יבמות עו

יבמות עו

מִמּוּלָאֵי, אָמְרִיתוּ מִילֵּי מוּלְיָתָא? בִּמְקוֹמָהּ — מְבַשְּׁלָה, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָהּ — לָא מְבַשְּׁלָה.

from truncated [mimula’ei] people, as Rav Beivai’s family traced their lineage to the house of Eli, all of whose descendants were destined to be short-lived (see I Samuel 2:31), you speak truncated [mulayata] and unsound matters. When the semen passes through its proper place, it fertilizes; but if it does not pass through its proper place, it does not fertilize. Since he cannot father children, he is like one whose testicles have been crushed, and therefore he may not enter into the congregation.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִיקַּב וְנִסְתַּם, כֹּל שֶׁאִילּוּ נִקְרֵי וְנִקְרָע — פְּסוּל. וְאִי לָאו — כָּשֵׁר. הָוֵי בֵּהּ רָבָא: הֵיכָא? אִילֵּימָא לְמַטָּה מֵעֲטָרָה — אֲפִילּוּ נִכְרַת נָמֵי, אֶלָּא בַּעֲטָרָה עַצְמָהּ. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב מָרִי בַּר מָר אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִיקַּב בַּעֲטָרָה עַצְמָהּ וְנִסְתַּם, כֹּל שֶׁאִילּוּ נִקְרֵי וְנִקְרָע פָּסוּל, וְאִי לָאו — כָּשֵׁר.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If a man’s member had been punctured and it later healed and the hole closed up with flesh, in any case where, if he would emit semen, it would tear open again, he is unfit to enter into the congregation; but if not, he is fit. Rava discussed this ruling and raised a question: Where is this perforation? If we say it is below the corona, at the end of the man’s member, why should this perforation render him unfit? Even if the member was entirely severed, he would also be fit. Rather, the hole is in the corona itself, that is, at the point where the corona meets the rest of the member. It was also stated explicitly that this is the case, as Rav Mari bar Mar said that Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: If a man’s member had been punctured in the corona itself, and it later healed and the hole closed up with flesh, in any case where if he would emit semen it would tear open again, he is unfit; but if not, he is fit.

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה לְרַב יוֹסֵף: יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ, הֵיכִי עָבְדִינַן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַיְיתִינַן נַהֲמָא חַמִּימָא דִּשְׂעָרֵי, וּמַנְּחִינַן לֵיהּ אַבֵּי פוֹקְרֵי, וּמִקְּרֵי, וְחָזֵינַן לֵיהּ.

With regard to this issue, Rava, son of Rabba, sent the following question to Rav Yosef: Let our teacher teach us, what should we do to verify whether or not the perforation was adequately closed? Rav Yosef said to him: We bring warm barley bread and place it upon his anus [bei pukrei], and owing to the heat he emits semen, and we observe what happens and see whether or not the perforation remains closed.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַטּוּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ הֲוַאי, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״כֹּחִי וְרֵאשִׁית אוֹנִי״, שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה קֶרִי מִיָּמָיו!

Abaye said: Is that to say that everyone is like our Patriarch Jacob, with regard to whom it is written: “Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might and the first fruits of my strength” (Genesis 49:3), implying that Jacob never experienced an emission of semen in all his days, so that his eldest son Reuben was conceived from his first drop of seed, i.e., “the first fruits of my strength.” The implication is that there is certainly no need for such measures in order to bring a man to ejaculate.

אֶלָּא, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְעַבְּרִינַן קַמֵּיהּ בִּגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין. אָמַר רָבָא: אַטּוּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בַּרְזִילַּי הַגִּלְעָדִי הוּא?! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא.

Rather, Abaye said that a different method is used: We pass before him colorful garments of a woman, and thereby bring him to arousal, so that he will experience an emission. Rava said: Is that to say that everyone is like Barzilai the Gileadite, traditionally known for his licentious character? Not all men are brought to excitement when they merely see such clothes. Rather, the Gemara rejects this proposal and states that it is clear as we initially answered, that we follow the former procedure even though not all men require it.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִיקַּב — פָּסוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹתֵת. נִסְתַּם — כָּשֵׁר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹלִיד. וְזֶהוּ פְּסוּל שֶׁחוֹזֵר לְהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ. ״זֶהוּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי קְרוּם שֶׁעָלָה מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה בָּרֵיאָה, דְּאֵינוֹ קְרוּם.

