Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 23, 2022 | ื›ืดื‘ ื‘ืื™ื™ืจ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Yevamot 77

Today’s daf is sponsored by Aviva Adler in loving memory of her father, Professor Joseph Kahane’s 6th yahrzeit, Yosef ben Rachel v’Tzvi HaKohen.ย 

When Doeg the Edomite recommended to King Saul to look into David’s lineage to disqualify him on account of his great grandmother Ruth, in the end, Yeter, the father of Amasa brought down a tradition he had learned from Shmuel that Moabite and Amonite women are permitted. There are two different tannaitic opinions explaining on what basis are the women excluded from the prohibition. Three different verses in Tehillim are explained to be connected to this incident as David is thanking God for saving him from those trying to attack his lineage and that of his grandson, Rechavam whose mother was Naama the Amonite. Ulla quotes Rabbi Yochanan as ruling that the daughter of a male convert from Amon is permitted to marry a kohen. According to who is this statement made? If it was said according to Rabbi Yehuda, he rules that the child of a convert is like the child of a chalal and is disqualified from marrying a kohen. If it was said according to Rabbi Yosi, he permitted the daughters of converts so it is obvious! In the end, they explain the case: if the child of a convert from Amon with a Jewish woman, which is a forbidden relationship and even according to Rabbi Yosi, one may have thought here that since the child was born from a forbidden union, perhaps she would be disqualified from marrying a kohen. Reish Lakish in fact holds that she is disqualified, but Rabbi Yochanan permits it. On what basis does Rabbi Yochanan permit it? He disagrees with Rabbi Zakkai on how to explain the words in the verse in Vayikra 21:14 that a kohen gadol can marry a virgin from his own people. What does “from his own people” refer to? Two different versions of Rabbi Yochanan’s drasha are brought. There is an alternate version of his discussion and disagreement with Rabbi Zakkai. According to the second version, why would the child of an Egyptian convert with an Israelite be permitted to marry a kohen? What is the retort that the rabbis could have made to Rabbi Shimon’s kal vachomer in the Mishna regarding the female Edomite and Egyptian converts?

ืืงืฉื™ ืœื”ื• ื“ื•ืื’ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ืงื•ืฉื™ื™ืชื ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื• ื‘ืขื™ ืœืื›ืจื•ื–ื™ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื™ื“ ื•ืขืžืฉื ื‘ืŸ ืื™ืฉ ื•ืฉืžื• ื™ืชืจื ื”ื™ืฉืจืืœื™ ืืฉืจ ื‘ื ืืœ ืื‘ื™ื’ืœ ื‘ืช ื ื—ืฉ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ืชืจ ื”ื™ืฉืžืขืืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื—ื’ืจ ื—ืจื‘ื• ื›ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉื•ืžืข ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื• ื™ื“ืงืจ ื‘ื—ืจื‘ ื›ืš ืžืงื•ื‘ืœื ื™ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืจืžืชื™ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืœื ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ื•ืœื ืžื•ืื‘ื™ืช

Doeg raised before them all those objections from the others who are disqualified from entering into the congregation, and they were silent, not knowing how to respond. Doeg then wanted to proclaim that David was disqualified from entering into the congregation. He was immediately answered. Here it says: โ€œNow Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Jithra the Israelite, that went into Abigal the daughter of Nahashโ€ (IIย Samuel 17:25), and yet elsewhere it is written that Amasaโ€™s father was named โ€œJether the Ishmaeliteโ€ (Iย Chronicles 2:17). Rava said: This teaches that he girded his sword like Ishmael, i.e., like an Arab, and said: Whoever does not accept this halakha and act accordingly shall be stabbed with the sword. This is the tradition that I received from the court of Samuel from Rama: An Ammonite man is prohibited from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman; a Moabite man is prohibited from entering into the congregation, but not a Moabite woman.

ื•ืžื™ ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ืฉืžื•ืจื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ื‘ื ืื ืงื•ื“ื ืžืขืฉื” ืืžืจื” ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื• ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉืื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื“ื”ื ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืงื™ื™ื

The Gemara asks about this incident: And is he trusted to offer such testimony? But didnโ€™t Rabbi Abba say that Rav said: With regard to every Torah scholar who issues a halakhic ruling based on a tradition he claims to have received from his teacher, and that ruling has practical ramifications for himself as well, if he stated the ruling already before the incident, i.e., before it had a bearing on his own case, one listens to him; but if not, if he reported the tradition only after it was personally relevant to him, one does not listen to him, as he is an interested party. Since Amasa was the son of Jesseโ€™s daughter Abigail, as stated in the aforementioned verse in Chronicles, the matter certainly affected his own status. The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as Samuel and the other members of his court were still living, and the truth of Amasaโ€™s report could be easily verified.

ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื›ื ืชืจื’ืžื• ื›ืœ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืช ืžืœืš ืคื ื™ืžื” ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืืžืจื™ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืืžืจื• ืืœื™ื• ืื™ื” ืฉืจื” ืืฉืชืš ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Gemara asks: In any case, the unanswered question raised by Doeg is difficult. The Gemara answers: Here, in Babylonia, they explained the matter based on the verse: โ€œThe kingโ€™s daughter is all glorious withinโ€ (Psalms 45:14), which indicates that it is unbefitting for a woman to venture outside at all, and therefore the Ammonite women would not have been expected to go forth to meet the Jewish women. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzแธฅak who said: The verse states: โ€œAnd they said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he said: Behold, in the tentโ€ (Genesis 18:9), which teaches that it is praiseworthy for a woman to remain inside her home.

ื›ืชื ืื™ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืœื ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ื•ืœื ืžื•ืื‘ื™ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืงื“ืžื• ืืชื›ื ื‘ืœื—ื ื•ื‘ืžื™ื ื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ืื™ืฉ ืœืงื“ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ

The Gemara comments that this disagreement with regard to the source of the halakha that it is permitted for an Ammonite or Moabite woman to enter into the congregation is like the following dispute between tannaโ€™im: The verse states: โ€œAn Ammonite or a Moabiteโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:4); an Ammonite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman, and similarly, a Moabite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not a Moabite woman. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who derives the halakha from the masculine form of these two terms. Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states: โ€œBecause they did not meet you with bread and with water on the wayโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:5). Since it is the way of a man, but not the way of a woman, to go forth to meet guests, females were not included in the prohibition.

ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืคืชื—ืช ืœืžื•ืกืจื™ ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืจื‘ื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืขื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืžื•ืกืจื•ืช ืฉื”ื™ื• ืขืœื™ ืคืชื—ืชื ืจื•ืช ื”ืžื•ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื ืขืžื” ื”ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช

With regard to the same issue, Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œYou have loosened my bandsโ€ (Psalms 116:16)? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You have loosened the two bands that were on me, on account of which I and my entire family might have been disqualified, i.e., Ruth the Moabite woman and Naโ€™ama the Ammonite woman. Owing to the allowance granted to Moabite and Ammonite women, we are permitted to enter the congregation.

ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื•ืช ืขืฉื™ืช ืืชื” ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ ื ืคืœืื•ืชื™ืš ื•ืžื—ืฉื‘ื•ืชื™ืš ืืœื™ื ื• ืืœื™ ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ืืœื™ื ื• ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืจื—ื‘ืขื ื™ื•ืฉื‘ ื‘ื—ื™ืงื• ืฉืœ ื“ื•ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืขืœื™ ื•ืขืœื™ืš ื ืืžืจื• ืฉืชื™ ืžืงืจืื•ืช ื”ืœืœื•

Rava further taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œMany things have You done, O Lord my God, Your wonders and Your thoughts are upon usโ€ (Psalms 40:6)? Upon me is not stated, but rather โ€œupon us,โ€ which teaches that Rehoboam, son of Solomon and grandson of David, was sitting on the lap of David, who said to him: These two verses were stated about me and about you, as Rehoboamโ€™s mother was Naโ€™ama the Ammonite.

ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื– ืืžืจืชื™ ื”ื ื” ื‘ืืชื™ ื‘ืžื’ื™ืœืช ืกืคืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืื ื™ ืืžืจืชื™ ืขืชื” ื‘ืืชื™ ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขืชื™ ืฉื‘ืžื’ื™ืœืช ืกืคืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ ื”ืชื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื ืžืฆืื•ืช ื”ื›ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืฆืืชื™ ื“ื•ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžืฉื—ืชื™ื•

With regard to the same issue, Rava also taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œThen I said: Behold, I have come; in the scroll of a book it is written about meโ€ (Psalms 40:8)? David said: I had said that I have come only now; my life was created only recently, at the time of my birth. But I did not know that it was already written about me in the scroll of a book, that an ancient text already hints at my existence. There, with regard to the daughters of Lot, it is written: โ€œAnd your two daughters that are found hereโ€ (Genesis 19:15), and here, with regard to David, it is written: โ€œI have found David, My servant; I have anointed him with My holy oilโ€ (Psalms 89:21). The lost article that was found among the daughters of Lot, the mothers of Ammon and Moab, is David and his royal house.

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื›ืฉืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืžืืŸ ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืืžืจ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ื–ื›ืจ ื›ื‘ืช ื—ืœืœ ื–ื›ืจ ื•ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื”ื ืืžืจ ืืฃ ื’ืจ ืฉื ืฉื ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื‘ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื”

Ulla said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: The daughter of an Ammonite convert is fit not only to marry an ordinary Israelite, but even to marry into the priesthood. Rava bar Ulla said to Ulla: In accordance with whose opinion did you state this halakha? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didnโ€™t he say that the daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male แธฅalal, one rendered unfit for the priesthood, which means that the daughter of any convert should be disqualified from the priesthood? And if you spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it is obvious that this is the case, as he said that even if a male convert marries a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื‘ื”ื ืš ื“ืจืื•ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืื‘ืœ ื”ืื™ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืœื ืžื ื ืœื™ื”

And if you would say that Rabbi Yosei spoke only of those converts who are fit to enter into the congregation, but with regard to this one, an Ammonite convert, who is not fit to enter into the congregation, his daughter is not fit to marry a priest, there is a difficulty: From where does he derive this distinction?

ื“ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืžื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืžื” ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ื™ืืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื”

The Gemara answers: He derives this from the case of a High Priest who married a widow, a woman whom he is prohibited from marrying. Just as his daughter is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, so too is the daughter of an Ammonite convert disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. However, an objection may be raised: What comparison can be made to a High Priest who married a widow, which is a stringent prohibition, as his intercourse involves a transgression? Can one say the same with regard to the daughter of an Ammonite convert, who could be born from a permitted relationship, e.g., from a male Ammonite convert who married a female Ammonite convert?

ื—ืœืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืžื” ืœื—ืœืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฆื™ืจืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื”

The Gemara answers: Let the case of a แธฅalal prove that this is not relevant, as his intercourse does not involve a transgression and yet his children are also แธฅalalim, who are prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. However, another objection may be raised: What comparison can be made to a แธฅalal, seeing that his essential formation involved a transgression, and therefore it is understandable that his disqualification extends to his offspring. Can one say the same with regard to the daughter of an Ammonite convert who was not the product of a forbidden union?

ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: Let the case of a High Priest who marries a widow prove that this is not relevant, as he was not the product of a forbidden union but nevertheless his daughter is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point, and the discussion can go back and forth.

ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืงื”ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืงื”ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”

At this point, however, the halakha can be derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this case, that of a High Priest, is not like the aspect of that case, that of a แธฅalal, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common denominator is that he is not included in the majority of the congregation, i.e., the man is governed by a halakha that differs from that of most Jews. The High Priestโ€™s intercourse with a widow involves a transgression, and the แธฅalal is the product of a forbidden union. And in each case, the manโ€™s daughter is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. So too, an Ammonite convert is not included in the majority of the congregation, as it is prohibited for him to enter the congregation of Israel, and so his daughter is also disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ ืขื‘ื™ืจื”

The Gemara objects: What is the common denominator between the case of the High Priest and that of the แธฅalal that prevents one from utilizing it as a paradigm for other cases? Both of those cases include an aspect of transgression; the High Priest engaged in a forbidden act of intercourse, and the แธฅalal is the product of a forbidden union. Perhaps that is the reason that the daughter in each of these cases is prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. In the case of the Ammonite convert, however, there is no transgression.

