his daughter is unfit] unless his mother is of Israelite stock. At the end of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that according to Rabbi Judah, the daughter of a male convert is unfit to marry a priest, even if the mother is an Israelite. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob goes one step further. As long as one of the parents is of Israelite lineage, the daughter may marry a priest. Only if both parents are converts is the female child forbidden from marrying a priest. The laws regarding the lineage of freed slaves are the same as those regarding converts. The daughter is unfit unless the mother, and also the father are of Israelite stock. [Note that the mishnah says his mother, but since we are referring to which daughters may marry priests, other versions read “their mother.” Also, although the mishnah only says “mother” it must also mean father, since even Rabbi Judah says that if the father is an Israelite, his daughter is fit to marry a priest.]

Rabbi Yose says: even if a male convert marries a female convert, his daughter is fit for the priesthood. Rabbi Yose’s opinion is that the only type of convert prohibited from marrying a priest is the convert herself. Children of converts, even if both parents are converts, are allowed to marry priests.

האומר בני זה ממזר הוא אינו נאמן – for he is a relative in relation to him, and a relative is not fit to testify.

Introduction In this mishnah we learn that parents are not believed if they say that their child is a mamzer.

ואפילו שמיהם – the husband and his wife, and it is not necessary that the father alone testifies that he is an illegitimate child, for he is not believed, who is not certain [of the child’s paternity], but even the mother who is certain [of the child’s paternity], she is [also] not believed (see Kiddushin 78b).

If a man declares, “this son of mine is a mamzer,” he is not believed. There are two explanations given for why a father is not believed to say that his child is a mamzer. The first is that the father is related to the child and relatives may not testify. The second is that by saying that the child is a mamzer, the father is testifying against himself and halakhah does not allow self-incrimination.

אפילו על עובר שבמעיה – who does not enjoy the presumption of fitness.

And even if both [the husband and wife] say about the fetus inside her, “it’s a mamzer” they are not believed. Even if both parents say that their child is a mamzer, which means that they are saying that the child is not from the husband but from an adulterous affair, they are not believed.

ר' יהודה אומר נאמנים – The reason of Rabbi Yehuda is that it is written (Deuteronomy 21:17): “[Instead, he must accept [the first-born, the son of the unloved one, and allot to him a double portion of all that he possesses….” – he will be accepted/recognized to others. From here [we learn that] the father is believed to disqualify his son, but the mother is not believed to disqualify her son. And especially regarding his son he believed, but not on the son of his son, for if this son had children, he would not not believed to disqualify them. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Judah says: they are believed. Rabbi Judah disagrees with both of the previous clauses. In the Talmud Rabbi Judah’s ruling is based on a midrash. That is to say his halakhah is not necessarily logical; rather it is based on his interpretation of Scripture.

וכן האשה שנתנה רשות לשלוחה – it was necessary for the Tanna [of our Mishnah] to inform us that the father that made [someone] his agent to betroth his daughter and a woman that made [someone] her agent to betroth herself, for had [the Mishnah] only mentioned [the case of] the father, I would think that the father that has established his traced genealogy, and when he found that he is of legitimate descent, he betrothed her to himself. And the case where say that he annulled his agent, but a woman who does not establish a traced genealogy, even though she betrothed herself, we don’t rely upon her betrothal, nor did she annul the agent, for she thought that perhaps, the agent would find a person of greater connection than this. And if we only mention about the woman, I would think that because the woman carefully investigates and marries, when she betroths herself, she voids the agent. But the man, who is not strict about his daughter, if she marries any husband, he has not voided the agency of the agent, and he who came first and betrothed her, though that perhaps he is not found. It is necessary. (See Tractate Kiddushin 79a)

Introduction Our mishnah deals with a scenario whereby a father sent an agent to betroth his daughter to a certain man and then the father betrothed her to a different man.

