(a) What does R. Yehudah rule regarding the child born to a Ger Mitzri who marries a Mamzeres?

(b) On what grounds does he nevertheless allow him to marry her?

(c) What problem does that now create with establishing our Mishnah like R. Yehudah?

(d) How does the Riva answer the question?

(e) Later however, the Gemara does query R. Yehudah from a Mitzri who married a Mitzris. Why does it then not ask from a Mitzri who married a Mamzeres?

(a) ... in the Seifa. What does the Gemara answer?

(b) Why does the Gemara not ask 've'Nisnayah Behedya?', like it will ask shortly? (On what basis is Ger be'Mamzeres similar to Mamzeres u'Nesinah le'Yisrael)?

(c) Then why does the Tana need to include it at all?

(a) What are the practical ramifications of this statement?

(b) What problem do we have with this question? Why is it not just on account of the father that the child is a Chalal?

(c) We answer by citing the case of a Yisrael who marries a Chalalah. What is the status of their daughter?

(d) What does this come to prove?

(a) ... (with regard to Chalal she'Nasa bas Yisrael). Why did the Gemara not answer 'Tana Kol Makom La'asuyei' (like it will do regarding Yisrael she'Nasa Chalalah")?

(b) Why could the Gemara not have countered 'Heichi Nisnayah' (like it will shortly)? What could the Tana easily have said?

(c) Why is that?

(a) What reason does Rashi give to explain why we apply here the Pasuk "Dor Shelishi Yavo Lahem"? Why, specifically in this case do we go after the father ("le'Veis Avosam") and not after the mother?

(b) In which case does the Gemara in Yevamos then say that we go after the one who is Pasul?

(c) From which Pasuk do we learn that?

(a) According to the Ram, why can we not ascribe the fact that the child of a Mitzri Rishon who marries a Mitzris Sheni'yah is a Shelish because 'Halach Achar Pesulan' is confined to a Yisrael who marries a Mitzris, where one of them is Kosher, but not to where they are both Pasul anyway?

(b) Then what is the reason behind it?

(a) What do we mean when we say 'O O' (it is either or)?

(b) If we accept 'Kol Makom' of the Reisha to include the case of Rabah bar bar Chanah, then 've'Eizo Zu' must come to preclude Ravin? Why not Rav Dimi?

(c) When then can 've'Eizo Zu' come to preclude Rav Dimi?

TOSFOS DH MI'NA HANI MILI

(a) The Gemara is not asking from where we know that the child of a union which is not subject to Kidushin is a Mamzer, since the Gemara in Yevamos learns it from the Pasuk in (Acharei Mos) "Lo Yegaleh K'naf Aviv". In which connection is this Pasuk written? To whom does K'naf Aviv refer?

(b) So what does the Gemara learn from there?

(c) What is the problem with saying that the Gemara is asking from where we know that such a union is not subject to Kidushin?

(d) How do we prove this from...

1. ... the oft-cited opinion of R. Akiva? From where do we know that in his opinion, Chayvei Lavin are not subject to Kidushin?

2. ... our Sugya? What does our Sugya say about the children of a Nidah?

(a) We finally answer that the Gemara's She'eilah is aimed specifically at R. Yehoshua. From what sort of union is the child a Mamzer according to him?

(b) How do we know that, according to R. Yehoshua, Chaivei Kares are not subject to Kidushin?

(c) What is now the She'eilah?