Daf Yomi - Yevamos 78 - Highlights

The Mishna had stated: An Egyptian convert and an Edomite convert are prohibited only for three generations, both males and females. Rabbi Shimon permits the females immediately. Rabbi Shimon said: This can be derived by means of a kal vachomer: If in the case where the males are prohibited eternally (an Ammonite convert and a Moabite convert), the females are permitted immediately, in the case where the males are prohibited only for three generations, shouldn’t it stand to reason that the females should be permitted immediately! They said to him: If it is a halacha (a tradition from your teachers), we shall accept, but if you derived it through the kal vachomer, there is a refutation. He said to them: It is not so (there is no refutation), but regardless, I am stating a halacha!

The Gemora asks: What was the objection that the Rabbis could have advanced to refute Rabbi Shimon’s kal vachomer?

Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: They could have said that the Torah’s prohibition of arayos (illicit relations under the penalty of kares) indicates that the kal vachomer is incorrect. The Torah prohibits relatives until three generations, and yet the prohibition of arayos is applicable to males and females.

Rabbi Shimon would answer: The prohibitions cannot be compared. Arayos carries the penalty of kares (and perhaps that is why the females are prohibited; marriage with an Egyptian is merely a negative precept).

The Rabbis would answer: The prohibition regarding a mamzer indicates that even when there is no penalty of kares, both males and females are prohibited.

Rabbi Shimon would answer: You cannot compare to the prohibition of mamzer; a mamzer may never enter into the congregation, whereas an Egyptian may enter after three generations.

The Rabbis would answer: The arayos prohibition proves that females will be prohibited even in prohibitions that are permitted after three generations.

The argument repeats itself, and in conclusion, we can learn from the common characteristic of the two cases. The common characteristic in the two cases (mamzer and arayos) is that they are prohibited, and the prohibition applies to males and females; so too, the prohibition regarding the Egyptian converts will apply to males and females.

Rabbi Shimon would answer: You cannot compare the prohibition regarding an Egyptian convert to these cases. Both of these prohibitions have an element of kares, whereas, regarding an Egyptian convert, there is no kares.

The Rabbis would answer: We can derive the prohibition of the females from the chalal (instead of the mamzer) who is the offspring of a union between those who through it, are guilty of transgressing only a positive commandment (in a case where a Kohen Gadol cohabited with a non-virgin) and in accordance with the view of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (who maintains that the child from such a union is a chalal). (Thus, it has been proven that even where there is no element of kares, both males and females are included in the prohibition. Similarly, in the case of the Egyptians converts, the females will be included.)

This is what Rabbi Shimon meant when he stated: “It is not so.” I don’t subscribe to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. And as for you, who do hold like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, I am stating a halacha (a tradition which I receives from my teachers). (77b)

The Gemora cites a braisa: It is written [Devarim 23:9]: Sons who are born to them in the third generation may enter the Congregation of Hashem. This implies that only sons must wait for the third generation, but females are permitted immediately; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehudah says: It is written: Sons who are born to them. The Torah is stating that it is dependent on birth (and females must also wait until the third generation).

Rabbi Yochanan said: If Rabbi Yehudah had not declared that the Torah is stating that it is dependent on birth, he would not have found his hands and feet at the Beis Medrash (his position would have been untenable regarding a different ruling of his). Since he stated that the congregation of converts is considered the congregation (and therefore, a mamzer, an Ammonite and Moabite convert would not be permitted to marry a convert), how would a second-generation Egyptian convert attain purity (allowing the next generation to marry into the congregation)? (If Egyptian women were not included in the prohibition to enter the congregation, then, they would be included in the Congregation of Hashem, and a second-generation Egyptian convert would be prohibited from marrying Egyptian female converts; accordingly, it would be impossible to produce a third-generation Egyptian.)

The Gemora asks: Perhaps the Torah is referring to a case where a second-generation Egyptian convert married illegally (either an ordinary Jewess or a convert)?

The Gemora answers: The Torah does not discuss cases that would only occur if someone violated the halacha.

The Gemora asks: Why, the Torah discusses a case of mamzer, and that can only occur if the halacha was violated?

The Gemora answers: The Torah would discuss cases that would only occur if someone violated the halacha, if it would lead to a prohibition (such as mamzer); however, the Torah does not discuss cases that would only occur if someone violated the halacha, if it leads to permissibility. (77b – 78a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: It is written regarding an Egyptian convert: Sons who are born to them in the third generation may enter the Congregation of Hashem. If it states “sons,” why does it state “generations”? And if it states “generations,” why does it state “sons”?

