## Kiddushin Daf 67a

###### Kiddushin 67a:1
[Kiddushin 67a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67a:1)

גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא מַמְזֶרֶת, דְּיֵשׁ קִידּוּשִׁין וְאֵין עֲבֵירָה – הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם, דְּתַנְיָא: גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא מַמְזֶרֶת – הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא? מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: גֵּר לֹא יִשָּׂא מַמְזֶרֶת, וְיֵשׁ קִידּוּשִׁין וְיֵשׁ עֲבֵירָה – הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
there is the case of **a convert who married a *mamzeret*, where there is** a valid **betrothal and there is no transgression,** as they are permitted to marry each other, and yet **the offspring follows the flawed** lineage and is a *mamzer*. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a convert who married a *mamzeret*, the offspring is a *mamzer*.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei.** Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to** Rabbi Shimon: **Do you maintain** that **the mishna is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei?** Not so; **the mishna is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A convert may not marry a *mamzeret*, and** therefore in this case **there is betrothal and there is a transgression,** which is why **the offspring follows the flawed** lineage.


###### Kiddushin 67a:2
[Kiddushin 67a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67a:2)

וְנִיתְנְיַיהּ! תְּנָא ״כׇּל מָקוֹם״ דְּסֵיפָא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **let** the mishna **teach** this case as one of its examples. The Gemara answers: The mishna **taught** the principle: **Any case** where there is betrothal and a transgression, **in the latter clause,** precisely **to include** this kind of case. There is a guiding principle of the Gemara’s interpretation of the Mishna that a mishna does not include extraneous phrases. Every apparently superfluous phrase in the context of a principle serves to include or exclude a certain case from that principle. This is the basis of the discussion of the Gemara here and below.


###### Kiddushin 67a:3
[Kiddushin 67a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67a:3)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, וּתְנָא ״אֵיזוֹ זוֹ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** a different answer: **Actually,** the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, and** it **taught** the phrase: In **which** case **is this** applicable, **to exclude** cases of betrothal without a transgression other than those listed in the mishna. The offspring follows the lineage of the father only in those cases specified by the mishna.


###### Kiddushin 67a:4
[Kiddushin 67a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67a:4)

״וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ״ וְתוּ לָא? וַהֲרֵי חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּיֵשׁ קִידּוּשִׁין וְאֵין עֲבֵירָה – הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, כְּרַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** does the list that follows the phrase: In **which** case **is this** applicable, include all applicable cases? **And** are there **no more? But** there is the example of **a *ḥalal* who married an Israelite woman, where** there **is betrothal and there is no transgression,** and yet **the offspring follows the male,** as he too is a *ḥalal*. The Gemara rejects this claim: **This** is **not difficult,** as one can say that the *tanna* of the mishna **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Dostai ben Rabbi Yehuda,** who maintains that the offspring of this union is entirely fit.


###### Kiddushin 67a:5
[Kiddushin 67a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67a:5)

וַהֲרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֲלָלָה, דְּיֵשׁ קִידּוּשִׁין וְאֵין עֲבֵירָה – הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר! תְּנָא ״כׇּל מָקוֹם״ דְּרֵישָׁא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** there is the case of **an Israelite who married a *ḥalala*, where there is betrothal and there is no transgression,** and **the offspring follows the male,** and yet this case is not mentioned in the mishna. The Gemara responds: The mishna **taught** the principle: **Any case** where there is betrothal and no transgression, **in the first clause, to include** this situation.


