Yevamot 153

אקשי להו דואג כל הני קושייתא אישתיקו בעי לאכרוזי עליה מיד (שמואל ב יז, כה) ועמשא בן איש ושמו יתרא הישראלי אשר בא אל אביגיל בת נחש וכתיב (דברי הימים א ב, יז) יתר הישמעאלי אמר רבא מלמד שחגר חרבו כישמעאל ואמר כל מי שאינו שומע הלכה זו ידקר בחרב כך מקובלני מבית דינו של שמואל הרמתי עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית

As, however, Doeg submitted to them all those objections<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Addressed to Abner supra. ');">¹</span> and they eventually remained silent, he desired to make a public announcement against him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To brand David publicly as a descendant of a Moabitess, and unfit to enter the congregation of Israel in accordance with Deut. XXIII, 4. ');">²</span> Presently [an incident occurred]: Now Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Ithna the Israelite, that went in to Abigal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'Abigail', is apparently a printer's error (cf. M.T.). V., however, I Chron. II, 17. ');">³</span> the daughter of Nahash,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Sam. XVII, 25. ');">⁴</span>

ומי מהימן והאמר רבי אבא אמר רב כל תלמיד חכם שמורה הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו אין שומעין לו שאני הכא דהא שמואל ובית דינו קיים

but elsewhere it is written, Jether the Ishmaelite!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Chron. II, 17. Some MSS, read Ishmaelite in the [text of Sam. also. How then are the two readings to be reconciled? ');">⁵</span> This teaches, Raba explained, that he girded on his sword like an Ishmaelite and exclaimed, 'Whosoever will not obey the following <i>halachah</i> will be stabbed with the sword; I have this tradition from the <i>Beth din</i> of Samuel the Ramathite: An Ammonite but not an Ammonitess; A Moabite, but not a Moabitess'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 517, n. 17. [On the political issues involved in this controversy v. Aptowitzer, Parteipolitik der Hasmonaerzeit pp. 31ff. He regards the attack on the legitimacy of David as a movement inspired by the Sadducees to support the Hasmoneans' right to the throne against the challenge of their opponents. V. Kid. Sonc. ed. pp. 332ff]. ');">⁶</span> Could he, however, be trusted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such circumstances. ');">⁷</span> Surely R. Abba stated in the name of Rab: Whenever a learned man gives directions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Basing his ruling on traditional law which he claims to have received from his teachers. ');">⁸</span>

מכל מקום קשיא הכא תרגמו (תהלים מה, יד) כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה במערבא אמרי ואיתימא ר' יצחק אמר קרא (בראשית יח, ט) ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך וגו'

on a point of law, and such a point comes up [for a practical decision], he is obeyed if his statement was made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the course of his discourses and studies. ');">⁹</span> before the event;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the point of law assumed practical importance. ');">¹⁰</span> but if it was not so made he is not obeyed! Here the case was different, since Samuel and his <i>Beth din</i> were still living.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had not the statement been a true on, he would not have ventured to make it when its validity could be so easily tested. ');">¹¹</span> The difficulty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raised by Doeg (supra 76b) to which no reply was forthcoming ');">¹²</span>

כתנאי עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר (דברים כג, ה) על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים דרכו של איש לקדם וכו'

however, still remains! — The following<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH. a.l. ');">¹³</span> interpretation was given: All glorious is the king's daughter within.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XLV, 14. Respectable women remain at home and do not go into the open road even to meet members of their own sex. No blame, therefore, is attached to the Ammonite and Moabite women for not meeting the Israelites with bread and with water. Cf. Deut. XXIII, 5. ');">¹⁴</span> In the West<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Palestine. ');">¹⁵</span> it was explained. others quote it in the name of R. Isaac: Scripture said, And they said unto him: 'Where is Sarah thy wife?' etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen XVIII, 9, and he answered, 'Behold in the tent'. Sarah remained indoors attending to the duties of her household, though there were visitors whom Abraham was entertaining in the open under the tree (ibid. 4). ');">¹⁶</span>

דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים קטז, טז) פתחת למוסרי אמר דוד לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולם שני מוסרות שהיו עלי פתחתם רות המואביה ונעמה העמונית

