Yevamot 78
מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי בְּמַאי יִטְהַר? דִּלְמָא דְּאִי עֲבַר וּנְסֵיב. ״דְּאִי״ לָא כְּתִיב קְרָא.
how could a second-generation Egyptian convert ever achieve purity, so that it is permitted for his offspring, the third generation, to enter into the congregation? He may marry neither a Jew nor a female Egyptian convert. The Gemara answers: Perhaps it means that if he transgressed and married a convert or a Jewish woman, his seed will be purified. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: A case of: That if, is not written in the verse. In other words, the Bible does not speak of situations that can arise only through the commission of a transgression.
הֲרֵי מַמְזֵר ״דְּאִי״, וְכַתְבֵיהּ קְרָא! ״דְּאִי״ לְאִיסּוּרָא — כְּתַב, ״דְּאִי״ לְהֶיתֵּרָא — לָא כְּתַב.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the halakha of a mamzer, which is a case of that if, as a mamzer is the child of a forbidden union, and yet the verse writes it? The Gemara answers: A case of that if that results in a prohibition, the Torah writes, but a case of that if that leads to an allowance, the Torah does not write. The Torah teaches the halakha of a mamzer, whose very existence is the result of his parents having engaged in forbidden relations, in order to render it prohibited for him to enter into the congregation. However, it would not teach the halakha of a second-generation Egyptian convert who transgressed and married a woman who was forbidden to him, in order to permit his offspring to enter into the congregation.
הֲרֵי מַחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ, ״דְּאִי״ לְהֶיתֵּרָא וְכַתְבֵיהּ? הָתָם מִשּׁוּם עִיקַּר אִיסּוּרָא הוּא דְּכַתְבֵיהּ.
The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t there the halakha governing one who remarries his divorcée after she had been married to another man? This is a case of that if that leads to an allowance, and yet the Torah writes it. The words “It is an abomination before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 24:4) stated with regard to this case teach that although the woman herself is forbidden to her first husband, if she nevertheless remarried him, their children are fit to enter into the congregation. The Gemara answers: There, the Torah writes that case due to the basic prohibition, i.e., that a man may not remarry his divorced wife after she has been married to another man, and the allowance with regard to their children is learned incidentally.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִם נֶאֱמַר ״בָּנִים״, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״דּוֹרוֹת״? וְאִם נֶאֱמַר ״דּוֹרוֹת״, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״בָּנִים״? אִם נֶאֱמַר ״בָּנִים״ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״דּוֹרוֹת״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: בֵּן רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי — אָסוּר, שְׁלִישִׁי — מוּתָּר, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״דּוֹרוֹת״.
The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with respect to Egyptian and Edomite converts that “the sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter to them, the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:9). If it is stated “sons” why is it also stated “generation,” and if it is stated “generation” why is it also stated “sons”? One of these terms seems superfluous. The baraita explains: If it had stated only “sons” and not stated “generation,” I would say that the prohibition depends on the number of the son, meaning that the first and second sons of an Egyptian convert are forbidden, whereas the third is permitted. Therefore, it is stated “generation” to indicate that the prohibition depends not on the number of the son but on his generation.
וְאִם נֶאֱמַר ״דּוֹרוֹת״ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״בָּנִים״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר לְאוֹתָן הָעוֹמְדִים עַל הַר סִינַי, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״בָּנִים״.
And conversely, if it had stated only “generation” and not stated “sons,” I would say that the generations are counted from those standing on Mount Sinai, so that any Egyptian born after three generations have passed from the time of the giving of the Torah would be permitted. Therefore, it is stated “sons” to indicate that certain sons are prohibited in later generations as well.
״לָהֶם״ — מֵהֶם מְנֵה. ״לָהֶם״ — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר פְּסוּלָן.
