Q&A: Doubtful Mamzer
Doubtful Mamzer
Question
Kiddushin 73a.
“A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.”
It is only a definite mamzer who may not enter, but a doubtful mamzer may enter.
What kind of exposition is this??
(In the Rashba there, that Maimonides’ source is from there, that a Torah-level doubt is permitted by Torah law, and he rejects it.
Granted, according to Maimonides, it’s possible that the Talmud’s intention is that every doubt is permitted by Torah law, though that too is a bit strange,
but according to the Rashba there—as is explained in his words—this is an exposition, so what exactly is there here to expound? Should the verse have been written in gematria or as an acronym????)
Answer
Maimonides writes explicitly in a responsum that this is his source, even though many later authorities (Acharonim) challenged him from there (why would an exposition be needed if this is the general rule?). People have already addressed this. If this is an exposition, then the difficulty is of course also against Maimonides. Some explained that this is not really an exposition but a general conceptual understanding. When a term of some kind is written, it refers to a definite case and not to a doubtful one, and from here Maimonides derived the general rule that in a case of doubt one rules leniently. And perhaps this is just a supporting exposition, meaning that from Maimonides’ perspective this is a source that shows the Sages had such a tradition, not a source from which the law itself is actually derived.
Regarding the Rashba, that is a good question. It may be that even according to his approach this is not an exposition but an attachment of a known law that was accepted by tradition. Or perhaps the exposition is based on a different word order in the verse and not on an extra word (for example, “a mamzer shall not enter” instead of “mamzer shall not enter,” or something like that).