###### Kiddushin 67a:6
[Kiddushin 67a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67a:6)

וְנִיתְנְיַיהּ בְּהֶדְיָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מִתְּנֵי לֵהּ. הֵיכִי נִיתְנֵי? כֹּהֶנֶת וּלְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית וַחֲלָלָה שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן לֵוִי וְיִשְׂרָאֵל – וַחֲלָלָה לְכֹהֵן מִי חַזְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let** the *tanna* of the mishna **teach explicitly** this example of an Israelite who married a *ḥalala*. The Gemara answers: He did not do so **because he cannot teach it,** i.e., the *tanna* cannot mention this *halakha* in brief as part of the list. The Gemara clarifies its answer: **How can** the *tanna* **teach** it? He cannot state: **A daughter of a priest; and a daughter of a Levite; and a daughter of an Israelite; and a *ḥalala*, who married a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite,** as, **is a *ḥalala* fit for a priest?** This marriage involves a transgression. Consequently, the sentence of the mishna cannot be constructed so as to include a *ḥalala*.


###### Kiddushin 67a:7
[Kiddushin 67a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67a:7)

וְהָאִיכָּא דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה – בְּנָהּ שְׁלִישִׁי הָוֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But there is** also the *halakha* **of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **a second-generation Egyptian man,** i.e., the son of an Egyptian convert, **who married a first-generation Egyptian woman,** a woman who herself converted, **her son is** considered **a third-generation** Egyptian who may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage. This is an example of a betrothal without a transgression where the offspring follows the father.


###### Kiddushin 67a:8
[Kiddushin 67a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67a:8)

תְּנָא ״כׇּל מָקוֹם״ דְּרֵישָׁא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי. וּלְרַב דִּימִי דְּאָמַר שֵׁנִי הָוֵי, תְּנָא ״אֵיזוֹ זוֹ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna **taught** the principle: **Any case** where there is betrothal and no transgression, **in the first clause, to include** this example. The Gemara adds: **And** according **to** the opinion of **Rav Dimi, who said** that this son **is a second-generation** Egyptian, the mishna **taught:** In **which** case **is this** applicable, at its beginning, with regard to betrothal that does not involve a transgression, **to exclude** this case. Rav Dimi maintains that this son may not marry a Jew of unflawed lineage.


###### Kiddushin 67a:9
[Kiddushin 67a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67a:9)

וְהָאִיכָּא, דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בָּאוּמּוֹת – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But there is** the following case, which apparently contradicts the principle of the mishna: **As when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael **he** said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to the nations,** i.e., if members of two different nations married when they were gentiles, **follow the male** to determine the status of their child. This is the case whether he is a regular gentile, who may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage as soon as he converts, or whether he is an Ammonite or an Egyptian, who may not marry a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage. In either case the child’s status follows that of the father.


###### Kiddushin 67a:10
[Kiddushin 67a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67a:10)

נִתְגַּיְּירוּ, הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶם. תְּנָא ״אֵיזוֹ זוֹ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If these members of two different nations **converted, follow the flawed** lineage **of the two.** These converts are permitted to marry one another and their betrothal is effective. If either the father or mother is Egyptian, the child follows the parent with the flawed lineage and would be Egyptian, whereas according to the principle stated in the mishna, one should follow the male. The Gemara answers: The mishna **taught:** In **which** case **is this** applicable, in the first clause, **to exclude** this case.


###### Kiddushin 67a:11
[Kiddushin 67a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/67a:11)

הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, ״כׇּל מָקוֹם״ דְּרֵישָׁא – לְאֵתוֹיֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֲלָלָה, וּדְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, ״אֵיזוֹ זוֹ״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי דְּרַב דִּימִי וְרָבִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to an earlier point: **What is this** claim, that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? **Granted, if you say that the mishna is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** one can explain that the phrase: **Any case, of the first clause,** serves **to include an Israelite who married a *ḥalala*,** as the child follows the father in that case too, **and** also to include the ruling of **Rabba bar bar Ḥana** that the son of a second-generation Egyptian who married a first-generation Egyptian woman is a third-generation Egyptian. Furthermore, the expression: In **which** case **is this** applicable, serves **to exclude** the ruling of **Rav Dimi** that her son is a second-generation Egyptian, **and** the statement of **Ravin** citing Rabbi Yoḥanan.