Daf Yomi: An Eventual Resolution

An Eventual Resolution

“May the Likes of You Increase Manifold in Israel”

(Bechoros 45b)

The Gemara on our daf continues the discussion regarding the unique deformities which would invalidate a kohen from performing any ritual service. One of them is a person with additional extremities – fingers and/or toes. In the Mishna (45a), there is a dispute between R. Yehuda and the Sages about whether this type of deformity is a disqualifier for a kohen. R. Yitzchak on our daf explains that both derive their opinions from the same pasuk (II Samuel 21:20), which describes a man of unique stature in one of the battles who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, for a total of twenty-four. Thus, there were two different opinions on how to view this pasuk. R. Yehuda saw the pasuk as praising the prowess of such an individual. The Sages, on the other hand, viewed Scripture as disparaging this person.

The Gemara relates that R. Yehuda said that just such a man once came before R. Tarfon with additional fingers and toes. R. Tarfon said to him, “May the likes of you increase manifold in Israel.” Obviously, that is a positive view. R. Yose objected and said that what R. Tarfon really meant was “through you, may mamzerim and nesinim decrease in Israel.” (Since the verse is talking about Giv’onim, who were the nesinim that King David in a decree excluded from marrying into the Jewish people, what is meant is that the deformity will be so noticeable that it will clearly identify the person as unfit.)

The question is how did R. Yose include mamzerim in that pasuk, which refers only to nesinim?

Cursing One’s Father

The Mishna (Yevamos 22b) states that wounding or cursing a father is subject to capital punishment (Shemos 21:15,17). The Mishna notes that any kind of son is subject to this penalty – even a mamzer, the result of an illicit union.

The Gemara derives from this verse that the prohibition against cursing a father applies only if the father is “oseh ma’aseh amcha” – literally, one who is observant of the laws of the Torah. (Rambam, Hilchos Mamrim 6:12, rules that the son is obligated to honor his father in any event, whereas the Tur, Yoreh De’ah 240, disagrees.) Consequently, the Gemara explains that a son born from an illicit union is not subject to a penalty for cursing his father unless the father has repented for his immoral acts and is no longer considered a sinner.

Even So, Repent, My Friend

The Gemara wonders how it is possible to achieve atonement for this sin, for Shimon b. Menassiah says (Chagiga 9a) that fathering a mamzer through an illicit union is labeled “Me’uvas lo yuchal liskon” – That which is crooked [and] cannot be made straight (Ecclesiastes 1:15). In other words, it is a misdeed that cannot be remedied. The Gemara answers that even though fathering a mamzer is called a misdeed that cannot be remedied, if the father repents, he falls into the category of one who is observant of Torah laws, and cursing him is therefore forbidden.

There are several approaches to understanding the Gemara’s conclusion.

Constant Humiliation

Rabbenu Chayyim (Tosafos, Bava Bathra 89b) maintains that the immoral father who does teshuvah is considered to be observant of Torah laws because repentance fully eradicates all sins (even if a mamzer was produced). When Shimon b. Menassiah says that this type of sin is referred to by King Solomon as a misdeed without remedy, he simply means that the sinner will suffer endless humiliation since the effect of his act (the mamzer) is a constant reminder of his immoral deed (Tosafos, Chagiga 9a. s.v. “zeh”).

Removing Stigma

Rashi (infra Yevamos 21a s.v. “arayos” and Chagiga 9a s.v. “ve’holid”) indicates that even according to the Gemara’s conclusion, the sin of immorality cannot be entirely eradicated if a mamzer was produced, since the effects of the sin are present in the world. The Gemara explains, however, that although teshuvah for such a sin is not entirely effective, it is sufficient to remove the stigma of classifying the father as a sinner, thus making the son liable to a penalty for cursing him.

“Trace” Sin

Kovetz He’aros (end of siman 21) explains that the novelty of teshuvah is that Hashem does not merely cleanse one’s sins. He usually eradicates all traces of the sin retroactively so that it is considered as though the sin was never committed. Shimon b. Menassiah teaches that if the sin produced a mamzer, however, it cannot be eradicated retroactively, since a visible trace of the sin still exists. The Gemara explains that, nevertheless, if the father repents, the son may not curse him because the father is not considered a sinner from that point onward.

Shouting from the Rooftops

Now let us consider R. Tarfon’s position as explained by R. Yose. It is not that mamzerim are easily identifiable by a physical deformity; rather, R. Yose is suggesting that any means by which a mamzer’s status becomes publicly known to all is favorable, as it thereby protects any unknowing individual from the calamity of a Torah-forbidden marriage. By preventing the mamzer from marrying into the Jewish people, eventually the physical sign of the father’s transgression will cease to exist, leaving no trace. This will assure the sinner’s eventual, even if posthumous, exoneration and restore his standing before Hashem as a ba’al teshuvah.