The Sages taught in a baraita: If a man’s member was punctured, he is unfit to enter into the congregation of Israel because his semen is discharged gently and does not fertilize; if the perforation later closed up with flesh, he is fit, because now he can father children. And this is an instance of one who is unfit who returns to his previous state of fitness. The Gemara asks: What does the word this come to exclude? The Gemara explains that it comes to exclude a case involving an entirely different matter, that of a membrane that formed on the lung of an animal in the wake of a wound, which is not considered a proper membrane, as it is likely to rupture. If a puncture in the lung became covered with such a membrane the animal does not regain its former kosher status.

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין לְאַבָּיֵי: הֵיכִי עָבְדִינַן? מַיְיתִינַן שְׂעָרְתָּא וּמְסָרְטִינַן לֵיהּ, וּמַיְיתִינַן תַּרְבָּא וְשָׁיְיפִינַן, וּמַיְיתִינַן שׁוּמְשָׁנָא גַּמְלָא וּמְנַכְּתִינַן לֵיהּ, וּפָסְקִינַן לֵיהּ לְרֵישֵׁיהּ. וְדַוְקָא שְׂעָרְתָּא, אֲבָל פַּרְזְלָא — מִזְרָף זָרֵיף. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי קָטָן, אֲבָל גָּדוֹל — אִיקַּפּוֹלֵי מִיקַּפַּל.

With regard to this issue, Rav Idi bar Avin sent the following question to Abaye: What should we do to expedite the healing of such a perforation? Abaye answered: We bring a sharp-edged grain of barley and lacerate the area around the hole with it. We then bring fat and rub it on the spot, and afterward we bring a large ant [shumshena] and let it bite inside the hole. This leads to bleeding and the formation of a scab, which eventually heals as new flesh grows there. We also cut off the ant’s head so that it should remain in place until the wound is fully healed. The Gemara comments: And this procedure must be done specifically with a grain of barley, but an iron tool would cause inflammation [zareif]. The Gemara adds: And this applies only to a small perforation, but a large one will eventually peel off and reopen.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הַמֵּטִיל מַיִם מִשְּׁתֵּי מְקוֹמוֹת, פָּסוּל. אָמַר רָבָא: לֵית הִלְכְתָא לָא כִּבְרָא וְלָא כְּאַבָּא, בְּרָא — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. אַבָּא — דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: נָשִׁים הַמְסוֹלְלוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ, פְּסוּלוֹת לַכְּהוּנָּה.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who passes water from two places, so that he appears to have a hole or some other blemish in his member, is unfit to enter into the congregation of Israel, as is a man with crushed testicles. Rava said: With regard to these matters, the halakha is in accordance neither with the opinion of the son nor with that of the father. The son, this refers to that opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, which we just stated. As for the ruling of the father, this is referring to that which Rav Huna said: Women who rub against one another motivated by sexual desire are unfit to marry into the priesthood, as such conduct renders a woman a zona, whom a priest is prohibited from marrying. It was about this that Rava said that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav Huna’s opinion.

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: פָּנוּי הַבָּא עַל הַפְּנוּיָה שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִישׁוּת עֲשָׂאָהּ זוֹנָה — הָנֵי מִילֵּי אִישׁ, אֲבָל אִשָּׁה פְּרִיצוּתָא בְּעָלְמָא.

And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that an unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the sake of marriage renders her a zona, a woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah, this applies only to intercourse with a man, but lewd behavior with another woman is mere licentiousness that does not render her a zona, and therefore she is still permitted to marry into the priesthood.

מַתְנִי׳ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה מוּתָּרִין בְּגִיּוֹרֶת וּמְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת, וְאֵינָן אֲסוּרִין אֶלָּא מִלָּבֹא בַּקָּהָל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יָבֹא פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה בִּקְהַל ה׳״.

MISHNA: A man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals and one whose penis has been severed are permitted to marry a female convert or an emancipated maidservant, and they are prohibited only from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish, as it is stated: “A man wounded with crushed testicles or a severed penis shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2).