The verse states: “The sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter to them, the congregation of the Lord.” The Sages expounded each of the two instances of the words “to them”: The first mention of “to them” teaches that from them you should count. The count of generations begins with the converts themselves, as they are considered the first generation, and therefore their grandchildren are permitted. The second mention of “to them” teaches that you should follow their disqualification. If a male Egyptian convert married a Jewish woman, or if a female Egyptian convert married a Jewish man, the halakha with regard to the offspring born to them is that although one of the parents is not disqualified from entering into marriage, the status of the child follows the unfit parent, who disqualifies his or her offspring until the third generation.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״לָהֶם״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ״. דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מִבְּנֵיהֶם מְנֵה, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לָהֶם״. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לָהֶם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מִצְרִית מְעוּבֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירָה — הִיא וּבְנָהּ חַד, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ״.
The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to write “to them,” and it is also necessary to write “that are born.” As, if the Merciful One had written only “that are born,” I would say that one should count the generations from the converts’ sons. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “to them” to teach that the converts themselves are counted as the first generation. And if the Merciful One had written only “to them,” I would say that in the case of a pregnant Egyptian woman who converted, she and her child, i.e., the fetus, are considered one generation, as the fetus is deemed to be a part of its mother. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “that are born,” to indicate that each birth marks a new generation, and accordingly the fetus is regarded as a second-generation Egyptian convert.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״לָהֶם״ הָכָא, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״לוֹ״ גַּבֵּי מַמְזֵר.
The verse concerning a mamzer states: “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation shall none of his [lo] enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3). And it is necessary to write “to them” here, with regard to an Egyptian convert, to teach that the child’s status follows the disqualified parent in his case, and it is also necessary to write “to him [lo]” with regard to a mamzer, to teach that a similar halakha applies to a mamzer. In the translation of the verse, lo is translated as: Of his, i.e., of his ilk. However, lo can also be translated as: To him.
דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּבָא מִטִּיפָּה פְּסוּלָה, אֲבָל מַמְזֵר דְּבָא מִטִּיפָּה כְּשֵׁרָה — אֵימָא לָא.
Lo is written with regard to both the Egyptian and the mamzer, as, if the Merciful One had written it only here, with regard to an Egyptian, one might have said that only in this case does the child’s status follow the disqualified parent, because the Egyptian comes from an unfit drop of semen, that of a gentile. But as for a mamzer, who comes from a fit drop of semen, as his parents were proper Jews despite their grave sin, one might say that there is no room for such stringency. Therefore, the Torah teaches that the same halakha applies to a mamzer.
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מַמְזֵר, מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל לְעוֹלָם, אֲבָל הָכָא — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
And conversely, if the Merciful One had written this stringent halakha only with regard to a mamzer, one might have said that this is because he is forever unfit to enter into the congregation, but here, with regard to an Egyptian convert, I might say that this is not the case. Therefore, both verses are necessary.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה — בְּנָהּ שְׁלִישִׁי הָאוֵי. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר בָּתַר דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ,
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a second-generation male Egyptian convert married a first-generation female Egyptian convert, her child is considered a third-generation convert for whom it is permitted to enter the congregation. The Gemara comments: Apparently Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that we assign the child to him, the father, and not to the mother.
מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: יְכוֹלִין מַמְזֵרִים לִיטָּהֵר. כֵּיצַד? מַמְזֵר נָשָׂא שִׁפְחָה — הַוָּלָד עֶבֶד. שִׁחְרְרוֹ — נִמְצָא בֶּן חוֹרִין. אַלְמָא בָּתַר דִּידַהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדוֹנֶיהָ״.
Rav Yosef raised an objection from the following mishna (Kiddushin 69a): Rabbi Tarfon says: Mamzerim can purify themselves over the course of the generations. How so? If a mamzer married his non-Jewish maidservant, the child born to them is a slave. If the slave’s master, the mamzer who owns the maidservant, subsequently freed the child, he becomes a free man and is fit to enter into the congregation. Apparently we assign the child to her, the mother, and not to the father, as the child is deemed a slave rather than a mamzer. The Gemara answers: It is different there, in the case of the slave, as the verse states: “The wife and her children shall be her master’s” (Exodus 21:4). The words “her children” indicate that the children born to a non-Jewish maidservant are assigned to her.
מֵתִיב רָבָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִנְיָמִין גֵּר מִצְרִי הָיָה לִי חָבֵר מִתַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְאָמַר: אֲנִי מִצְרִי רִאשׁוֹן, וְנָשָׂאתִי מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה, אַשִּׂיא לִבְנֵי מִצְרִית שְׁנִיָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בֶּן בְּנִי רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ — אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹנָה נָמֵי! הָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְתַנָּא: תְּנִי רִאשׁוֹנָה.