If a man gives permission to his agent to give his daughter in betrothal, and then he himself goes and gives her in betrothal to another, if his [betrothal] was first, his betrothal is valid; if the agent’s was first, his betrothal is valid. And if it is unknown, both must give her a divorce. And if they wish, one gives a divorce, and the other marries her. The ruling in this mishnah is straightforward: she is betrothed to who ever betrothed her first. Without the mishnah we might perhaps have thought that when the father sends an agent to betroth his daughter, and then he himself does that very same act, that he is in essence canceling the agent’s authority. Were that the case, then even if the agent’s betrothal came first, the daughter would be betrothed to the man the father betrothed her to. The mishnah teaches us that this is not so, and therefore whichever betrothal comes first is the betrothal that is valid. If it is unknown which came first, then they are both potentially married to her. Therefore, both of them must divorce her, or alternatively, one may divorce her and then the other can marry her.

Similarly, if a woman gives permission to her agent to give her in betrothal, and she goes and betroths herself [to another]: if her own preceded, her betrothal is valid; if her agent’s preceded, his betrothal is valid. And if they do not know, both must give her a divorce. And if they wish, one gives a divorce and the other marries her. This halakhah is the same, but from the woman’s perspective. She sends out an agent to accept betrothal on her behalf and then she changes her mind and accepts betrothal from someone else. The ruling is the same as above.

אינו צריך להביא ראיה לא על האשה – for she is of distinguished birth/well-connected , for she was examined when she got married.

Introduction This mishnah and tomorrow’s mishnah deal with establishing the identity of the wife of a man and children who come from overseas. In order to marry them to other Jews, he would need to establish their identities.

ולא על הבנים – the small children who are clinging to/running after their mother.

If a man went overseas together with his wife, and then he, his wife, and his children returned, and he said, “Behold, this is she [who went with me overseas,] and these are her children”, he need not bring proof with regard to the woman or the children. The mishnah rules that if the man went overseas with his wife and now returns with children he need not bring proof of the lineage of any of them. He need not bring proof of his wife’s lineage because he already checked it when he married her. He need not bring proof of the children’s lineage because it can be assumed that they are the children of his wife. The Talmud adds that the children must be “hanging on her”, meaning acting as if they are his children. [I’ll add that every time I return with my family from overseas, our children are certainly hanging all over us.] If the children are not treating her as their mother, we might suspect that they are not her children.

[If he declares,] “She died [abroad] and these are her children,” he must bring proof with regard to the children, but not with regard to the woman. If the woman with whom he went abroad died there and then he returns with children, claiming they are her children, he must bring proof that this is so. However, once he does so, he need not prove the “fitness” of the woman, because he already did so when they were married. It seems that he would need to have witnesses who would testify that these are his (deceased) wife’s children.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.

[If he says,] “I married a woman overseas, and behold, this is she, and these are her children”, he must bring proof about the woman, but not about the children. In this case, he goes abroad without a wife and returns with a wife and children. He must prove the lineage of the wife, because they were not married when he went abroad. However, once he proves her lineage, he need not prove the fitness of the children’s lineage, since it can be assumed that the two of them are the parents.

[If he says,] “She died, and these are her children”, he must bring proof about the woman and about the children. If he returns with children but no wife, he must prove two things. First he must prove that the woman he was married was not prohibited to him and that she had proper lineage. Once he proves that, he must prove that the children are her children.

לא יתיחד איש אחד עם שתי נשים – because they are light-headed and they both enjoy being enticed.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the prohibition of “yihud” a man may not be alone in a room with a woman. Indeed, the mishnah assumes this prohibition is known and qualifies it in various ways. The reason for this prohibtion seems to be that the rabbis made two assumptions: 1) men cannot control their sexual urges and therefore they will attempt to have sex with any woman with whom they are alone; 2) women cannot stop the men from making such advances.