גְּמָ׳ בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא כֹּהֵן מַהוּ, בְּגִיּוֹרֶת וּמְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת? בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי וַאֲסִיר, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָאו בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי וּשְׁרֵי?

GEMARA: They raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha governing a priest with crushed testicles with respect to a female convert or an emancipated maidservant? The Gemara clarifies the two sides of this dilemma: Does he retain his state of sanctity like any other priest and is therefore prohibited from marrying either one of these women, or perhaps he does not retain his state of sanctity and therefore is permitted to marry a convert, like an ordinary Israelite with crushed testicles?

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל — מוּתָּר בִּנְתִינָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי, אִקְרִי כָּאן ״לֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם״.

Rav Sheshet said to them: You already learned the answer to this question in the following baraita: It is permitted for an ordinary Israelite with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite woman. Now, if it enters your mind that he retains his sanctity as a Jew, one should apply here the prohibition stated with regard to Canaanites: “You shall not marry them” (Deuteronomy 7:3). Apparently, then, one whose testicles have been crushed loses his former sanctity, and the same should apply to a priest.

אָמַר רָבָא: אַטּוּ הָתָם מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשָּׁה וְלָאו קְדוּשָּׁה הוּא? דִּלְמָא מוֹלֵיד בֵּן, וְאָזֵיל פָּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי — בְּגוֹיוּתָן, כִּי מִגַּיְירִי (בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל) [מִישְׁרָא] שְׁרוּ, וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בְּהוּ. וְכִי גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן — בְּהָנָךְ דִּבְנֵי אוֹלוֹדֵי, אֲבָל הַאי דְּלָאו בַּר אוֹלוֹדֵי — לָא גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן.

Rava said: This is no proof, as is that to say that the prohibition there against marrying Canaanites is due to sanctity or lack of sanctity? Rather, the reason for the prohibition is that perhaps one will father a child from his Canaanite wife and that child will later go off and engage in idolatrous worship. Now, this concern applies only when they are still gentiles, but when they convert, as did the Gibeonites, they are permitted to Jews. And it is the Sages who decreed that Gibeonites are forbidden like mamzerim even after their conversion. And when the Sages decreed that one may not marry them, the decree was limited to those who are capable of having children, but with regard to this one, a man with crushed testicles who is incapable of having children, the Sages did not issue a decree.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, מַמְזֵר, דְּבַר אוֹלוֹדֵי, הָכִי נָמֵי דַּאֲסִיר? וְהָא תְּנַן: מַמְזֵרִים וּנְתִינִים מוּתָּרִים לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה! אֶלָּא: כִּי גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן — בִּכְשֵׁרִים. בִּפְסוּלִים לָא גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara raises an objection against Rava: However, if that is so, then with regard to a mamzer, who is capable of having children, so too one would say that he is prohibited from marrying a Gibeonite. But didn’t we learn otherwise in a mishna (Kiddushin 69a): Mamzerim and Gibeonites are permitted to marry one another. Rather, retract this explanation and replace it with the following: When the Sages decreed that one may not marry a Gibeonite, they limited their decree to those who are fit, so as to prevent them from mingling with Gibeonites; but with regard to those who are unfit to enter into the congregation, the Sages did not issue a decree.

הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא, בְּגוֹיוּתָן — לֵית לְהוּ חַתְנוּת, נִתְגַּיְּירוּ — אִית לְהוּ חַתְנוּת.

Rava then reconsidered and said that what he had previously argued, that the prohibition against marrying them applies only when they are gentiles, is not correct. The prohibition cannot be referring to gentiles, as when they are gentiles there can be no valid marriage with them at all. It is only after they have converted that there can be valid marriage with them, and therefore the prohibition against entering into marriage with them applies. Nevertheless, it is permitted for a man with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite woman.

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: ״וַיִּתְחַתֵּן שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת בַּת פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם״! גַּיּיוֹרֵי גַּיְּירַהּ. וְהָא לֹא קִבְּלוּ גֵּרִים לֹא בִּימֵי דָוִד וְלֹא בִּימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה! מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא — אֶלָּא לְשׁוּלְחַן מְלָכִים,

Rav Yosef raised an objection from the verse that states: “And Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt” (I Kings 3:1), which indicates that there can, in fact, be valid marriage even with gentiles. The Gemara answers: Before Solomon took Pharaoh’s daughter as his wife, he converted her. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it so that they did not accept converts, neither in the days of David nor in the days of Solomon? The Gemara answers: But isn’t the reason that they did not accept converts during those periods only due to concern that the converts were not acting for the sake of Heaven but in fact desired the power of the table of kings, David and Solomon?

