Previous Daf

YEVAMOS 77

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) We have reason to doubt the ruling of Amasa ben Ish (alias Yisra ha'Yisraeli) - on account of Rebbi Aba Amar Rav, who said that we can only accept the new ruling of a Talmid-Chacham if it is issued before a She'eilah is asked, but not afterwards (because we suspect that he only issued the ruling as a result of the She'eilah [subjectively, rather than objectively]).
(b) And the reason that they accepted it here was - because Shmuel ha'Navi was still alive, and available to tell them so himself (in which case Amasa ben Ish would have been most unlikely to have lied).
(c) They answer Do'eg's Kashya ('that the men ought to have gone out to provide for the men, and the women for the women') - with the Pasuk in Tehilim "Kol Kevudah bas Melech Penimah" (that a woman's place is in the home).
(d) We learn this from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Kol Kevudah bas Melech Penimah". In Eretz Yisrael - they derived it from the Pasuk in Vayera (in connection with Sarah)"Hinei ba'Ohel" (Others attribute it to Rebbi Yitzchak).

click for question
2)
(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, learns that Amoni and Moavi women are permitted to marry into the Kahal, from "Amoni" 'v'Lo Amonis' "Moavi" 'v'Lo Moavis'. Rebbi Shimon learns it - from the Pasuk "al Devar Asher Lo Kidmu Eschem ... ", and it is appropriate for men to go out, but not for women.
(b) Rava explains that when David said the Pasuk "Pitachta l'Moseirai" - he was acknowledging that Hash-m had untied the two straps that hold the yoke in place (meaning that He had relieved him of the two stigmas that held him and his descendents down, Rut ha'Moavi'ah [from whom he descended] and Na'amah ha'Amonis [the wife of Shlomo and mother of Rechav'am and the kings of Yehudah]).
(c) And when he said there "Rabos Asisa Atah Hash-m Elokai, Nifle'osecha u'Machshevosecha Eleinu", says Rava - he was referring to Rechav'am (when as a little boy, he sat on his lap) and himself.
(d) And when he said "Az Amarti, Hinei Basi, bi'Megilas Sefer Kasuv Alai", Rava explains, he meant to say - that although, until then, he had assumed that his anointing was something new, in fact Hash-m had already hinted at it long, long ago, when the Torah wrote in Vayera (with regard to Lot's daughters) "es Shtei Benosecha ha'Nimtza'os" (hinting at David, in connection with whom the Pasuk in Tehilim wrote "Matzasi David Avdi b'Shemen Kodshi Meshachtiv".

click for question
3)
(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan says that the daughter of a Ger Amoni is permitted to marry a Kohen. The mother, we initially think, is an Amonis.
(b) This cannot go like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'bas Ger Zachar, k'Bas Chalal Zachar'. The problem with establishing it like Rebbi Yosi, says Rava bar Ula, - is that it appears to be obvious, since Rebbi Yosi has already taught us that if a Ger marries a Giyores, their daughter may marry a Kohen.
(c) So we differentiate between an ordinary bas Ger and the daughter of a Ger Amoni, and we try to learn a potential Isur from an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol and a Chalal (for there to be a Chidush). We could not learn a bas Ger Amoni ...
1. ... from an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol - because there, the Bi'ah is a forbidden one.
2. ... from a Chalal - because the Chalal himself was formed through a forbidden Bi'ah.
(d) Nor can we even learn the daughter of a Ger Amoni who married an Amonis from the combination of the two together - because one way or another, there is a prohibition attached, which is not the case by the child of an Amoni and an Amonis. So at the end of the day, there is no Chidush

click for question
4)
(a) We therefore establish Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement - with regard to the daughter of an Amoni who married a bas Yisrael.
(b) This is substantiated by a statement of Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan who declares Kasher the daughter of an Amoni - and of a second generation Mitzri who married a bas Yisrael.
(c) Resh Lakish in fact, learns from Almanah l'Kohen Gadol, that both of their daughters are Pasul - because, like Almanah l'Kohen Gadol, the Bi'ah in both cases is forbidden.

click for question
5)
(a) When, commenting on the Pasuk "Ki im Besulah me'Amav Yikach Ishah" Rebbi cited a Beraisa before Rebbi Yochanan which stated that this comes to include a Giyores Mechaneh, he meant - that the daughter of an Amoni and an Amonis is Kasher to marry a Kohen Gadol (but not an Amoni who married a bas Yisrael, since their Bi'ah was a Bi'as Isur (the opinion of Resh Lakish, as we just learned).
(b) Rebbi Yochanan commented on this - that he learned from the extra 'Mem' in "me'Amav ... " - that a virgin who came from two nations (Amon and Yisrael) is also Kasher to marry a Kohen Gadol (and not just a Giyores Mechanah).
(c) He cannot possibly have meant an Amoni who married an Amonis (who are considered two nations, because the males are forbidden and the females, permitted - because that is a Giyores Mechanah (on which he is coming to argue).