Rava raised an objection from a previously mentioned baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: Minyamin, an Egyptian convert, was a friend of mine from among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and he said: Following my conversion I was a first-generation Egyptian convert, and so I married another first-generation Egyptian convert. I will marry off my son, who is a second-generation Egyptian convert, to another second-generation Egyptian convert, so that my grandson will be fit to enter into the congregation. Now, if it enters your mind to say that we assign the child to the father, even if he marries off his son to a first-generation Egyptian convert his grandson should be permitted. The Gemara answers: Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan already say to the tanna reciting the baraita: You should teach that Minyamin sought to marry off his son to a first-generation Egyptian convert.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה — בְּנָהּ שֵׁנִי הָוֵי. אַלְמָא בָּתַר אִימֵּיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said just the opposite: If a second-generation male Egyptian convert married a first-generation female Egyptian convert, her son is considered a second-generation convert who is prohibited from entering the congregation. Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that we assign the child to the mother and not to the father.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְיָלְדָה — רָצָה מִתְכַּפֵּר בָּהּ, רָצָה מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּוְלָדָהּ.
Abaye said to him: But what, then, will you say about that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one set aside a pregnant animal as a sin-offering, and the animal later gave birth to a female, if he wishes he may gain atonement with the mother itself, in which case the young is left to graze until it develops a blemish that renders it unfit for sacrifice, whereupon it is sold and the proceeds are used for a gift offering; and if he wishes he may gain atonement with the animal’s young, and the mother is left to graze until it develops a blemish.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא עוּבָּר לָאו יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא — הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּמַפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת, וְאָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת — מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה.
Granted, if you say that a fetus is not considered the thigh, i.e., a part, of its mother but rather a separate creature, despite the fact that it is still attached to her, then an individual in this situation is like one who sets aside two sin-offerings as a guarantee, i.e., one who, owing to his concern that his sin-offering might become lost, sets aside two animals from the outset with the intention of using whichever one he chooses. And Rav Oshaya said with regard to such a case: If one set aside two sin-offerings as a guarantee, so that if one is lost he may gain atonement with the other, he gains atonement with one of them, and the second is left to graze until it develops a blemish and can be redeemed.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ עוּבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא, הָוֵה לֵיהּ וְלַד חַטָּאת, וּוְלַד חַטָּאת לְמִיתָה אָזֵיל?
But if you say that a fetus is considered the thigh of its mother and is regarded as part of her, it is the young of a sin-offering, and the young of a sin-offering goes to its death. Such an animal is not left to graze. Rather, it is put into isolation and caused to die, as it has been sanctified as a sin-offering through its mother but cannot be sacrificed on the altar and used to gain atonement. In summary, it would appear that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself maintains that a fetus is not considered a part of its mother. Why, then, in the case of the Egyptian convert is the child assigned to the mother and not to the father?
אִישְׁתִּיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ״, הַכָּתוּב תְּלָאוֹ בְּלֵידָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קַרְקַפְנָא, חֲזֵיתֵיהּ לְרֵישָׁךְ בֵּינֵי עַמּוּדֵי כִּי אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא.
Rav Dimi was silent, momentarily unable to find an answer. Abaye said to him: Perhaps it is different there, with regard to Egyptian converts, as it is written with regard to them: “The sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter to them, the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:9), indicating that the verse made their prohibition dependent on birth, and therefore the child of Egyptian converts is assigned to the mother. Rav Dimi said to him: Man of great skull, i.e., man of distinction, I saw your head between the pillars of the study hall when Rabbi Yoḥanan taught this halakha. In other words, you grasped the meaning as though you were actually present in the study hall and heard the statement from Rabbi Yoḥanan himself.
טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ״, הָא בְּעָלְמָא — בָּתַר אֲבוּהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: גּוֹיָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירָה — בְּנָהּ אֵין צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה, אַמַּאי אֵין צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה?