הָא לָא צְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.

But this one, Pharaoh’s daughter, did not require such things, as she herself was the daughter of royalty, and therefore there would have been no reason to doubt the sincerity of her conversion.

[וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ] דְּהָא מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה הִיא! וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנָךְ אָזְלִי לְעָלְמָא וְהָנֵי אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ,

The Gemara asks: But let him derive that Pharaoh’s daughter was forbidden to Solomon for a different reason, as she was a first-generation Egyptian convert. Even if she converted, she would still have been an Egyptian convert of the first generation, and as such neither she nor her children would have been permitted to marry a Jew by birth (Deuteronomy 23:8–9). And if you would say that those whom the Torah rendered forbidden have already left Egypt and are now living elsewhere in the world, and those currently living in Egypt are others, there is a difficulty.

וְהָא תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִנְיָמִין גֵּר מִצְרִי הָיָה לִי חָבֵר מִתַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמַר: אֲנִי מִצְרִי רִאשׁוֹן, וְנָשָׂאתִי מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה. אַשִּׂיא לִבְנִי מִצְרִית שְׁנִיָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בֶּן בְּנִי רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל!

As, isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: Minyamin, an Egyptian convert, was a friend of mine from among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and he said: After I converted 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. This indicates that first- and second-generation converts of Egyptian extraction were prohibited from entering into the congregation even during the period of the Mishna.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֲנַן מִשְּׁלֹמֹה לֵיקוּ וְנֹתֵיב? שְׁלֹמֹה לָא נְסֵיב מִידֵּי, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״מִן הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר ה׳ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תָבוֹאוּ בָּהֶם וְהֵם לֹא יָבוֹאוּ בָכֶם אָכֵן יַטּוּ אֶת לְבַבְכֶם אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם, בָּהֶם דָּבַק שְׁלֹמֹה לְאַהֲבָה״. אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא ״וַיִּתְחַתֵּן״!

Rav Pappa said: Shall we stand up and raise an objection from Solomon? Solomon did not marry anyone, as it is written in his regard: “Of the nations concerning which the Lord said to the children of Israel, You shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods; Solomon cleaved to these in love” (I Kings 11:2). Solomon cleaved to these women in love, but was not legally married to them. As Solomon had other forbidden wives, the case of Pharaoh’s daughter presents no special difficulty. In fact, none of these marriages were valid at all. But the phrase “and Solomon married” (I Kings 3:1) that appears in connection with Pharaoh’s daughter is difficult, as it indicates that this marriage was in fact valid.

מִתּוֹךְ אַהֲבָה יְתֵירָה שֶׁאֲהֵבָהּ, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ נִתְחַתֵּן בָּהּ.

The Gemara answers: Due to the extraordinary love that he had for her, the verse relates to him as if he had married her through a legally valid marriage, even though this was not the case.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה מוּתָּרִים בְּגִיּוֹרֶת וּמְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת. הָא בִּנְתִינָה — אֲסִירִי!

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that a man with crushed testicles and one whose penis has been severed are permitted to marry a female convert and an emancipated maidservant? That indicates that it is only these women whom they are permitted to marry, but they are prohibited from marrying a Gibeonite woman. This appears to contradict the baraita that permits a man with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְאֵינָן אֲסוּרִין אֶלָּא מִלָּבֹא בַּקָּהָל. הָא בִּנְתִינָה שָׁרוּ! אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: And according to your line of reasoning, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: And they are prohibited only from entering into the congregation, and infer just the opposite, that it is only a woman who was born Jewish whom they are prohibited from marrying, but they are permitted to marry a Gibeonite woman, as she is not part of the congregation of the Lord. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna, as the possible inferences are contradictory, and one must therefore rely on the halakha that was expressly taught.

מַתְנִי׳ עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי — אֲסוּרִים, וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם. אֲבָל נְקֵבוֹתֵיהֶם — מוּתָּרוֹת מִיָּד.