ื“ืœืžื ื•ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืงืืžืจืช ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื‘ื™ืืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื‘ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: Perhaps you spoke of an Ammonite convert who married the daughter of a Jew, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan wished to teach that although his intercourse involves a transgression, as it is prohibited for him to enter into the congregation, his daughter is nevertheless fit to marry into the priesthood. Ulla said to him: Yes, this was Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s teaching.

ื“ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ื‘ืช ืžืฆืจื™ ืฉื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื“ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืœื” ืžื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ืฉืจื”

As, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: With regard to the daughter of an Ammonite convert who is the offspring of his forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, and similarly, with regard to the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert from his forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said that she is fit to marry into the priesthood, whereas Reish Lakish said that she is disqualified from marrying a priest. Reish Lakish said she is disqualified, as he derives from the halakha governing a High Priest who married a widow that the daughter of any forbidden union is disqualified from the priesthood. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said she is fit,

ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื›ืื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ืื ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืžืขืžื™ื• ื™ืงื— ืืฉื” ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืžื›ื ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ื›ืฉืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื™ ืฉื•ื ื” ืขืžื™ื• ืžืขืžื™ื• ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืฉื ื™ ืขืžืžื™ืŸ ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืžื›ื ื” ื•ืชื• ืœื

as Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: That which is stated with regard to a High Priest: โ€œBut a virgin of his own people shall he take to wifeโ€ (Leviticus 21:14), comes to include an established female convert, one who was a convert from birth, i.e., who was born to a father and mother who converted after their marriage but prior to her birth, and this indicates that she is fit to marry into the priesthood. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: I teach that the words โ€œhis own peopleโ€ and the more inclusive phrase โ€œof his own peopleโ€ come to include a virgin who comes from two peoples, from a union of converts hailing from two different peoples, and you say only an established female convert and no more?

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื™ ืขืžืžื™ืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืžืื™ ืžืฉื ื™ ืขืžืžื™ืŸ ื“ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืžื›ื ื” ืืœื ื‘ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ

The Gemara asks: What are these two peoples? If we say this is referring to an Ammonite man who married an Ammonite woman, and what is the meaning of โ€œfrom two peoples,โ€ that they are legally considered like two separate peoples, as their males are prohibited from entering into the congregation, whereas their females are permitted to do so, there is a difficulty. In that case, this is the same as an established female convert, as the daughter of such a union is a proper convert in all regards. Rather, it must refer to an Ammonite man who married the daughter of a Jew, as they belong to two separate peoples.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื™ ืฉื•ื ื” ืขืžื™ื• ืžืขืžื™ื• ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืฉื ื™ ืขืžืžื™ืŸ ื•ืžืขื ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ืฉื ื™ ืขืžืžื™ืŸ ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืžื›ื ื” ื•ืชื• ืœื

And there are those who say an alternative version of this discussion. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to Rabbi Zakkai: I teach that the words โ€œhis own peopleโ€ and the more inclusive phrase โ€œfrom his own peopleโ€ come to include a virgin who comes from two peoples, i.e., whose mother was Jewish from birth and whose father was a convert, and that convert is from a people that itself consists of two peoples, i.e., an Ammonite or a Moabite, who hail from peoples whose males are prohibited from entering into the congregation, while it is permitted for their females to do so, and you say only an established female convert and no more?

ื•ืœื”ืš ืœื™ืฉื ื ื‘ืช ืžืฆืจื™ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื›ืฉืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื“ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื” ืœืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช

The Gemara asks: And according to this second version, from where does Rabbi Yoแธฅanan derive that the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert who had entered into a forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth is fit to marry into the priesthood, as with respect to Egyptian converts, there is no difference between males and females? And if you would say that he derives this from the case of an Ammonite convert who married the daughter of a Jew, the following difficulty arises: What comparison can be made to an Ammonite convert who married the daughter of a Jew and had a daughter, who is permitted to enter the congregation although she is an Ammonite, as female Ammonite converts are entirely permitted? Perhaps for this reason it is permitted for the daughter to marry into the priesthood as well. Can one say the same with regard to the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert who had entered into a forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, when it is prohibited for female Egyptian converts, like their male counterparts, to enter into the congregation until the third generation?

ืžืฆืจื™ ืฉื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ืžืฆืจื™ืช ืฉื ื™ื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—

The Gemara responds: Let the case of a second-generation male Egyptian convert who married a second-generation female Egyptian convert prove that this is not relevant, as it is permitted for their daughter, a third-generation Egyptian convert, to enter the congregation, even though she belongs to the Egyptian people, whose female converts are prohibited in the same manner as their male converts.

ืžื” ืœืžืฆืจื™ ืฉื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ืžืฆืจื™ืช ืฉื ื™ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื”

The Gemara refutes this proof: What comparison can be made to a second-generation male Egyptian convert who married a second-generation female Egyptian convert, seeing that his intercourse does not involve a transgression, as it is permitted for him to marry her? Can one say the same with regard to a second-generation Egyptian convert who entered into a forbidden marriage with the daughter of a Jew?

ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ

This leads back to the first proof: Let an Ammonite man who married the daughter of a Jew prove that this is not irrelevant, as they too entered into a forbidden union, and yet it is permitted for the daughter of that marriage to marry into the priesthood. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point, and the discussion can go back and forth. The two cases differ in their particular aspects, but their common denominator is that it is permitted for the daughter to marry into the priesthood. So too, it is permitted for the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert who married a woman who was born Jewish to marry into the priesthood.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืฉืžืขื ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืขืžื™ื• ืžืขืžื™ื• ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ

Rav Yosef said: This is what I heard Rav Yehuda say in his lecture about the phrases โ€œhis own peopleโ€ and โ€œfrom his own people,โ€ and at the time I did not know what he was saying. Now I understand that he was saying that it is permitted for the daughter of an Ammonite convert who married a Jewish woman to marry into the priesthood, as taught by Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื™ื” ืืฉื” ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ื ื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœื”

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Zakkai taught before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan as follows: An Ammonite woman is fit, her son from an Ammonite is unfit, and her daughter from an Ammonite is fit. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to an Ammonite man and an Ammonite woman who converted, but her daughter from an Ammonite who did not convert is unfit.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคื•ืง ืชื ื™ ืœื‘ืจื ืžืื™ ื“ืืžืจืช ืืฉื” ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืœื ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ื‘ื ื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ื“ื”ื ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื”ื•ื

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: Go out and teach it outside, i.e., this baraita is not in accordance with the accepted halakha, and therefore it should not be made part of the regular learning in the study hall. What you said, that an Ammonite woman is fit, is well known and need not be taught because it is just another way of saying that a male Ammonite is barred from entering the congregation but not a female Ammonite. As for the teaching that her son from an Ammonite is unfit, this too is unnecessary, as he is an Ammonite.