אבל אשה אחת מתיחדת עם שני אנשים – for one is embarrassed from his fellow. And the Halakhic decision is that a woman should not be alone with two men, and all the more so, one man with two women, other than if there were two women who were rivals or sisters-in-law (i.e. widows of a brother who died without issue), or a woman and the daughter of her husband, or a woman and her mother-in-law, or a woman with a baby girl that knows the flavor of sexual intercourse and does not deliver herself to sexual intercourse, since these [pairs[ hate each other and are fearful one of the other, and similarly, she is afraid of the minor lest she see her and tell. And we whip on the private meeting of a free woman with a man, and on the private meeting with those [forbidden] because of incest , other than a married woman who is not whipped , in order that we would not cast suspicion on the legitimacy of her children (see Talmud Kiddushin 81a), but it is permitted to be alone with an animal and with a male, for Israelites were not suspected on pederasty and on relations with animals.

A man may not be alone with two women, but one woman may be alone with two men. It is taken for granted that a man may not be alone with one woman. The mishnah adds that one man may not be alone even with two women. The fear is that the presence of two women will not deter the man from making advances on either or even on both of the women. However, one woman may be alone with two men, under the assumption that the presence of another man will deter each man from engaging in a prohibited and socially unacceptable act (sex with a woman not his wife).

הגדילו זו ישנה בבסותה וכו' – and this is case where the daughter was from twelve years of age and the boy from thirteen years of age and one day. And at the time where she is embarrassed to stand before him unclothed, even younger than this, they sleep he with his clothes [on] and she with her clothes [on].

Rabbi Shimon says: even one man may be alone with two women, if his wife is with him, and he may sleep with them in an inn, because his wife watches him. Rabbi Shimon is more lenient and allows a man to be secluded with two women. According to the version of the mishnah which I translated above, such seclusion is only permitted if his wife is with him, for she will watch over him. However, other versions add the word “and” making this into a separate clause. They read that if a man’s wife is with him he may be alone with one other woman, and may even sleep in the same room with both of them in an inn.

A man may be alone with his mother and his daughter, and he may sleep with them in immediate bodily contact; but when they grow up, she must sleep in her garment and he in his. Seclusion is not prohibited with one’s mother or daughter. While he is a minor he may sleep naked in bed with his mother, and while his daughter is a minor, she may sleep naked in bed with him. When they grow up they may continue to sleep in the same bed, but they must be clothed. As an aside, it seems that people normally slept without a “garment.” After all, the land of Israel is rather warm and a blanket often suffices.

רווק – free, without a wife.

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned some of the laws which prohibit a man from being alone with a woman. As we saw, the assumption was that men cannot control themselves around women and women will not be able to ward off the men. Our mishnah and the next contain discussions of which professions are appropriate for men in light of these assumptions.

לא ילמד סופרים – he should not accustom himself to be one of the Scribes, that is to teach young children, because the mothers of these young children are found near him to bring their children to the school.

An unmarried man must not learn to be a scribe, nor may a woman learn to be a scribe. Part of a scribes work was to teach children how to read and perhaps how to write. In those days, it was often the child’s mother who would bring the child to school. Hence the teacher would have a lot of contact with the children’s mothers. Therefore, a man who has never been married should not learn to be a scribe/teacher, lest he come into too much contact with the mothers. Furthermore, sometimes men would bring their children to school. Hence, women and even married women should not be teachers. Note the difference in the halakhah between men and women. Only a man who has never been married may not work as a teacher. Once he is married he will be better able to control himself, for one of two reasons: 1) he has a place to channel his sexual energy; 2) his wife will watch over him. However, even a married woman should not be a teacher, because the men will make advances on her (even if they are married) and she will not be able to ward them off.

אף מי שאין לו אשה – even though he is not free, but rather, he has a wife who does not dwell with him, he should not teach young children. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Elazar says: even one who has no wife should not learn to be a scribe. Rabbi Elazar adds that not only a man who has never been married but even one who currently does not have a wife should not work as a teacher. Although he was once married, he will still have the same lack of sexual control and therefore should be controlled by the halakhah.

וחכמים מתירין – And the Halakha is according to the Sages, for Israelites were not suspected of pederasty.