The braisa answers: If the Torah would state “sons” and not “generations,” I would have thought that the first and the second son of the Egyptian convert are prohibited from marrying into the congregation, but the third son is permitted. It is for this reason that the Torah wrote “generations,” to teach us that all the sons of the Egyptian convert are prohibited (because they are all second-generation Egyptians); the grandchildren are permitted. If the Torah would state “generations” and not sons,” I would have thought that the Torah is referring to those that were standing at Har Sinai (any third-generation Jew would be permitted to marry an Egyptian convert). It is for this reason that the Torah wrote “sons,” to teach us that third generation descending from an Egyptian convert is permitted to marry into the congregation.

The braisa continues by asking the following: Why does the Torah state “to them”? It is to teach us that we follow their disqualification (whether the father is an Egyptian convert and the mother is a Jewess, or whether the mother is an Egyptian and the father is a Jew, the children are in either case ineligible until the third generation).

It was necessary for the Torah to write “to them,” and it was also necessary for it to write “who are born.” For if the Torah would have written only “who are born,” it might have been presumed that the three generations must begin from their children, the Torah therefore wrote “to them,” to indicate that the converts themselves are regarded as the first generation. And if the Torah would have written only “to them,” it might have been presumed that, where a pregnant Egyptian woman converted, she and her child are regarded as one generation (and the three generations would commence with the child), the Torah therefore wrote “who are born,” to teach that any child born after conversion is considered a second-generation Egyptian.

The Gemora continues analyzing the verses: It was necessary to write “for them” by the Egyptian converts, and it was necessary to write “for him” by a mamzer. For if the Torah would have written only “for them,” I would have thought that the restriction (that the ineligibility of any one of the parents causes the ineligibility of the child) might have been assumed to apply only by the Egyptian converts because the child descended from a tainted origin, but it would not apply to a mamzer since he descends from a drop that is genealogically fit. And if the Torah would have written only “for him” by a mamzer, I would have thought that the restriction (that the ineligibility of any one of the parents causes the ineligibility of the child) might have been assumed to apply only by a mamzer because he and all his future descendants are prohibited from entering the congregation, but it would not apply to an Egyptian convert. Both texts were, therefore, required. (78a)

Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: If a second-generation male Egyptian convert marries a first-generation female Egyptian convert, her son is regarded as a third-generation Egyptian convert.

The Gemora infers from here that Rabbi Yochanan maintains that we cast the child after the father.

Rav Yosef asked from the following Mishna: Rabbi Tarfon said: There is a manner in which mamzeirim can be purified. How is this? If a mamzer marries a slavewoman, the child is classified as a slave (and not a mamzer). If the child is freed, he is regarded as a free man, and is permitted to marry into the congregation. It emerges that we cast the child after the mother, and not the father.

The Gemora answers: It is different there (regarding a slavewoman), for the Torah states [Shmos 21:4]: The woman and her children belong to her master. (78a)

Rava asked on Rabbi Yochanan from the following braisa: Rabbi Yehudah said: Minyamin, an Egyptian convert was one of my colleagues among the disciples of Rabbi Akiva, and he once told me: “I am a first-generation Egyptian convert and I married a first-generation Egyptian convert. I shall arrange for my son to marry a second-generation Egyptian convert in order that my grandson shall be eligible to enter the congregation.” If Rabbi Yochanan is correct that we cast the child after the father, let him marry even a first-generation Egyptian convert; the grandson will still be classified as a third-generation convert, and he will be eligible to enter the congregation?

The Gemora answers: Rabbi Yochanan emended thr braisa to read the following: “I shall arrange for my son to marry a first-generation Egyptian convert in order that my grandson shall be eligible to enter the congregation.” (78a)

The Gemora cites a different version of Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling: When Rav Dimi came to Bavel, he said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: If a second-generation male Egyptian convert marries a first-generation female Egyptian convert, her son is regarded as a second-generation Egyptian convert.

The Gemora infers from here that Rabbi Yochanan maintains that we cast the child after the mother. (The Gemora initially thinks that Rabbi Yochanan’s reason is based on the concept that a fetus is like a thigh of the mother.)

Abaye asked Rav Dimi from a different statement that Rabbi Yochanan said: If one designated a pregnant animal as a chatas (sin offering), and she gave birth, his atonement may be made, if he desires, with the animal itself, and, if he prefers, his atonement may be made with her offspring. This halacha would be understandable if you would say that Rabbi Yochanan holds that a fetus is not like the thigh of its mother; and therefore, it is as if he designated two chataos as a security for one another (in case one should be lost, the other would take its place). And Rabbi Oshaya said: One who designated two chataos as a security for one another, he atones for his sin with either of them, while the other goes to the pasture (until it develops a blemish, when it is redeemed). But if you would say that a fetus is like a thigh of the mother, then one who designated a pregnant animal as a chatas, the offspring should be regarded as an offspring of a chatas, and the halacha is that the offspring of a chatas is consigned to death. (This proves that Rabbi Yochanan maintains that a fetus is not like the thigh of its mother, and is in contrast to our initiall understanding of Rav Dimi’s ruling in the name of Rabbi Yochanan.