MISHNA: Ammonite and Moabite converts are prohibited from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish, and their prohibition is eternal, for all generations. However, their female counterparts, even the convert herself, are permitted immediately.

מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי אֵינָם אֲסוּרִים אֶלָּא עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת, אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, קַל וָחוֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים: וּמָה אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאָסַר אֶת הַזְּכָרִים אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — הִתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד, מָקוֹם שֶׁלָּא אָסַר אֶת הַזְּכָרִים אֶלָּא עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁנַּתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד?

Egyptian and Edomite converts are prohibited from entering into the congregation only for three generations, both males and females. Rabbi Shimon renders permitted Egyptian and Edomite females immediately. Rabbi Shimon said: The matter may be derived by way of an a fortiori inference: If in a place where the Torah rendered prohibited the males with an eternal prohibition, i.e., Ammonites and Moabites, it rendered permitted the females immediately, then in a place where it rendered prohibited the males for only three generations, i.e., Egyptians and Edomites, is it not right that we should render permitted the females immediately?

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם הֲלָכָה — נְקַבֵּל, וְאִם לַדִּין — יֵשׁ תְּשׁוּבָה. אָמַר לָהֶם: לֹא כִּי, הֲלָכָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר.

Rabbi Shimon’s colleagues said to him: If you are reporting a halakha that you received from your teachers, we will accept it from you. But if you merely wish to prove your case with an a fortiori inference based on your own reasoning, there is a refutation of your argument. Rabbi Shimon said to them: That is not so. I disagree with your claim that the a fortiori inference can be refuted, but in any case I am stating a halakha handed down to me by my teachers.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִרְאוֹת שָׁאוּל אֶת דָּוִד יוֹצֵא לִקְרַאת הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי אָמַר אֶל אַבְנֵר שַׂר הַצָּבָא בֶּן מִי זֶה הַנַּעַר אַבְנֵר וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְנֵר חֵי נַפְשְׁךָ הַמֶּלֶךְ אִם יָדָעְתִּי״. וְלָא יְדַע לֵיהּ? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֶּאֱהָבֵהוּ מְאֹד וַיְהִי לוֹ נוֹשֵׂא כֵּלִים״! אֶלָּא אַאֲבוּהּ קָא מְשַׁאֵיל.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived that female Ammonites and Moabites are permitted immediately? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: As the verse states: “And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the captain of the host: Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said: As your soul lives, O king, I cannot tell” (I Samuel 17:55). This verse is puzzling: Did Saul really not recognize him? But isn’t it previously written: “And David came to Saul, and stood before him; and he loved him greatly; and he became his armor-bearer” (I Samuel 16:21)? Rather, it must be that he was asking about David’s father.

וְאָבִיו לָא יְדַע לֵיהּ? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהָאִישׁ בִּימֵי שָׁאוּל זָקֵן בָּא בַאֲנָשִׁים״, וְאָמַר רַב, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי אַבָּא: זֶה יִשַׁי אֲבִי דָוִד, שֶׁנִּכְנַס בְּאוּכְלוּסָא וְיָצָא בְּאוּכְלוּסָא!

The Gemara is still puzzled by this verse: And did Saul not recognize David’s father? But isn’t it written with regard to Jesse, David’s father: “And the man in the days of Saul was old, and came among men” (I Samuel 17:12), and Rav, and some say Rabbi Abba, said: This is referring to Jesse, father of David, who always entered with multitudes [ukhlusa] and left with multitudes. As he was clearly a man of importance, everyone must have known who he was.

הָכִי קָאָמַר שָׁאוּל: אִי מִפֶּרֶץ אָתֵי, אִי מִזֶּרַח אָתֵי? אִי מִפֶּרֶץ אָתֵי — מַלְכָּא הָוֵי, שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ פּוֹרֵץ לַעֲשׂוֹת דֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין מְמַחִין בְּיָדוֹ. אִי מִזֶּרַח אָתֵי — חֲשִׁיבָא בְּעָלְמָא הָוֵי.

Rather, this is what Saul was saying, in his attempt to clarify David’s lineage: Does he come from the descendants of Perez, or does he come from the descendants of Zerah? What is the significance of this question? If he comes from Perez he will be king, as a king may breach [poretz] a way for himself and no one can stop him. And if he comes from Zerah he will be merely a man of importance, but not a king.