click for question
6)
(a) According to the second Lashon, Rebbi Yochanan explains 'mi'Shnei Amamin' to mean the daughter of two nations, one of which is itself two nations - meaning an Amoni (who are considered two nations to start off with) who married a bas Yisrael.
(b) The difference between the two Leshonos is - the daughter of a Mitzri Sheni who married a bas Yisrael, who will have the same Din as the daughter of an Amoni to a bas Yisrael according to the first Lashon, but not according to the second Lashon.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan will now learn that the daughter of a second generation Mitzri who married a Yisraelis is permitted to marry a Kohen - from the Tzad ha'Shaveh between an Amoni who married a bas Yisrael and a Mitzri Sheni who married a Mitzris Sheniyah.
(d) Rav Yosef now understood what Rav Yehudah meant when he heard him saying 'Amav' 'me'Amav'.

click for question
7)
(a) When Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi Zakai differently. According to his version, Rebbi Yochanan accepted the statement 'Ishah Amonis Kesheirah, Bnah me'Amoni Pasul, u'Bitah me'Amoni Kesheirah.' The reason that ...
1. ... 'Ishah Amonis Kesheirah' is - because "Amoni" 'v'Lo Amonis'.
2. ... 'Bnah me'Amoni Pasul' is - because he is an Amoni.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan original problem with 'u'Bitah me'Amoni Kesheirah' was - because if the Tana is coming to tell us that she is Kasher, to permit her to marry into the Kahal, that is obvious, seeing as her mother was already permitted to do so.
(c) He must therefore be coming to teach us - that she is permitted to marry a Kohen (even though her mother is not).
(d) He rejects the Beraisa on the basis of the final statement 'ba'Meh Devarim Amurim ba'Amoni v'Amonis she'Nisgayru; Aval Bitah me'Amoni, Pesulah'. This cannot be referring to the daughter of an Amoni who married an Amonis, because that is a Giyores Mechanah, whom we just permitted. So it must be referring to the daughter of an Amoni who married a bas Yisrael, and whom the Tana considers Pasul. Rebbi Yochanan objects to that - on the grounds of "Amav" "me'Amav" as we learned above).

click for question
8)
(a) Rebbi Shimon permits a Mitzris and an Edomis immediately, from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from an Amonis, who is permitted immediately, even though the men are forbidden forever (certainly a Mitzris and an Edomis, where the men are not). The Kashya that Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan cites that the Rabanan ask on him from Arayos is - where the men are also forbidden for only two generations, yet the women are forbidden, too.
(b) Their proof from Arayos is not acceptable however - because Arayos are Chayavei Kares (whereas a Mitzri and an Edomi are only Chayavei Aseh).
(c) Their proof from Mamzer is not acceptable either - because a Mamzer will never be fit to enter the Kahal (whereas a Mitzri and an Edomi will be fit to enter it after three generations).
(d) Neither can we learn from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from both Arayos and a Mamzer, by both of whom the women are forbidden too - seeing as they have a common Chumra over a Mitzri and an Edomi, inasmuch as they both have a Tzad Kares (the one is Chayav Kares, the other, is born from a union for which there was a Chiyuv Kares) which the latter pair do not.

click for question
9)
(a) So the Rabanan ask Rebbi Shimon from a Chalal of Chayavei Aseh (instead of Mamzer) - a Kohen Gadol who married an Anusah or a Mefutah according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov.
(b) We bring a Chalal of Chayavei Aseh to the 'Mah ha'Tzad' to answer the Kashya that one cannot learn from Arayos because they are Chayav Kares. And we also need to bring Arayos to the 'Mah ha'Tzad', because a Chalal of Chayavei Aseh has a Chumra over Mitzri and Edomi - inasmuch as a Chalal is formed through a sin, which Mitzri and Edomi are not.
(c) When Rebbi Shimon said to the Rabanan 'Lo Ki, Halachah Ani Omer' - he meant that as far as he was concerned, he did not hold like Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov anyway, but that, even according to them, who did, his ruling was Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai (and therefore not disputable).

click for question
10)
(a) In a Beraisa, Rebbi Shimon brings another proof from the Pasuk "Banim Asher Yivaldu" - from which he Darshens "Banim" 'v'Lo Banos'.
(b) According to one explanation, Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Banim Asher Yivaldu" that all children are forbidden, daughters no less than sons. Alternatively, when he says 'ha'Kasuv Tal'an b'Leidah', he means - that the sons go after their mother (e.g. if the mother is a first-generation Mitzris, then her son is a second (a Derashah which only makes sense if the women are forbidden just like the men).

click for question
11)
(a) Bearing in mind that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Kehal Gerim Ikri Kahal', the problem, had he agreed here with Rebbi Shimon would have been - that even a first or second-generation Mitzris would be considered Kahal, and would therefore be forbidden to a first or second generation Mitzri (in which case, there would be no way for a Mitzri Sheni to become permitted. So how can the Torah inform us that they are permitted?).
(b) We cannot answer that the Torah's case of Mitzri Shelishi in the Torah speaks when a Mitzri Sheni married a bas Yisrael or a Giyores b'Isur - because the Torah does not speak about cases that came about through an Isur.
(c) Granted, the Torah does speak about a Mamzer, who came into the world b'Isur - but that is to teach us a Chumra (but it would not do so to teach us a Kula).
(d) Nevertheless, it does speak about a Machzir Gerushaso, who took his wife back, together with the leniency ("Hi To'evah" 'v'Ein Banehah To'evin') - because it comes chiefly, to teach us the prohibition of taking her back.

Next Daf