Rav Dimi was silent.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: Perhaps it is different in the case of the two Egyptian converts, for it is written “sons who are born to them.” The Torah made them dependent on birth (we cast them after the mother, even though a fetus is not like the thigh of the mother).

Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Clever man! I saw your head between the pillars of the Beis Medrash when Rabbi Yochanan taught this ruling (you heard this explanation from Rabbi Yochanan himself). (78a)

The Gemora states: The only reason Rabbi Yochanan cast the children of the Egyptian converts after the mother is because the Torah wrote “sons who are born to them.” Elsewhere, we would cast the children after the father. Accordingly, how we can explain the following ruling? Rava said: If a pregnant idolater converted, her son would not require immersion. If a fetus is not like the thigh of the mother, but rather, the child would be regarded as a separate entity, shouldn’t the child require immersion?

Perhaps you might answer that the child does not require another immersion on account of Rav Yitzchak’s ruling. Rav Yitzchak said: If there is a barrier that covers most of one’s body and one is particular about it, this would invalidate one’s immersion in a mikvah. If, however, the barrier covers most of one’s body, but he is not particular about the barrier, the immersion in the mikvah is valid. (The fetus is covered by his mother’s body, but he is not particular about this; the immersion should be valid.) This explanation would not be sufficient because Rav Kahana said: The immersion is only valid if the barrier covered most of his body, but if it covered his entire body, the immersion will be invalid.

The Gemora answers: A fetus is different because that is the normal way that it grows (and is therefore not regarded as barrier). (78a – 78b)

When Ravina came to Bavel, he said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Concerning other nations, we follow the male; and if they convert, we follow the one who is more tainted.

The Gemora explains the first ruling: Concerning other nations, we follow the male. It was taught in a braisa: How do we know that if a male from any nation (other than the seven nations of Canaan) cohabited with a Canaanite woman and had a child; one is permitted to purchase that child as a slave (and he is not obligated to kill him; there is a requirement to kill anyone from the nations of Canaan)?

The braisa answers: It is written [Vayikra 25:44]: And also from among the children of the residents who live with you, from among them you may purchase slaves. One might have thought that even if a Canaanite male cohabited with a woman from any of the other nations and had a child; one would be permitted to purchase that child as a slave. It is therefore written [ibid.]: ….whom they begot in your land. The Torah teaches us that one may purchase slaves only from those who were born in your land to Canaanite mothers from non-Canaanite fathers, but not from among those children who were born abroad to non-Canaanite mothers from Canaanite fathers, and who later returned to reside in your land with their fathers. (Women, generally remain in the lands of their birth, and that is why, when the Torah states “born in your land,” it is referring to the children of Canaanite mothers. These verses establish that in respect to other nations, we follow the father’s status.)

The Gemora now explains the second ruling: And if they convert, we follow the one who is more tainted. What is this case? If he is referring to a male Egyptian convert who married a female Ammonite convert (and we cast the child after the one who is more tainted, namely, the Egyptian, and hence, the child will be ineligible to marry into the congregation regardless of its gender); I will ask the following: The mother is not regarded as tainted at all, since she is permitted to marry into the congregation.

Rather, he must be referring to a case where a male Ammonite convert married a female Egyptian convert. If the child is a male, we cast him after his Ammonite father (and he and his sons will be ineligible to marry into the congregation). If the child is a female, we cast her after her Egyptian mother (and she would be ineligible to marry into the congregation). (78b)

The Mishna states: Mamzeirim and Nesinim are prohibited from marrying into the congregation, and their prohibition is eternal for males and for females. (78b)

Rish Lakish said: A mamzeres is permitted to marry into the congregation after ten generations. The Gemora cites the Scriptural source for this.

The Gemora asks: Rish Lakish is contradiction our Mishna, which ruled that the prohibition regarding mamzeirim is eternal for males and for females. The Gemora answers: This is actually dependent on a Tannaic dispute regarding laws that are derived through a gezeirah shavah. (78b)

They asked Rabbi Eliezer: What is the halacha regarding a mamzeres after ten generations?

He said to them: If you would give me a third-generation mamzer, I will render him pure. (This scenario is not possible, because Heaven does not allow third-generation mamzeirim to be in existence, in order that the ordinary Jews will not unknowingly marry them.)

Rav Huna said: Mamzeirim do not survive.

The Gemora asks: But we learned in our Mishna that the prohibition regarding mamzeirim is eternal? It would seem that they do survive, and they have future generations.

Rabbi Zeira answers: Rav Yehudah explained to me the following: A known mamzer survives (since there is no danger of intermarriage with them or their descendants). An unknown mamzer does not survive. A mamzer that is known, but unknown (it is not common knowledge) will survive until three generations, but not longer (by that time, everyone will have forgotten). (78b)

[END]