מַאי טַעְמָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ שַׁאֵל עֲלֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּלְבֵּשׁ שָׁאוּל אֶת דָּוִד מַדָּיו״, כְּמִדָּתוֹ. וּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ בְּשָׁאוּל: ״מִשִּׁכְמוֹ וָמַעְלָה גָּבוֹהַּ מִכׇּל הָעָם״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ דּוֹאֵג הָאֲדוֹמִי: עַד שֶׁאַתָּה מְשַׁאֵיל עָלָיו אִם הָגוּן הוּא לַמַּלְכוּת אִם לָאו, שְׁאַל עָלָיו אִם רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל אִם לָאו. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּקָאָתֵי מֵרוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה.

The Gemara continues with its explanation: For what reason did Saul say to Abner that he should inquire about David? As it is written: “And Saul clad David with his apparel [maddav]” (I Samuel 17:38), which indicates that the clothes were of David’s size [kemiddato]. And it is written with regard to Saul: “From his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people” (I Samuel 9:2). Upon seeing that his clothes fit David, Saul began to fear that it might be David who was destined for the throne, and he therefore inquired into his background. At that point, Doeg the Edomite said to Saul: Before you inquire as to whether or not he is fit for kingship, inquire as to whether or not he is even fit to enter into the congregation. What is the reason for such doubts? It is that he descends from Ruth the Moabite, and Moabites are permanently barred from entering the congregation.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבְנֵר, תְּנֵינָא: ״עַמּוֹנִי״, וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית. ״מוֹאָבִי״, וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: ״מַמְזֵר״, וְלֹא מַמְזֶרֶת? ״מַמְזֵר״ כְּתִיב — מוּם זָר.

Abner said to him: We already learned that there is no room for such concern. As the verse states: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4), teaching that 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. Doeg said to him: However, if that is so, say that the verse that renders it prohibited for a mamzer to enter the congregation renders prohibited only a male mamzer, but not a female mamzer. Abner replied: It is written: “A mamzer,” which should be understood not as a noun but as an adjective, denoting a strange blemish [mum zar], one who is defective due to a forbidden relationship, and this applies to males and females alike.

״מִצְרִי״, וְלֹא מִצְרִית! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דִּמְפָרֵשׁ טַעְמָא דִקְרָא: ״עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם״ — דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ לְקַדֵּם, וְלֹא דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה לְקַדֵּם. הָיָה לָהֶם לְקַדֵּם אֲנָשִׁים לִקְרַאת אֲנָשִׁים וְנָשִׁים לִקְרַאת נָשִׁים! אִישְׁתִּיק.

Doeg retorted: If so, say that it is prohibited for only an Egyptian man to enter into the congregation, but not an Egyptian woman. Abner answered: Here it is different, as the reason for the prohibition recorded in this verse with regard to Ammonites is explicit: “Because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came forth out of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 23:5). Since it is the way of a man to go forth to meet guests but it is not the way of a woman to go forth, females were not included in this prohibition. Doeg countered: Still, the men should have gone forth to meet the men, and the women to meet the women. Abner was silent, as he did not know how to respond to this objection.

מִיָּד: ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁאַל אַתָּה בֶּן מִי זֶה הָעָלֶם״. הָתָם קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״נַעַר״, הָכָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״עֶלֶם״? הָכִי קָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲלָכָה נִתְעַלְּמָה מִמְּךָ — צֵא וּשְׁאַל בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. שָׁאַל, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: ״עַמּוֹנִי״, וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית. ״מוֹאָבִי״, וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית.

Immediately: “And the king said, inquire you whose son is this lad” (I Samuel 17:56). The Gemara comments: There, in the previous verse, Saul calls him youth [na’ar], and here he calls him lad [elem]. This change in the wording hints at the following discussion. Saul said to Doeg as follows: The halakha is hidden [nitalma] from you, and you are ignorant of the law. Go and inquire about the matter in the study hall. He went to the study hall and asked. They said to him: The halakha is: An Ammonite man is forbidden, but not an Ammonite woman; a Moabite man is forbidden, but not a Moabite woman.