ื•ื‘ืชื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ื›ืฉืจื” ืœืžืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื”ืฉืชื ืืžื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ื™ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื”

But that which you said: Her daughter from an Ammonite is fit, with regard to what issue did you teach this? If we say that she is fit to enter into the congregation, this too is redundant: Now that it was taught that even her mother is fit to enter the congregation, is it necessary to say that she herself, the daughter, is fit to do so? Rather, you must mean to say that she is fit to marry into the priesthood.

ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืชื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืžื›ื ื” ืืœื ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคื•ืง ืชื ื™ ืœื‘ืจื

The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to an Ammonite man and an Ammonite woman who converted, but her daughter from an Ammonite man is unfit. What is meant here by her daughter from an Ammonite? If we say it means an Ammonite man who married an Ammonite woman, and they converted prior to the birth of their daughter, this is an established female convert, who was previously declared fit to marry into the priesthood. Rather, it must mean an Ammonite convert who unlawfully married the daughter of a Jew, and according to what is stated here, their daughter is unfit to marry a priest. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, however, ruled that such a woman is fit, and therefore he said to Rabbi Zakkai: Go out and teach it outside, as this baraita is unreliable.

ืžืฆืจื™ ื•ืื“ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžืื™ ืชืฉื•ื‘ื”

It is taught in the mishna that Egyptian and Edomite converts are prohibited from entering into the congregation only for three generations, both males and females, while Rabbi Shimon permits females immediately based on the following a fortiori inference. If regarding Ammonites and Moabites, where the Torah prohibited the males with an eternal prohibition, it permitted the females immediately, then regarding Egyptians and Edomites, where it prohibited the males for only three generations, the females should certainly be permitted immediately. Rabbi Shimonโ€™s colleagues informed him that there is a refutation of his argument. The Gemara asks: What is this refutation mentioned by the mishna?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ืฉืœื ืืกืจ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืœื ืขื“ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืื—ื“ ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื ืงื‘ื•ืช

Rabba bar bar แธคana said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: It is because it may be said that those with whom relations are forbidden, i.e., incestuous relationships, prove that the above-mentioned factor is irrelevant, as the Torah prohibits them only for up to three generations, i.e., up to his granddaughter, and yet it prohibits both males and females, i.e., the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter.

ืžื” ืœืขืจื™ื•ืช ืฉื›ืŸ ื›ืจืช ืžืžื–ืจ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—

The Gemara rejects this proof: What comparison can be made to those with whom relations are forbidden, which involve stringent prohibitions, as they entail the punishment of karet? The Gemara answers: Let the prohibition with regard to a mamzer prove that this is not relevant, as its violation does not involve the punishment of karet and yet it applies equally to males and females.

ืžื” ืœืžืžื–ืจ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืœืขื•ืœื ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara rejects this argument: What comparison can be made to a mamzer, seeing that he is governed by the stringency that he is forever unfit to enter into the congregation for all generations? The Gemara counters: Let those with whom relations are forbidden prove that this is not relevant, as the Torah prohibits them only for up to three generations. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point, and the discussion can go back and forth.

ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืžืฆืจื™ ื•ืžืฆืจื™ืช ืฉื™ื”ื™ื• ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื ืงื‘ื•ืช

However, the halakha with regard to an Egyptian can be derived from a combination of the two sources. The aspect of this case, that of incestuous relationships, is not like the aspect of that case, that of a mamzer, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common denominator is that their prohibition applies to both males and females. I will also bring the additional halakha of a male Egyptian convert and a female Egyptian convert that they are forbidden, both males and females.

ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ ื›ืจืช

The Gemara objects: What is unique about the common denominator between the cases of incestuous relationships and a mamzer that prevents utilizing it as a paradigm for other cases? Both include an aspect of karet, either with respect to the act of incestuous intercourse itself or with respect to the conception of the mamzer, as a mamzer is the offspring of a union punishable by karet. However, the prohibition concerning an Egyptian, which does not include an aspect of karet, may apply only to males, but not females.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื—ืœืœ ื“ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืขืฉื” ื•ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘

And the Rabbis, who reject Rabbi Shimonโ€™s proof, derive the prohibition applying to female Egyptians from the halakha governing a แธฅalal, one rendered unfit for the priesthood. A แธฅalal is the child of a union for which the parties involved are liable to receive punishment for the transgression of a positive mitzva, e.g., the child of a High Priest and a woman who was not a virgin when he married her, and this status applies to males and females alike. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, who ruled that the child of such a relationship is a แธฅalal.

ื•ืžืื™ ืœื ื›ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืœื ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืœื“ื™ื“ื›ื• ื“ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื›ื• ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: And what did Rabbi Shimon mean when he responded: Not so? The Gemara explains that this is what he said to them: According to my own opinion, I do not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, and therefore your refutation is not valid for me. But even according to you, who do maintain in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, I am nevertheless stating a halakha handed down to me by my teachers that female Egyptians and Edomites are permitted.

ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืžืงืจื ืžืกื™ื™ืขื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื ื•ืช

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said to them: I am stating a traditional halakha, and furthermore a verse supports me, as the verse with regard to Edomites and Egyptians states: โ€œThe sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter to them, the congregation of the Lordโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:9), teaching that the prohibition applies to their sons, but not to their daughters.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื ื•ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ื™ื ืืฉืจ ื™ื•ืœื“ื• ืœื”ื ื“ื•ืจ ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืชืœืืŸ ื‘ืœื™ื“ื”

The Sages taught a baraita that further clarifies the matter: The prohibition with regard to Egyptians and Edomites applies only to their sons, but not to their daughters; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda said: The verse states: โ€œThe sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter to them, the congregation of the Lord,โ€ and the phrase โ€œborn to themโ€ indicates that the verse made their prohibition dependent on birth, with regard to which there is no difference between males and females.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืชืœืืŸ ื‘ืœื™ื“ื” ืœื ืžืฆื ื™ื“ื™ื• ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืงื”ืœ ื’ืจื™ื ืื™ืงืจื™ ืงื”ืœ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Had Rabbi Yehuda not said that the verse made their prohibition dependent on birth, so that females are also included in the prohibition, he would not have found his hands and feet in the study hall, i.e., he would have been caught in a self-contradiction. Why? Since the Master said that according to Rabbi Yehuda a congregation of converts is also called a congregation of the Lord,

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Yevamot 77: The Inner Honor of the Daughter of the King

More on Ammon and Moav. Why are they excluded? Plus, why is a Jewish woman supposed to say within? Also,...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 72-78 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week, we will learn about the laws pertaining to a Jewish male who canโ€™t be circumcised for health reasons....

Yevamot 77

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 77

ืืงืฉื™ ืœื”ื• ื“ื•ืื’ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ืงื•ืฉื™ื™ืชื ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื• ื‘ืขื™ ืœืื›ืจื•ื–ื™ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื™ื“ ื•ืขืžืฉื ื‘ืŸ ืื™ืฉ ื•ืฉืžื• ื™ืชืจื ื”ื™ืฉืจืืœื™ ืืฉืจ ื‘ื ืืœ ืื‘ื™ื’ืœ ื‘ืช ื ื—ืฉ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ืชืจ ื”ื™ืฉืžืขืืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื—ื’ืจ ื—ืจื‘ื• ื›ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉื•ืžืข ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื• ื™ื“ืงืจ ื‘ื—ืจื‘ ื›ืš ืžืงื•ื‘ืœื ื™ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืจืžืชื™ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืœื ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ื•ืœื ืžื•ืื‘ื™ืช

Doeg raised before them all those objections from the others who are disqualified from entering into the congregation, and they were silent, not knowing how to respond. Doeg then wanted to proclaim that David was disqualified from entering into the congregation. He was immediately answered. Here it says: โ€œNow Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Jithra the Israelite, that went into Abigal the daughter of Nahashโ€ (IIย Samuel 17:25), and yet elsewhere it is written that Amasaโ€™s father was named โ€œJether the Ishmaeliteโ€ (Iย Chronicles 2:17). Rava said: This teaches that he girded his sword like Ishmael, i.e., like an Arab, and said: Whoever does not accept this halakha and act accordingly shall be stabbed with the sword. This is the tradition that I received from the court of Samuel from Rama: An Ammonite man is prohibited from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman; a Moabite man is prohibited from entering into the congregation, but not a Moabite woman.

ื•ืžื™ ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ืฉืžื•ืจื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ื‘ื ืื ืงื•ื“ื ืžืขืฉื” ืืžืจื” ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื• ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉืื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื“ื”ื ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืงื™ื™ื

The Gemara asks about this incident: And is he trusted to offer such testimony? But didnโ€™t Rabbi Abba say that Rav said: With regard to every Torah scholar who issues a halakhic ruling based on a tradition he claims to have received from his teacher, and that ruling has practical ramifications for himself as well, if he stated the ruling already before the incident, i.e., before it had a bearing on his own case, one listens to him; but if not, if he reported the tradition only after it was personally relevant to him, one does not listen to him, as he is an interested party. Since Amasa was the son of Jesseโ€™s daughter Abigail, as stated in the aforementioned verse in Chronicles, the matter certainly affected his own status. The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as Samuel and the other members of his court were still living, and the truth of Amasaโ€™s report could be easily verified.

ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื›ื ืชืจื’ืžื• ื›ืœ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืช ืžืœืš ืคื ื™ืžื” ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืืžืจื™ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืืžืจื• ืืœื™ื• ืื™ื” ืฉืจื” ืืฉืชืš ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Gemara asks: In any case, the unanswered question raised by Doeg is difficult. The Gemara answers: Here, in Babylonia, they explained the matter based on the verse: โ€œThe kingโ€™s daughter is all glorious withinโ€ (Psalms 45:14), which indicates that it is unbefitting for a woman to venture outside at all, and therefore the Ammonite women would not have been expected to go forth to meet the Jewish women. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzแธฅak who said: The verse states: โ€œAnd they said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he said: Behold, in the tentโ€ (Genesis 18:9), which teaches that it is praiseworthy for a woman to remain inside her home.

ื›ืชื ืื™ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืœื ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ื•ืœื ืžื•ืื‘ื™ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืงื“ืžื• ืืชื›ื ื‘ืœื—ื ื•ื‘ืžื™ื ื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ืื™ืฉ ืœืงื“ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ

The Gemara comments that this disagreement with regard to the source of the halakha that it is permitted for an Ammonite or Moabite woman to enter into the congregation is like the following dispute between tannaโ€™im: The verse states: โ€œAn Ammonite or a Moabiteโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:4); an Ammonite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman, and similarly, a Moabite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not a Moabite woman. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who derives the halakha from the masculine form of these two terms. Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states: โ€œBecause they did not meet you with bread and with water on the wayโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:5). Since it is the way of a man, but not the way of a woman, to go forth to meet guests, females were not included in the prohibition.

ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืคืชื—ืช ืœืžื•ืกืจื™ ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืจื‘ื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืขื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืžื•ืกืจื•ืช ืฉื”ื™ื• ืขืœื™ ืคืชื—ืชื ืจื•ืช ื”ืžื•ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื ืขืžื” ื”ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช

With regard to the same issue, Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œYou have loosened my bandsโ€ (Psalms 116:16)? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You have loosened the two bands that were on me, on account of which I and my entire family might have been disqualified, i.e., Ruth the Moabite woman and Naโ€™ama the Ammonite woman. Owing to the allowance granted to Moabite and Ammonite women, we are permitted to enter the congregation.

ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื•ืช ืขืฉื™ืช ืืชื” ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ ื ืคืœืื•ืชื™ืš ื•ืžื—ืฉื‘ื•ืชื™ืš ืืœื™ื ื• ืืœื™ ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ืืœื™ื ื• ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืจื—ื‘ืขื ื™ื•ืฉื‘ ื‘ื—ื™ืงื• ืฉืœ ื“ื•ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืขืœื™ ื•ืขืœื™ืš ื ืืžืจื• ืฉืชื™ ืžืงืจืื•ืช ื”ืœืœื•

Rava further taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œMany things have You done, O Lord my God, Your wonders and Your thoughts are upon usโ€ (Psalms 40:6)? Upon me is not stated, but rather โ€œupon us,โ€ which teaches that Rehoboam, son of Solomon and grandson of David, was sitting on the lap of David, who said to him: These two verses were stated about me and about you, as Rehoboamโ€™s mother was Naโ€™ama the Ammonite.

ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื– ืืžืจืชื™ ื”ื ื” ื‘ืืชื™ ื‘ืžื’ื™ืœืช ืกืคืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืื ื™ ืืžืจืชื™ ืขืชื” ื‘ืืชื™ ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขืชื™ ืฉื‘ืžื’ื™ืœืช ืกืคืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ ื”ืชื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื ืžืฆืื•ืช ื”ื›ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืฆืืชื™ ื“ื•ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžืฉื—ืชื™ื•

With regard to the same issue, Rava also taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œThen I said: Behold, I have come; in the scroll of a book it is written about meโ€ (Psalms 40:8)? David said: I had said that I have come only now; my life was created only recently, at the time of my birth. But I did not know that it was already written about me in the scroll of a book, that an ancient text already hints at my existence. There, with regard to the daughters of Lot, it is written: โ€œAnd your two daughters that are found hereโ€ (Genesis 19:15), and here, with regard to David, it is written: โ€œI have found David, My servant; I have anointed him with My holy oilโ€ (Psalms 89:21). The lost article that was found among the daughters of Lot, the mothers of Ammon and Moab, is David and his royal house.

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื›ืฉืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืžืืŸ ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืืžืจ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ื–ื›ืจ ื›ื‘ืช ื—ืœืœ ื–ื›ืจ ื•ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื”ื ืืžืจ ืืฃ ื’ืจ ืฉื ืฉื ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื‘ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื”

Ulla said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: The daughter of an Ammonite convert is fit not only to marry an ordinary Israelite, but even to marry into the priesthood. Rava bar Ulla said to Ulla: In accordance with whose opinion did you state this halakha? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didnโ€™t he say that the daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male แธฅalal, one rendered unfit for the priesthood, which means that the daughter of any convert should be disqualified from the priesthood? And if you spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it is obvious that this is the case, as he said that even if a male convert marries a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื‘ื”ื ืš ื“ืจืื•ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืื‘ืœ ื”ืื™ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืœื ืžื ื ืœื™ื”

And if you would say that Rabbi Yosei spoke only of those converts who are fit to enter into the congregation, but with regard to this one, an Ammonite convert, who is not fit to enter into the congregation, his daughter is not fit to marry a priest, there is a difficulty: From where does he derive this distinction?

ื“ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืžื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืžื” ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ื™ืืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื”

The Gemara answers: He derives this from the case of a High Priest who married a widow, a woman whom he is prohibited from marrying. Just as his daughter is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, so too is the daughter of an Ammonite convert disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. However, an objection may be raised: What comparison can be made to a High Priest who married a widow, which is a stringent prohibition, as his intercourse involves a transgression? Can one say the same with regard to the daughter of an Ammonite convert, who could be born from a permitted relationship, e.g., from a male Ammonite convert who married a female Ammonite convert?

ื—ืœืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืžื” ืœื—ืœืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฆื™ืจืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื”

The Gemara answers: Let the case of a แธฅalal prove that this is not relevant, as his intercourse does not involve a transgression and yet his children are also แธฅalalim, who are prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. However, another objection may be raised: What comparison can be made to a แธฅalal, seeing that his essential formation involved a transgression, and therefore it is understandable that his disqualification extends to his offspring. Can one say the same with regard to the daughter of an Ammonite convert who was not the product of a forbidden union?

ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: Let the case of a High Priest who marries a widow prove that this is not relevant, as he was not the product of a forbidden union but nevertheless his daughter is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point, and the discussion can go back and forth.

ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืงื”ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืงื”ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”

At this point, however, the halakha can be derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this case, that of a High Priest, is not like the aspect of that case, that of a แธฅalal, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common denominator is that he is not included in the majority of the congregation, i.e., the man is governed by a halakha that differs from that of most Jews. The High Priestโ€™s intercourse with a widow involves a transgression, and the แธฅalal is the product of a forbidden union. And in each case, the manโ€™s daughter is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. So too, an Ammonite convert is not included in the majority of the congregation, as it is prohibited for him to enter the congregation of Israel, and so his daughter is also disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ ืขื‘ื™ืจื”

The Gemara objects: What is the common denominator between the case of the High Priest and that of the แธฅalal that prevents one from utilizing it as a paradigm for other cases? Both of those cases include an aspect of transgression; the High Priest engaged in a forbidden act of intercourse, and the แธฅalal is the product of a forbidden union. Perhaps that is the reason that the daughter in each of these cases is prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. In the case of the Ammonite convert, however, there is no transgression.

ื“ืœืžื ื•ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืงืืžืจืช ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื‘ื™ืืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื‘ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: Perhaps you spoke of an Ammonite convert who married the daughter of a Jew, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan wished to teach that although his intercourse involves a transgression, as it is prohibited for him to enter into the congregation, his daughter is nevertheless fit to marry into the priesthood. Ulla said to him: Yes, this was Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s teaching.