The Gemara draws an inference: The reason that the child is assigned to its Egyptian mother is that it is written: “That are born to them.” But generally, with regard to others for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation, we assign the child to the father. The Gemara asks: But what about that which Rava said: If a pregnant gentile woman converted, then her son, who was a fetus at the time of the conversion, does not require immersion after he is born. But if the child is not assigned to its mother, why should he not require immersion?
וְכִי תֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, רוּבּוֹ וּמַקְפִּיד עָלָיו — חוֹצֵץ, רוּבּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד עָלָיו — אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ.
And if you would say that this is because of a statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, there is still a difficulty. As Rabbi Yitzḥak said: By Torah law, if some substance is found on a person’s body during immersion, and it covers the majority of his body, and he is particular and wants the substance removed, only then is it considered an interposition that invalidates immersion in a ritual bath. If, however, the substance covers the majority of his body, but he is not particular about that substance, it is not considered an interposition. Accordingly, it may be argued that although the fetus is covered by its mother, since it is not particular about this necessary covering, the fetus itself is regarded as having undergone valid immersion.
וְהָא אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא רוּבּוֹ, אֲבָל כּוּלּוֹ — חוֹצֵץ! שָׁאנֵי עוּבָּר, דְּהַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ.
However, this is difficult, as didn’t Rav Kahana say that they taught this halakha that if one is not particular about the substance it is not considered an interposition only when the substance covers just a majority of his body; but if it covers all of it, it is considered an interposition by Torah law, even if he is not particular about it. The Gemara answers: A fetus is different, as this is its natural manner of growth. Its mother’s womb cannot be considered an interposition, as it is the fetus’ natural place of development, and therefore the fetus itself is regarded as having undergone immersion.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִינָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּאוּמּוֹת, הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר. נִתְגַּיְּירוּ, הַלֵּךְ אַחַר פָּגוּם שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶם. בָּאוּמּוֹת הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר, כִּדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְאֶחָד מִן הָאוּמּוֹת שֶׁבָּא עַל הַכְּנַעֲנִית וְהוֹלִיד בֵּן, שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִקְנוֹתוֹ בְּעֶבֶד — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְגַם מִבְּנֵי הַתּוֹשָׁבִים הַגָּרִים עִמָּכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ״.
When Ravina came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With respect to lineage, among the other nations of the world, i.e., while they are still gentiles, follow the male, but if they married after they converted, follow the more flawed in lineage of the two. The Gemara explains: Among the nations, follow the male, as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that if one from the other nations had relations with a Canaanite woman and had a son from her, you are permitted to purchase him as a slave, and he is not considered a Canaanite who may not be allowed to remain in Eretz Yisrael? As it is stated: “And also from the children of the strangers that dwell among you, of them may you buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession” (Leviticus 25:45).
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִן הַכְּנַעֲנִים שֶׁבָּא עַל אַחַת מִן הָאוּמּוֹת וְהוֹלִיד בֵּן, שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִקְנוֹתוֹ בְּעֶבֶד — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר הוֹלִידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם״ — מִן הַנּוֹלָדִים בְּאַרְצְכֶם, וְלֹא מִן הַגָּרִים בְּאַרְצְכֶם.
One might have thought that even if one from the Canaanite nations had relations with a woman from one of the other nations and had a son from her, you are permitted to purchase him as a slave. Therefore, the same verse states: “Which they have begotten in your land,” which indicates that slaves may be bought only from those begotten in your land, i.e., from those whose father was a non-Canaanite and whose mother was a Canaanite. It is the way of women to remain in their own land, and so a child born in Eretz Yisrael was certainly born to a Canaanite mother. But slaves may not be bought from those dwelling in your land. If a child is born to a Canaanite man and a non-Canaanite woman outside of Eretz Yisrael, and that offspring later returns to dwell in Eretz Yisrael, the offspring may not be acquired as a slave, because his lineage follows his father. He is regarded as a Canaanite, who may not be allowed to remain in Eretz Yisrael.
