יבמות עז

יבמות עז

אַקְשִׁי לְהוּ דּוֹאֵג כֹּל הָנֵי קוּשְׁיָיתָא, אִישְׁתִּיקוּ. בָּעֵי לְאַכְרוֹזֵי עֲלֵיהּ. מִיַּד ״וַעֲמָשָׂא בֶן אִישׁ וּשְׁמוֹ יִתְרָא הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי אֲשֶׁר בָּא אֶל אֲבִיגַל בַּת נָחָשׁ״, וּכְתִיב, ״יֶתֶר הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִי״, אָמַר רָבָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁחָגַר חַרְבּוֹ כְּיִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְאָמַר: כׇּל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ הֲלָכָה זוֹ — יִדָּקֵר בַּחֶרֶב. כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִבֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי: ״עַמּוֹנִי״, וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית. ״מוֹאָבִי״, וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית.

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: “Now Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Jithra the Israelite, that went into Abigal the daughter of Nahash” (II Samuel 17:25), and yet elsewhere it is written that Amasa’s father was named “Jether the Ishmaelite” (I 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.

וּמִי מְהֵימַן? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁמּוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה וּבָא, אִם קוֹדֶם מַעֲשֶׂה אֲמָרָהּ — שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּהָא שְׁמוּאֵל וּבֵית דִּינוֹ קַיָּים.

The Gemara asks about this incident: And is he trusted to offer such testimony? But didn’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 Jesse’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 Amasa’s report could be easily verified.

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: ״כׇּל כְּבוּדָּה בַת מֶלֶךְ פְּנִימָה״. בְּמַעְרְבָא אָמְרִי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו אַיֵּה שָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ וְגוֹ׳״.

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: “The king’s daughter is all glorious within” (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 Yitzḥak who said: The verse states: “And they said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he said: Behold, in the tent” (Genesis 18:9), which teaches that it is praiseworthy for a woman to remain inside her home.

כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״עַמּוֹנִי״, וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית, ״מוֹאָבִי״, וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״עַל דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם״ — דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ לְקַדֵּם וְכוּ׳.

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 tanna’im: The verse states: “An Ammonite or a Moabite” (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: “Because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way” (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.

דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״פִּתַּחְתָּ לְמוֹסֵרָי״ — אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, שְׁנֵי מוֹסֵרוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ עָלַי, פִּתַּחְתָּם: רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה וְנַעֲמָה הָעַמּוֹנִית.

With regard to the same issue, Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You have loosened my bands” (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 Na’ama the Ammonite woman. Owing to the allowance granted to Moabite and Ammonite women, we are permitted to enter the congregation.

דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״רַבּוֹת עָשִׂיתָ אַתָּה ה׳ אֱלֹהַי נִפְלְאוֹתֶיךָ וּמַחְשְׁבוֹתֶיךָ אֵלֵינוּ״. ״אֵלַי״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״אֵלֵינוּ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה רְחַבְעָם יוֹשֵׁב בְּחֵיקוֹ שֶׁל דָּוִד, אָמַר לוֹ: עָלַי וְעָלֶיךָ נֶאֶמְרוּ שְׁתֵּי מִקְרָאוֹת הַלָּלוּ.

Rava further taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Many things have You done, O Lord my God, Your wonders and Your thoughts are upon us” (Psalms 40:6)? Upon me is not stated, but rather “upon us,” 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 Rehoboam’s mother was Na’ama the Ammonite.

דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אָז אָמַרְתִּי הִנֵּה בָאתִי בִּמְגִילַּת סֵפֶר כָּתוּב עָלָי״, אָמַר דָּוִד: אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי ״עַתָּה בָאתִי״, וְלֹא יָדַעְתִּי שֶׁ״בִּמְגִילַּת סֵפֶר כָּתוּב עָלָי״. הָתָם כְּתִיב: ״הַנִּמְצָאוֹת״, הָכָא כְּתִיב: ״מָצָאתִי דָּוִד עַבְדִּי בְּשֶׁמֶן קׇדְשִׁי מְשַׁחְתִּיו״.

With regard to the same issue, Rava also taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then I said: Behold, I have come; in the scroll of a book it is written about me” (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: “And your two daughters that are found here” (Genesis 19:15), and here, with regard to David, it is written: “I have found David, My servant; I have anointed him with My holy oil” (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.

אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּת גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי כְּשֵׁרָה לַכְּהוּנָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר עוּלָּא לְעוּלָּא: כְּמַאן? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא אָמַר: בַּת גֵּר זָכָר — כְּבַת חָלָל זָכָר! וְאִי כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, פְּשִׁיטָא, הָא אָמַר: אַף גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת — בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה לִכְהוּנָּה.

Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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, didn’t he say that the daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male ḥalal, 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.

וְכִי תֵּימָא, בְּהָנָךְ דִּרְאוּיִן לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל, אֲבָל הַאי דְּאֵין רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל — לָא, מְנָא לֵיהּ?

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?

דְּיָלֵיף מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה. מָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה — שֶׁכֵּן בִּיאָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה.

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?

חָלָל יוֹכִיחַ! מָה לְחָלָל שֶׁכֵּן יְצִירָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה —

The Gemara answers: Let the case of a ḥalal prove that this is not relevant, as his intercourse does not involve a transgression and yet his children are also ḥalalim, who are prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. However, another objection may be raised: What comparison can be made to a ḥalal, 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?

כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל יוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין:

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.

לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן: שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּרוֹב קָהָל, וּבִתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה. אַף כָּאן, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּרוֹב קָהָל — וּבִתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה.

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 ḥalal, 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 Priest’s intercourse with a widow involves a transgression, and the ḥalal is the product of a forbidden union. And in each case, the man’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.

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד עֲבֵירָה!

The Gemara objects: What is the common denominator between the case of the High Priest and that of the ḥalal 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 ḥalal 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.

דִּלְמָא וַדַּאי בְּעַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל קָאָמְרַתְּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּבִיאָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה — בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.

The Gemara answers: Perhaps you spoke of an Ammonite convert who married the daughter of a Jew, and Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan’s teaching.

דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּת גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי, וּבַת מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פְּסוּלָה — דְּיָלֵיף לַהּ מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כְּשֵׁרָה —

As, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan said she is fit,

דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי זַכַּאי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״כִּי אִם בְּתוּלָה מֵעַמָּיו יִקַּח אִשָּׁה״, לְהָבִיא גִּיּוֹרֶת מִכַּנָּהּ — שֶׁהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה לַכְּהוּנָּה. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה ״עַמָּיו״, ״מֵעַמָּיו״ — לְהָבִיא בְּתוּלָה הַבָּאָה מִשְּׁנֵי עַמְמִין, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ גִּיּוֹרֶת מִכַּנָּהּ וְתוּ לָא?

as Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: That which is stated with regard to a High Priest: “But a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife” (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 Yoḥanan said to him: I teach that the words “his own people” and the more inclusive phrase “of his own people” 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?

מַאי ״שְׁנֵי עַמְמִין״? אִילֵּימָא עַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא עַמּוֹנִית, וּמַאי מִשְּׁנֵי עַמְמִין, דִּזְכָרִים אֲסוּרִין וּנְקֵבוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת, הַיְינוּ גִּיּוֹרֶת מִכַּנָּהּ. אֶלָּא בְּעַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל.

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 “from two peoples,” 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.

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה ״עַמָּיו״ ״מֵעַמָּיו״ — לְהָבִיא בְּתוּלָה הַבָּאָה מִשְּׁנֵי עַמְמִין, וּמֵעַם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עַמְמִין, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ גִּיּוֹרֶת מִכַּנָּהּ וְתוּ לָא?

And there are those who say an alternative version of this discussion. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Zakkai: I teach that the words “his own people” and the more inclusive phrase “from his own people” 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?

וּלְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא, בַּת מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי, דִּכְשֵׁרָה לִכְהוּנָּה מְנָא לֵיהּ? וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּיָלֵיף מֵעַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל: מָה לְעַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁכֵּן נְקֵבוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת.

The Gemara asks: And according to this second version, from where does Rabbi Yoḥanan 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?

מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית שְׁנִיָּה יוֹכִיחַ!

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.