The question<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the Scriptural text from which the admission of Ammonite and Moabite women is deduced. ');">¹⁷</span> is a matter in dispute between Tannaim: An Ammonite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 4. ');">¹⁸</span> but not an Ammonitess; A Moabite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 4. ');">¹⁸</span> but not a Moabitess. So R. Judah. R. Simeon, however, said: Because they met you not with bread and with water;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 5. ');">¹⁹</span>

דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים מ, ו) רבות עשית אתה ה' אלהי נפלאותיך ומחשבותיך אלינו אלי לא נאמר אלא אלינו מלמד שהיה רחבעם יושב בחיקו של דוד אמר לו עלי ועליך נאמרו שתי מקראות הללו

it is customary for a man to meet etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 76b. ');">²⁰</span> Raba made the following exposition: What was meant by, Thou hast loosed my bonds!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. CXVI, 16. ');">²¹</span> David said to the Holy One, blessed be He, 'O Master of the world! Two bonds were fastened on me,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Upon David's dynasty. ');">²²</span> and you loosed them: Ruth the Moabitess<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From whom David himself descended. V. Ruth IV. 13. 17ff. ');">²³</span>

דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים מ, ח) אז אמרתי הנה באתי במגילת ספר כתוב עלי אמר דוד אני אמרתי עתה באתי ולא ידעתי שבמגילת ספר כתוב עלי התם כתיב (בראשית יט, טו) הנמצאות הכא כתיב (תהלים פט, כא) מצאתי דוד עבדי בשמן קדשי משחתיו

and Naamah the Ammonitess.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife of Solomon and mother of Rehoboam, David's grandson. V. I Kings XIV, 21, 31. ');">²⁴</span> Raba made the following exposition: What was meant by the Scriptural text, <i>Many things hast Thou done, O Lord my God, even Thy wondrous works, and Thy thoughts toward us</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XL, 6. ');">²⁵</span> It is not written, 'toward me', but toward us. This teaches that Rehoboam<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 519. n. 17. ');">²⁶</span> sat on the lap of David when the latter said to him. 'Those two Scriptural verses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XVIII. 9 and Ps, XLV. 14, from which the permissibility of admitting Ammonite and Moabite women into the congregation of Israel was deduced. ');">²⁷</span>

אמר עולא א"ר יוחנן בת גר עמוני כשרה לכהונה א"ל רבא בר עולא לעולא כמאן אי כר' יהודה הא אמר בת גר זכר כבת חלל זכר ואי כרבי יוסי פשיטא הא אמר אף גר שנשא גיורת בתו כשרה לכהונה

were said concerning me and you.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Divine providence which permitted Ammonite and Moabite women to enter the assembly has saved them from being excluded from the congregation of Israel. ');">²⁸</span> Raba made the following exposition: What was meant by the Scriptural text, <i>Then said I: 'Lo, I am come with the roll of a book which is prescribed for me'</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XL. 8. ');">²⁹</span> David said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he was anointed king. ');">³⁰</span> 'I thought I have come<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the kingship. ');">³¹</span>

וכ"ת בהנך דראוין לבא בקהל אבל האי דאין ראוי לבא בקהל לא מנא ליה

only now; but I did not know that in the Roll of the Book<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Scroll of the Law, the Pentateuch. ');">³²</span> it was already<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the days of Abraham. ');">³³</span> written about me'. For there it is written, That are found,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XIX. 1, (rt. [H]) referring to the two daughters of Lot, from whom descended Ammon and Moab respectively. ');">³⁴</span> and here it is written. I have found<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rt. [H]. ');">³⁵</span>

דיליף מכ"ג באלמנה מה לכ"ג באלמנה שכן ביאתו בעבירה

David My servant; with My holy oil have I anointed him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. LXXXIX. 21. ');">³⁶</span> 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: The daughter of an Ammonite proselyte<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that the daughter was born from an Ammo- nite father and mother after their conversion. ');">³⁷</span> is eligible to marry a priest. Said Raba b. 'Ulla to 'Ulla: In accordance with [whose view is your statement made]? If in accordance with that of R. Judah, he surely had stated that the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male <i>halal</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is forbidden to marry a priest! Kid. 77a. For halal v. Glos. ');">³⁸</span> And if in accordance with the view of R. Jose, your statement is self-evident, for surely he had stated: Even where a male proselyte had married a female proselyte his daughter is eligible to marry a priest!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. loc. cit. ');">³⁹</span>