Introduction This mishnah is the final mishnah of tractate Kiddushin, and the final mishnah of Seder Nashim. Large portions of the mishnah are not actually part of the Mishnah but were appended to it in later times, a not uncommon phenomenon in ends of tractates. However, we will explain the entire mishnah. Most of the mishnah discusses appropriate professions for scholars, the topic of yesterday’s mishnah as well. Whereas the mishnah begins by discussing those professions which are inappropriate because they might lead to sexual impropriety, it continues with professions that are inappropriate for other reasons. Finally, according to some rabbis, it is not proper for a sage to work at all. Rather he should spend his entire time learning Torah. While reading the mishnah we should keep in mind that our attitudes towards certain occupations have radically changed over the past two thousand years. Also our opinions about the value of work in general have largely changed. I read this mishnah as an exhortation for a person to place a priority upon their spiritual life over their material wealth.

כל שאומנותו בין הנשים – for the work of his craft is done for woman, and the women need him.

Rabbi Judah said: an unmarried man must not tend cattle, nor may two unmarried men sleep together under the same cover. But the sages permit it. This section continues the topic of yesterday’s mishnah. According to Rabbi Judah men should not be shepherds, lest they engage in bestiality. They should not sleep together in the same bed lest they have relations with each other. In contrast, the Sages permit men to work as shepherds and sleep in bed together because it is not feared that they will engage in bestiality or homosexuality.

לא יתיחד עם הנשים – and even with many women, because they become intimate with him, and are partial with him. But if there was another man with the two women, the Mishnah would teach that he shouldn’t, [but] three or four are even better. But Maimonides interprets that we don’t permit it, even because of the needs of his life to be intimate with woman, since his livelihood is from them.

One whose business is with women must not be alone with women. And one should not teach his son a woman’s trade. A man shouldn’t work in a profession where there will be many women around, lest they are left alone with women. Therefore a father should not teach his son a woman’s profession. We should note that the reason that a man shouldn’t engage in a woman’s profession is not that it is not “manly” enough. Rather the reason is that such a profession will bring him too much into contact with women.

חמר גמל וספן – all these are the trades of robbery, when they sleep on the roads, they go in and collect wood and fruit from the vineyards, and furthermore, they have the advantage over other people and violate their conditions.

Rabbi Meir says: one should always teach his son a clean and easy profession, and pray to Him to whom wealth and property belong. For a profession does not contain [the potential for] poverty and wealth, for poverty is not due to one’s profession nor is wealth due to the profession, but all depends on merit. Rabbi Meir teaches that there are two important aspects in choosing a profession. The first is that it be honest work, and the second that it not be overly taxing. Overly taxing work would prevent him from having enough time to study Torah. With regard to earning a living substantial enough to support one’s needs, this is not a function of choice of profession but rather of merit earned by living a life of Torah and prayer. When learning these words I find that it helps to remember that professions were not generally the means to become rich during this period in history. A person became wealthy by being a landowner, and land was usually inherited. Choice of profession and hard work certainly would have made some difference, but not nearly as much as it does today. If one couldn’t guarantee becoming wealthy in any case, Rabbi Meir says he might as well choose an honest profession that leaves him time to study Torah.

רועה – [his cattle] for he removes the cattle to graze in the field of others.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: have you ever seen a wild beast or a bird with a profession? Yet they are sustained without trouble. Now, were they not were created only to serve me, while I was created to serve my master: surely then I should make a living without trouble! But my evil acts have done me in and withheld my livelihood. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar presents a naturalistic ideal of human welfare. Were people to return to a more innocent state, they could provide for themselves as do animals without trouble. Transgressions and misbehavior have caused human beings their current hardships. There is in this section an allusion to the sins of Adam and Eve. Part of Adam’s curse was that he would have to work the land with great toil, and this curse was a direct result of his sin of eating of the Tree of Knowledge. I also read into these words an ecological message the more we corrupt the earth, the more difficult it will become for us to get from the earth that which we need. There is a lot we could learn from the animals when it comes to taking from our environment only what we need.

חנוני – is trained/experienced in fraud, to urinate water in wine and place pebbles in wheat, for a person is obligated to teach his son a clean craft.