נִתְגַּיְּירוּ הַלֵּךְ אַחַר פָּגוּם שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶם. בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּמִצְרִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא עַמּוֹנִית — מַאי פָּגוּם שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶם אִית בַּהּ? ״עַמּוֹנִי״ וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית! אֶלָּא בְּעַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית. אִי זָכָר הָוֵי — שִׁדְיֵיהּ בָּתַר עַמּוֹנִי, אִי נְקֵבָה הָוֵי — שִׁדְיַיהּ בָּתַר מִצְרִית.
It was taught above in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that if they married after they converted, follow the more flawed in lineage of the two. The Gemara asks: To what circumstances is this referring? If we say it is referring to a male Egyptian convert who married a female Ammonite convert, what is the meaning of: More flawed in lineage of the two, in this case? The halakha is that an Ammonite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman, and so she is not flawed at all. Rather, it must be referring to a male Ammonite convert who married a female Egyptian convert. If the child is male, assign him to his Ammonite father, so that he is permanently barred from entering the congregation. If it is a female, assign her to her Egyptian mother, so that she is treated like a second-generation Egyptian convert.
מַתְנִי׳ מַמְזֵרִין וּנְתִינִין אֲסוּרִין, וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם. אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת.
MISHNA: Mamzerim and the Gibeonites who converted to Judaism in the days of Joshua are prohibited from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish. Their prohibition is eternal, for all generations, and it applies to both males and females.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַמְזֶרֶת לְאַחַר עֲשָׂרָה דּוֹרוֹת מוּתֶּרֶת. יָלֵיף ״עֲשִׂירִי״ ״עֲשִׂירִי״ מֵעַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי. מָה לְהַלָּן נְקֵבוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת — אַף כָּאן נְקֵבוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת.
GEMARA: Reish Lakish said: A mamzeret, a female mamzer, is permitted after ten generations. Why? He derived this halakha by way of a verbal analogy between the word “tenth” stated in relation to an Ammonite and a Moabite in the verse “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the congregation of the Lord forever” (Deuteronomy 23:4), and the word “tenth” stated in relation to a mamzer in the verse “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3) He explained the analogy as follows: Just as below, with regard to an Ammonite and a Moabite, females are permitted, so too here, with regard to a mamzer, females are permitted.
אִי: מָה לְהַלָּן מִיָּד, אַף כָּאן מִיָּד! כִּי אַהֲנִי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, מֵעֲשִׂירִי וְאֵילָךְ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Or perhaps one should say that just as below, with regard to an Ammonite and a Moabite, their females are permitted immediately, so too here, a mamzeret is permitted immediately. The Gemara answers: The verbal analogy is effective only from the tenth generation and onward.
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: מַמְזֵרִים וּנְתִינִין אֲסוּרִין, וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ.
The Gemara raises another difficulty: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that mamzerim and Gibeonites are prohibited, and their prohibition is eternal for all generations, and it applies to both males and females? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult for Reish Lakish, as he understands that there is a dispute in this regard: This opinion, that of Reish Lakish, is in accordance with the tanna who said that the application of a verbal analogy is extended by way of the principle: Infer from it, and again from it. In other words, after deducing case B from case A, all of the characteristics of case A are applied to case B. In the case discussed here, although the verbal analogy comes primarily to render a mamzer permanently forbidden, it is extended and understood to mean that a mamzeret is permitted after ten generations.
הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרָא.
That other opinion, i.e., the mishna, is in accordance with the tanna who said that the application of a verbal analogy is limited, according to the principle: Infer from it, and then leave it in its place. That is to say, after the main provision of case A is applied to case B, case B is recognized as having its own character and specific rules that apply to it. Accordingly, in the case discussed here, the verbal analogy teaches one specific halakha that a mamzer is prohibited permanently, but nothing else.
שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מַמְזֶרֶת לְאַחַר עַשְׂרָה דָּרֵי מַהוּ? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִי יִתֵּן לִי דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי וַאֲטַהֲרֶנּוּ. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר מַמְזֵרָא לָא חָיֵי. וְכֵן אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַמְזֵרָא לָא חָיֵי.