חלל יוכיח מה לחלל שכן יצירתו בעבירה

And were you to reply that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dispute between 'R. Judah and R. Jose. ');">⁴⁰</span> applies to such as are fit to enter the assembly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of the nations who are not forbidden by the prohibitions prescribed in Deut. XXIII. ');">⁴¹</span> but not to this man who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As an Ammonite. ');">⁴²</span> is not fit to enter the assembly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the prohibition in Deut. XXIII. 4. ');">⁴³</span>

כ"ג יוכיח וחזר הדין

whence [it may he asked] is this distinction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between an Ammonite's daughter who, as a female, is not included in the prohibition, and the daughter of any other people. What proof is there that a father's status deprives a daughter of her rights? ');">⁴⁴</span> [inferred]! — It is inferred from the case of a High Priest who married a widow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the daughter of a High Priest who is forbidden to marry a widow, is ineligible to marry a priest, so is the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte. ');">⁴⁵</span> [But it may be objected] the marriage between a High Priest and a widow is different, since his cohabitation constitutes a transgression!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage between an Ammonite and an Ammonitess, however, is no transgression. ');">⁴⁶</span> — [Then the case of the] <i>halal</i> proves it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage by a halal (v. Glos.) of the daughter of an Israelite constituting no transgression, and yet his daughter is ineligible to marry a priest. ');">⁴⁷</span>

לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שאינו ברוב קהל ובתו פסולה אף כאן שאינו ברוב קהל ובתו פסולה

[But it may be objected that] a <i>halal</i> is different since his formation was in sin!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A halal is the offspring of a forbidden union; the Ammonite proselyte is not. How, then, could the latter be inferred from the former? ');">⁴⁸</span> — [Then the case of the] High Priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose formation was not in sin, and yet his daughter is forbidden. ');">⁴⁹</span> proves it; and thus the argument will go round;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If objection is raised against the case of the High Priest. that of the halal will be adduced as proof; and if objection is raised against that of the halal, the case of the High Priest will be adduced as proof. ');">⁵⁰</span> though the aspect of the one is unlike that of the other and the aspect of the other is unlike that of the first, their common characteristic is that either of them is unlike the majority of the assembly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the High Priest his cohabitation is forbidden, and as to the halal his formation was in sin. ');">⁵¹</span>

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד עבירה

and his daughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The High Priest's and the halal's. ');">⁵²</span> is ineligible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a priest. ');">⁵³</span> so here also since he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Ammonite proselyte. ');">⁵⁴</span> is unlike the majority of the assembly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is forbidden to enter the assembly of the Lord (Deut. XXIII. 4). ');">⁵⁵</span>

דלמא ודאי בעמוני שנשא בת ישראל קאמרת אע"ג דביאתו בעבירה בתו כשרה א"ל אין

his daughter should be ineligible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a priest. ');">⁵³</span> [But it may again be objected] their common characteristic<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the High Priest and the halal. ');">⁵⁶</span> is different, since it also involves an aspect of sin!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter of the High Priest was born in sin, since the marriage of her parents was a forbidden one, and in the case of the daughter of the halal, the birth of the father was in sin. In the case of the Ammonite proselyte, however, neither the daughter nor her father was born in sin. How, then, could this case be inferred from the two former? And thus the question remains, what need was there for R. Johanan to teach the evident case of the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte? ');">⁵⁷</span> Did you possibly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Certainly' is to be deleted. V. BaH. ');">⁵⁸</span>

דכי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן בת גר עמוני ובת מצרי שני רבי יוחנן אמר כשרה ור"ל אמר פסולה ר"ל אמר פסולה דיליף לה מכ"ג באלמנה ר' יוחנן אמר כשרה

speak of an Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not as previously assumed (v. supra p. 520, n. 13) ');">⁵⁹</span> [informing us that], though his cohabitation is an act of transgression, his daughter is nevertheless eligible? — The other replied: Yes; for when Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">⁶⁰</span> he reported in the name of R. Johanan on the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who married the daughter of an Israelite and thus contracted a forbidden union. ');">⁶¹</span> and the daughter of an Egyptian of the second generation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who married the daughter of an Israelite and thus contracted a forbidden union. ');">⁶¹</span> that R. Johanan declared her eligible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a priest. ');">⁶²</span> while Resh Lakish maintained that she was ineligible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a priest. ');">⁶²</span> 'Resh Lakish maintained that she was ineligible', for he infers this case from that of a High Priest who married a widow. 'R. Johanan declared her eligible'.