ื“ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืช ื’ืจ ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ื‘ืช ืžืฆืจื™ ืฉื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื“ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืœื” ืžื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืืœืžื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ืฉืจื”

As, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: With regard to the daughter of an Ammonite convert who is the offspring of his forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, and similarly, with regard to the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert from his forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said that she is fit to marry into the priesthood, whereas Reish Lakish said that she is disqualified from marrying a priest. Reish Lakish said she is disqualified, as he derives from the halakha governing a High Priest who married a widow that the daughter of any forbidden union is disqualified from the priesthood. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said she is fit,

ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื›ืื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ืื ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืžืขืžื™ื• ื™ืงื— ืืฉื” ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืžื›ื ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ื›ืฉืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื™ ืฉื•ื ื” ืขืžื™ื• ืžืขืžื™ื• ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืฉื ื™ ืขืžืžื™ืŸ ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืžื›ื ื” ื•ืชื• ืœื

as Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: That which is stated with regard to a High Priest: โ€œBut a virgin of his own people shall he take to wifeโ€ (Leviticus 21:14), comes to include an established female convert, one who was a convert from birth, i.e., who was born to a father and mother who converted after their marriage but prior to her birth, and this indicates that she is fit to marry into the priesthood. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: I teach that the words โ€œhis own peopleโ€ and the more inclusive phrase โ€œof his own peopleโ€ come to include a virgin who comes from two peoples, from a union of converts hailing from two different peoples, and you say only an established female convert and no more?

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื™ ืขืžืžื™ืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืžืื™ ืžืฉื ื™ ืขืžืžื™ืŸ ื“ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืžื›ื ื” ืืœื ื‘ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ

The Gemara asks: What are these two peoples? If we say this is referring to an Ammonite man who married an Ammonite woman, and what is the meaning of โ€œfrom two peoples,โ€ that they are legally considered like two separate peoples, as their males are prohibited from entering into the congregation, whereas their females are permitted to do so, there is a difficulty. In that case, this is the same as an established female convert, as the daughter of such a union is a proper convert in all regards. Rather, it must refer to an Ammonite man who married the daughter of a Jew, as they belong to two separate peoples.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื™ ืฉื•ื ื” ืขืžื™ื• ืžืขืžื™ื• ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื”ื‘ืื” ืžืฉื ื™ ืขืžืžื™ืŸ ื•ืžืขื ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ืฉื ื™ ืขืžืžื™ืŸ ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืžื›ื ื” ื•ืชื• ืœื

And there are those who say an alternative version of this discussion. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to Rabbi Zakkai: I teach that the words โ€œhis own peopleโ€ and the more inclusive phrase โ€œfrom his own peopleโ€ come to include a virgin who comes from two peoples, i.e., whose mother was Jewish from birth and whose father was a convert, and that convert is from a people that itself consists of two peoples, i.e., an Ammonite or a Moabite, who hail from peoples whose males are prohibited from entering into the congregation, while it is permitted for their females to do so, and you say only an established female convert and no more?

ื•ืœื”ืš ืœื™ืฉื ื ื‘ืช ืžืฆืจื™ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื›ืฉืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื“ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื” ืœืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช

The Gemara asks: And according to this second version, from where does Rabbi Yoแธฅanan derive that the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert who had entered into a forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth is fit to marry into the priesthood, as with respect to Egyptian converts, there is no difference between males and females? And if you would say that he derives this from the case of an Ammonite convert who married the daughter of a Jew, the following difficulty arises: What comparison can be made to an Ammonite convert who married the daughter of a Jew and had a daughter, who is permitted to enter the congregation although she is an Ammonite, as female Ammonite converts are entirely permitted? Perhaps for this reason it is permitted for the daughter to marry into the priesthood as well. Can one say the same with regard to the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert who had entered into a forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, when it is prohibited for female Egyptian converts, like their male counterparts, to enter into the congregation until the third generation?

ืžืฆืจื™ ืฉื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ืžืฆืจื™ืช ืฉื ื™ื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—

The Gemara responds: Let the case of a second-generation male Egyptian convert who married a second-generation female Egyptian convert prove that this is not relevant, as it is permitted for their daughter, a third-generation Egyptian convert, to enter the congregation, even though she belongs to the Egyptian people, whose female converts are prohibited in the same manner as their male converts.

ืžื” ืœืžืฆืจื™ ืฉื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ืžืฆืจื™ืช ืฉื ื™ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ืจื”

The Gemara refutes this proof: What comparison can be made to a second-generation male Egyptian convert who married a second-generation female Egyptian convert, seeing that his intercourse does not involve a transgression, as it is permitted for him to marry her? Can one say the same with regard to a second-generation Egyptian convert who entered into a forbidden marriage with the daughter of a Jew?

ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ

This leads back to the first proof: Let an Ammonite man who married the daughter of a Jew prove that this is not irrelevant, as they too entered into a forbidden union, and yet it is permitted for the daughter of that marriage to marry into the priesthood. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point, and the discussion can go back and forth. The two cases differ in their particular aspects, but their common denominator is that it is permitted for the daughter to marry into the priesthood. So too, it is permitted for the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert who married a woman who was born Jewish to marry into the priesthood.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืฉืžืขื ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืขืžื™ื• ืžืขืžื™ื• ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ

Rav Yosef said: This is what I heard Rav Yehuda say in his lecture about the phrases โ€œhis own peopleโ€ and โ€œfrom his own people,โ€ and at the time I did not know what he was saying. Now I understand that he was saying that it is permitted for the daughter of an Ammonite convert who married a Jewish woman to marry into the priesthood, as taught by Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื™ื” ืืฉื” ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ื ื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ื‘ืชื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœื”

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Zakkai taught before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan as follows: An Ammonite woman is fit, her son from an Ammonite is unfit, and her daughter from an Ammonite is fit. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to an Ammonite man and an Ammonite woman who converted, but her daughter from an Ammonite who did not convert is unfit.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคื•ืง ืชื ื™ ืœื‘ืจื ืžืื™ ื“ืืžืจืช ืืฉื” ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืœื ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ื‘ื ื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ื“ื”ื ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื”ื•ื

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: Go out and teach it outside, i.e., this baraita is not in accordance with the accepted halakha, and therefore it should not be made part of the regular learning in the study hall. What you said, that an Ammonite woman is fit, is well known and need not be taught because it is just another way of saying that a male Ammonite is barred from entering the congregation but not a female Ammonite. As for the teaching that her son from an Ammonite is unfit, this too is unnecessary, as he is an Ammonite.

ื•ื‘ืชื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ื›ืฉืจื” ืœืžืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื”ืฉืชื ืืžื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ื™ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื”

But that which you said: Her daughter from an Ammonite is fit, with regard to what issue did you teach this? If we say that she is fit to enter into the congregation, this too is redundant: Now that it was taught that even her mother is fit to enter the congregation, is it necessary to say that she herself, the daughter, is fit to do so? Rather, you must mean to say that she is fit to marry into the priesthood.

ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืชื” ืžืขืžื•ื ื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ืขืžื•ื ื™ืช ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืžื›ื ื” ืืœื ืขืžื•ื ื™ ืฉื ืฉื ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคื•ืง ืชื ื™ ืœื‘ืจื

The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to an Ammonite man and an Ammonite woman who converted, but her daughter from an Ammonite man is unfit. What is meant here by her daughter from an Ammonite? If we say it means an Ammonite man who married an Ammonite woman, and they converted prior to the birth of their daughter, this is an established female convert, who was previously declared fit to marry into the priesthood. Rather, it must mean an Ammonite convert who unlawfully married the daughter of a Jew, and according to what is stated here, their daughter is unfit to marry a priest. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, however, ruled that such a woman is fit, and therefore he said to Rabbi Zakkai: Go out and teach it outside, as this baraita is unreliable.

ืžืฆืจื™ ื•ืื“ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžืื™ ืชืฉื•ื‘ื”

It is taught in the mishna that Egyptian and Edomite converts are prohibited from entering into the congregation only for three generations, both males and females, while Rabbi Shimon permits females immediately based on the following a fortiori inference. If regarding Ammonites and Moabites, where the Torah prohibited the males with an eternal prohibition, it permitted the females immediately, then regarding Egyptians and Edomites, where it prohibited the males for only three generations, the females should certainly be permitted immediately. Rabbi Shimonโ€™s colleagues informed him that there is a refutation of his argument. The Gemara asks: What is this refutation mentioned by the mishna?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ืฉืœื ืืกืจ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืœื ืขื“ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืื—ื“ ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื ืงื‘ื•ืช

Rabba bar bar แธคana said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: It is because it may be said that those with whom relations are forbidden, i.e., incestuous relationships, prove that the above-mentioned factor is irrelevant, as the Torah prohibits them only for up to three generations, i.e., up to his granddaughter, and yet it prohibits both males and females, i.e., the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter.

ืžื” ืœืขืจื™ื•ืช ืฉื›ืŸ ื›ืจืช ืžืžื–ืจ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—

The Gemara rejects this proof: What comparison can be made to those with whom relations are forbidden, which involve stringent prohibitions, as they entail the punishment of karet? The Gemara answers: Let the prohibition with regard to a mamzer prove that this is not relevant, as its violation does not involve the punishment of karet and yet it applies equally to males and females.

ืžื” ืœืžืžื–ืจ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืœืขื•ืœื ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara rejects this argument: What comparison can be made to a mamzer, seeing that he is governed by the stringency that he is forever unfit to enter into the congregation for all generations? The Gemara counters: Let those with whom relations are forbidden prove that this is not relevant, as the Torah prohibits them only for up to three generations. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point, and the discussion can go back and forth.

ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืžืฆืจื™ ื•ืžืฆืจื™ืช ืฉื™ื”ื™ื• ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื ืงื‘ื•ืช

However, the halakha with regard to an Egyptian can be derived from a combination of the two sources. The aspect of this case, that of incestuous relationships, is not like the aspect of that case, that of a mamzer, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common denominator is that their prohibition applies to both males and females. I will also bring the additional halakha of a male Egyptian convert and a female Egyptian convert that they are forbidden, both males and females.

ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ ื›ืจืช

The Gemara objects: What is unique about the common denominator between the cases of incestuous relationships and a mamzer that prevents utilizing it as a paradigm for other cases? Both include an aspect of karet, either with respect to the act of incestuous intercourse itself or with respect to the conception of the mamzer, as a mamzer is the offspring of a union punishable by karet. However, the prohibition concerning an Egyptian, which does not include an aspect of karet, may apply only to males, but not females.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื—ืœืœ ื“ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืขืฉื” ื•ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘

And the Rabbis, who reject Rabbi Shimonโ€™s proof, derive the prohibition applying to female Egyptians from the halakha governing a แธฅalal, one rendered unfit for the priesthood. A แธฅalal is the child of a union for which the parties involved are liable to receive punishment for the transgression of a positive mitzva, e.g., the child of a High Priest and a woman who was not a virgin when he married her, and this status applies to males and females alike. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, who ruled that the child of such a relationship is a แธฅalal.

ื•ืžืื™ ืœื ื›ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืœื ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืœื“ื™ื“ื›ื• ื“ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื›ื• ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: And what did Rabbi Shimon mean when he responded: Not so? The Gemara explains that this is what he said to them: According to my own opinion, I do not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, and therefore your refutation is not valid for me. But even according to you, who do maintain in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, I am nevertheless stating a halakha handed down to me by my teachers that female Egyptians and Edomites are permitted.

ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืžืงืจื ืžืกื™ื™ืขื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื ื•ืช

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said to them: I am stating a traditional halakha, and furthermore a verse supports me, as the verse with regard to Edomites and Egyptians states: โ€œThe sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter to them, the congregation of the Lordโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:9), teaching that the prohibition applies to their sons, but not to their daughters.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื ื•ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ื™ื ืืฉืจ ื™ื•ืœื“ื• ืœื”ื ื“ื•ืจ ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืชืœืืŸ ื‘ืœื™ื“ื”

The Sages taught a baraita that further clarifies the matter: The prohibition with regard to Egyptians and Edomites applies only to their sons, but not to their daughters; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda said: The verse states: โ€œThe sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter to them, the congregation of the Lord,โ€ and the phrase โ€œborn to themโ€ indicates that the verse made their prohibition dependent on birth, with regard to which there is no difference between males and females.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืชืœืืŸ ื‘ืœื™ื“ื” ืœื ืžืฆื ื™ื“ื™ื• ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืงื”ืœ ื’ืจื™ื ืื™ืงืจื™ ืงื”ืœ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Had Rabbi Yehuda not said that the verse made their prohibition dependent on birth, so that females are also included in the prohibition, he would not have found his hands and feet in the study hall, i.e., he would have been caught in a self-contradiction. Why? Since the Master said that according to Rabbi Yehuda a congregation of converts is also called a congregation of the Lord,

Scroll To Top