The Gemara relates that the students asked Rabbi Eliezer: With regard to a mamzeret after ten generations, what is the halakha? He said to them: Who will give me a third-generation mamzer so that I will declare him pure? The Gemara comments: Apparently he maintains that a mamzer does not survive. Mamzerim perish at the hand of Heaven, and therefore this question is not a practical one. And similarly, Rav Huna said that a mamzer does not survive.
וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: מַמְזֵרִין אֲסוּרִין, וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: דִּידִיעַ — חָיֵי, דְּלָא יְדִיעַ — לָא חָיֵי. דִּידִיעַ וְלָא יְדִיעַ — עַד תְּלָתָא דָּרֵי חָיֵי, טְפֵי — לָא חָיֵי.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that mamzerim are prohibited from entering into the congregation, and their prohibition is eternal for all generations? How is this possible if they do not even live long enough to produce three generations? Rabbi Zeira said: This matter was explained to me by Rav Yehuda himself: One who is known to be a mamzer will survive, as there is no concern that there will be any mingling of his seed. On the other hand, one who is not known as a mamzer will not survive, as he will die at the hand of Heaven so that there will be no mingling of his seed. As for one who is known and not known, i.e., one who is under suspicion, but it is unclear whether or not he is actually a mamzer, his descendants will survive for three generations, but more than this they will not survive.
הָהוּא דְּהָוֵי בְּשִׁבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי. אַכְרֵיז עֲלֵיהּ דְּמַמְזֵרָא הֲוָה. בָּכֵי וְאָזֵיל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַיִּים נָתַתִּי לָךְ.
It is related that a certain person lived in Rabbi Ami’s neighborhood, and following an investigation Rabbi Ami declared him to be a mamzer. The man went about weeping until Rabbi Ami said to him: You should not be upset, as now I have given you life. As explained above, once one is publicly known as a mamzer, he and his descendants may survive.
אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר אַדָּא: נְתִינִים — דָּוִד גָּזַר עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקְרָא הַמֶּלֶךְ לַגִּבְעוֹנִים וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם וְהַגִּבְעוֹנִים לֹא מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵמָּה וְגוֹ׳״.
§ Rav Ḥana bar Adda said: As for the Gibeonites, it was King David who decreed that they may not enter into the congregation, as it is stated: “And the king called the Gibeonites and said to them. Now the Gibeonites are not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites” (II Samuel 21:2). This verse indicates that it was David who ruled that they are not part of the Jewish people and that they are barred from the congregation even though they converted.
מַאי טַעְמָא גְּזַר עֲלַיְיהוּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי רָעָב בִּימֵי דָוִד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה״. שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אָמַר לָהֶם: שֶׁמָּא עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה יֵשׁ בָּכֶם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתֶם לָהֶם. וְעָצַר אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְלֹא יִהְיֶה מָטָר וְגוֹ׳״. בָּדְקוּ, וְלֹא מָצְאוּ.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason that David decreed that they may not enter into the congregation? In order to answer this question, the Gemara recounts all the relevant background events. As it is written: “And there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year” (II Samuel 21:1). In the first year David said to the Jewish people: Perhaps there are idol worshippers among you, this being a sin that can lead to drought, as it is written: “Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; and the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and He shut up the heaven, so that there shall be no rain, and the ground shall not yield her fruit” (Deuteronomy 11:16–17). They examined the matter but did not find sinners of this kind.
שְׁנִיָּה אָמַר לָהֶם: שֶׁמָּא עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה יֵשׁ בָּכֶם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּמָּנְעוּ רְבִיבִים וּמַלְקוֹשׁ לֹא הָיָה וּמֵצַח אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה הָיָה לָךְ וְגוֹ׳״. בָּדְקוּ, וְלֹא מָצְאוּ.
In the second year of the drought David said to them: Perhaps there are transgressors in sexual matters among you, as this too can lead to drought, as it is written: “Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there has been no latter rain; yet you had a harlot’s forehead, you refused to be ashamed” (Jeremiah 3:3), which indicates that licentious behavior can lead to a cessation of rainfall. Again they examined the matter, but did not find sinners of this kind either.