Abba Gurion a man of Sidon says in the name of Abba Guria: one should not teach his son [to be] a donkey-driver, camel-driver, wagon-driver, sailor, shepherd, or shopkeeper, because their profession is the profession of robbers. Abba Gurion says that certain professions lead to thievery. The first four of these are professions which involve traveling and travel was dangerous in the ancient world. The problem is that these people may rob those whom they were hired to bring from one place to another. A shepherd was suspected of bringing his flocks to another person’s field. Storekeepers were suspected of cheating their customers. (We can see that this opinion did not stop Jews throughout history from engaging in some of these professions.)

Rabbi Judah says in his name: most donkey-drivers are wicked, while most camel-drivers are worthy men; and most sailors are pious. The best of doctors are destined for Gehenna, and the worthiest of butchers is Amalek’s partner. Rabbi Judah disagrees with Abba Gurion about the camel-drivers and sailors. Since these were professions that involved great danger, Rabbi Judah assumes that they would pray fervently to God for deliverance. In other words, being in dangerous situations makes people realize just how precarious life is, what a gift it is and that they should be thankful to God. Rabbi Judah adds that the best of doctors is going to end up in Gehenna in other words hell! To understand this we need to keep in mind that medicine in the ancient world was nothing like medicine is today. Often people who went to doctors would end up dying, perhaps even quicker than they would have otherwise. Being a butcher breeds cruelty, for the butcher must make himself insensitive to the animals pain.

Rabbi Nehorai says: I will abandon every profession in the world and I will not teach my son anything but Torah, for a person enjoys its reward in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come. But all other professions are not so; for when a man comes to sickness or old age or suffering and cannot engage in his profession, he must die of starvation, whereas the Torah is not so, for it guards him from all evil in his youth and gives him a future and hope in his old age. Of his youth what is said? “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength” (Isaiah 40:31). Of his old age what is said? “They shall still bring forth fruit in old age” (Psalms 92:15). And it is also said of our father Abraham, “And Abraham was old … And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1). We find that Abraham our father observed the whole Torah before it was given, for it is said, “Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5). Rabbi Nehorai’s statement is perhaps as extreme of a statement as can be found on the issue of work versus Torah study. It is not a vision that many rabbis shared, at least not in a practical sense. Nevertheless, there are some elements that in my opinion strike a deep chord. The first is that in a society without a system to provide for its elderly and in which people cannot save up large sums of money, a life of work does not leave one with enough to live on later in life. While there are some safeguards that exist today that didn’t exist in the ancient world, care of the elderly is still one of the most difficult and important issues facing society. The second is that when a person is older, nearer to the end of life, they usually judge their lives not based on how much work they have done, but what good deeds they have done, how well they have treated their families and what kind of a spiritual/moral legacy they will leave behind. I think that that is partly what Rabbi Nehorai is speaking about: when a person is older, all the work they did will not matter as much as the quality of the lives they led, and for the rabbis, the quality of life was measured by the amount of Torah studied. The mishnah, the tractate and the entire seder end with a midrash on Abraham. Abraham’s strength stood for him until very late in life. Indeed, he had Isaac when he was nearly 100 years old! The final midrash on Abraham states that he kept the whole Torah before it was given. In this context, this means that Abraham’s blessing came to him because of his observance of the Torah and not merely because of his faith in God (as the Christians taught). Congratulations! We have finished Kiddushin. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning this tractate and this entire Seder and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning them, so that we may not forget them and so that their lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. By now, if you have been learning with Mishnah Yomit from the beginning, you have finished two entire Seders of Mishnah. This is a tremendous accomplishment and you should feel satisfied with your hard work and devotion. Seder Nashim began with Yevamoth, a tricky tractate with many difficult laws concerning levirate marriage, worked its way through a tractate on marriage contracts (Ketuboth), two tractates on vows (Nedarim and Nazir), one on adulterous women (Sotah), neared completion with a tractate on divorce and finally, after all this learning, a tractate on how one enters marriage. So you had to wait until the end for the best part, but I’m sure it was worth the effort. So congratulations on making it through another tractate and seder. May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more Mishnah! Tomorrow we begin the first tractate of Seder Z’manim (appointed times), tractate Shabbat.