מָה לְמִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית שְׁנִיָּה, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין בִּיאָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה.

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?

עַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין וְכוּ׳.

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.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַיְינוּ דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר ״עַמָּיו״ ״מֵעַמָּיו״, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי קָאָמַר.

Rav Yosef said: This is what I heard Rav Yehuda say in his lecture about the phrases “his own people” and “from his own people,” 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 Yoḥanan.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר: הָכִי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ: אִשָּׁה עַמּוֹנִית — כְּשֵׁרָה, בְּנָהּ מֵעַמּוֹנִי — פָּסוּל, וּבִתָּהּ מֵעַמּוֹנִי — כְּשֵׁרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים: בְּעַמּוֹנִי וְעַמּוֹנִית שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ, אֲבָל בִּתָּהּ מֵעַמּוֹנִי — פְּסוּלָה.

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Zakkai taught before Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק תְּנִי לְבָרָא. מַאי דַּאֲמַרְתְּ אִשָּׁה עַמּוֹנִית כְּשֵׁרָה — ״עַמּוֹנִי״ וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית. בְּנָהּ מֵעַמּוֹנִי פָּסוּל — דְּהָא עַמּוֹנִי הוּא.

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

וּבִתָּהּ מֵעַמּוֹנִי כְּשֵׁרָה, לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל — הַשְׁתָּא אִמָּהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, הִיא מִיבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא לִכְהוּנָּה.

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.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים: בְּעַמּוֹנִי וְעַמּוֹנִית שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ, אֲבָל בִּתָּהּ מֵעַמּוֹנִי פְּסוּלָה. מַאי בִּתָּהּ מֵעַמּוֹנִי? אִילֵּימָא עַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא עַמּוֹנִית — הַיְינוּ גִּיּוֹרֶת מִכַּנָּהּ! אֶלָּא עַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק תְּנִי לְבָרָא.

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 Yoḥanan, 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.

מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי אֵינָן אֲסוּרִין וְכוּ׳. מַאי תְּשׁוּבָה?

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 Shimon’s colleagues informed him that there is a refutation of his argument. The Gemara asks: What is this refutation mentioned by the mishna?

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: עֲרָיוֹת יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁלֹּא אָסַר בָּהֶן אֶלָּא עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת, אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת!

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

מָה לַעֲרָיוֹת, שֶׁכֵּן כָּרֵת! מַמְזֵר יוֹכִיחַ.

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.

מָה לְמַמְזֵר, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל לְעוֹלָם. עֲרָיוֹת יוֹכִיחוּ, וְחָזַר הַדִּין.

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.

לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁאֲסוּרִין, וְאֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִצְרִי וּמִצְרִית שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אֲסוּרִין, אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת.

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.

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד כָּרֵת.

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.

וְרַבָּנַן, מֵחָלָל דְּחַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה, וּכְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.

And the Rabbis, who reject Rabbi Shimon’s proof, derive the prohibition applying to female Egyptians from the halakha governing a ḥalal, one rendered unfit for the priesthood. A ḥalal 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 Ya’akov, who ruled that the child of such a relationship is a ḥalal.

וּמַאי ״לָא כִּי״? הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי, לָא סְבִירָא לִי דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. לְדִידְכוּ, דִּסְבִירָא לְכוּ כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב — הֲלָכָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר.

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 Ya’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 Ya’akov, I am nevertheless stating a halakha handed down to me by my teachers that female Egyptians and Edomites are permitted.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: הֲלָכָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר, וְעוֹד: מִקְרָא מְסַיְּיעֵנִי, ״בָּנִים״ — וְלֹא בָּנוֹת.

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: “The sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter to them, the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:9), teaching that the prohibition applies to their sons, but not to their daughters.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בָּנִים״ וְלֹא בָּנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בָּנִים אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי״, הַכָּתוּב תְּלָאָן בְּלֵידָה.

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: “The sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter to them, the congregation of the Lord,” and the phrase “born to them” indicates that the verse made their prohibition dependent on birth, with regard to which there is no difference between males and females.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַכָּתוּב תְּלָאָן בְּלֵידָה — לֹא מָצָא יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: קְהַל גֵּרִים אִיקְּרִי קָהָל,

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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,