שְׁלִישִׁית אָמַר לָהֶם: שֶׁמָּא פּוֹסְקֵי צְדָקָה בָּרַבִּים יֵשׁ בָּכֶם וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״נְשִׂיאִים וְרוּחַ וְגֶשֶׁם אָיִן אִישׁ מִתְהַלֵּל בְּמַתַּת שָׁקֶר״. בָּדְקוּ, וְלֹא מָצְאוּ.
In the third year he said to them: Perhaps there are among you those who pledge money to charity in public, but do not actually give any charity. As it is written: “As vapors and wind without rain, so is he that boasts himself of a false gift” (Proverbs 25:14), teaching that one who falsely boasts of making a gift prevents the rain from falling. Once again they examined the matter, but could not find such sinners.
אָמַר: אֵין הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי אֶלָּא בִּי, מִיָּד: ״וַיְבַקֵּשׁ דָּוִד אֶת פְּנֵי ה׳״. מַאי הִיא? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: שֶׁשָּׁאַל בְּאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים.
Having unsuccessfully searched the Jewish people for sins that cause drought, David said: The matter depends on nothing other than myself. Immediately it is stated: “And David sought the presence of the Lord” (II Samuel 21:1). The Gemara asks: What is this? How did David seek God? Reish Lakish said: He inquired through the Urim VeTummim, the stones embedded in the High Priest’s breastplate, which served as a means of communicating with God.
מַאי מַשְׁמַע? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָתְיָא ״פְּנֵי״ ״פְּנֵי״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וַיְבַקֵּשׁ דָּוִד אֶת פְּנֵי ה׳״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְשָׁאַל לוֹ בְּמִשְׁפַּט הָאוּרִים לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that David’s seeking was by way of the Urim VeTummim? Rabbi Elazar said: This is derived by way of a verbal analogy between the word “presence” used here and the word “presence” used elsewhere. It is written here: “And David sought the presence of the Lord,” and it is written there: “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim in the presence of the Lord” (Numbers 27:21). Consequently, the “presence of the Lord” sought by David must have involved the Urim VeTummim.
״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל שָׁאוּל וְאֶל בֵּית הַדָּמִים עַל אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית הַגִּבְעוֹנִים״. ״אֶל שָׁאוּל״ — שֶׁלֹּא נִסְפַּד כַּהֲלָכָה, ״וְאֶל בֵּית הַדָּמִים״ — ״עַל אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית הַגִּבְעוֹנִים״. וְכִי הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בְּשָׁאוּל שֶׁהֵמִית הַגִּבְעוֹנִים? אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהָרַג נוֹב עִיר הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁהָיוּ מַסְפִּיקִין לָהֶם מַיִם וּמָזוֹן, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ הֲרָגָן.
The verse continues: “And the Lord said: It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites” (II Samuel 21:1). The Gemara explains: “For Saul” means that the Jewish people were punished because he was not eulogized properly. “And for his bloody house” is “because he put to death the Gibeonites.” The Gemara is puzzled by this explanation: Now, where do we find that Saul put to death the Gibeonites? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, because he killed the people of Nob, the city of priests, who would provide the Gibeonites with water and food in exchange for their services, the verse ascribes to him as if he himself had killed them.
קָא תָבַע אֶל שָׁאוּל שֶׁלֹּא נִסְפַּד כַּהֲלָכָה, וְקָא תָבַע עַל אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית הַגִּבְעוֹנִים?! אִין, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּקְּשׁוּ אֶת ה׳ כׇּל עַנְוֵי אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר מִשְׁפָּטוֹ פָּעָלוּ״, בַּאֲשֶׁר מִשְׁפָּטוֹ — שָׁם פׇּעֳלוֹ.
The Gemara questions this understanding: On one hand, God demands retribution because Saul was not eulogized properly, while on the other hand, He demands retribution because Saul himself put to death the Gibeonites. The Gemara answers: Yes, this is how it should be. As Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Seek the Lord, all the humble of the earth, that have executed [pa’alu] His justice” (Zephaniah 2:3)? Where mention is made of the justice to be carried out against a person, his good deeds [pa’alo] should be mentioned there as well.
אָמַר דָּוִד: שָׁאוּל, נְפַקוּ לְהוּ
David said: With regard to the eulogy for Saul, there have already passed
