Yevamot 154

דתני רבי זכאי קמיה דר' יוחנן (ויקרא כא, יד) כי אם בתולה מעמיו יקח אשה להביא גיורת מכנה שהיא כשרה לכהונה ואמר ליה אני שונה עמיו מעמיו להביא בתולה הבאה מב' עממין ואת אמרת גיורת מכנה ותו לא

as R. Zakkai recited<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from this statement it is deduced what was R. Johanan's view. ');">¹</span> in the presence of R. Johanan, '[The expression,] But a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 14. ');">²</span>

מאי שני עממין אילימא עמוני שנשא עמונית ומאי משני עממין דזכרים אסורין ונקבות מותרות היינו גיורת מכנה אלא בעמוני שנשא בת ישראל

includes a woman who is fundamentally a proselyte<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'a proselyte of her own status' (Jast.). who was a proselyte from her birth, i.e., when her father and mother were converted after their marriage and before her birth. Where an Ammonite proselyte marries the daughter of an Israelite, the offspring of such a union is not fundamentally a proselyte and is ineligible to marry a priest since the union was a forbidden one. ');">³</span> who is eligible to marry a priest', and the other said to him, 'I learn: ["Since. instead of] 'His people'. Of his people [was written]. a virgin who descended from two peoples<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently ');">⁴</span>

ואיכא דאמרי אמר ליה אני שונה עמיו מעמיו להביא בתולה הבאה משני עממין ומעם שיש בו שני עממין ואת אמרת גיורת מכנה ותו לא

is also included", and you mention only a fundamental proselyte and no other!' Now. what is meant by 'two peoples'? If it be suggested that it refers to the case of an Ammonite who married an Ammonitess. and that these are described as of 'two peoples' because the males are forbidden and the females are permitted, such a case [it may be objected] is the same as that of a fundamental proselyte! Consequently it must refer to an Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it is proved (v. supra n. 4) that, in the opinion of R. Johanan, such a case is eligible. ');">⁵</span> Others say: He said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan to R. Zakkai. ');">⁶</span>

ולהך לישנא בת מצרי שני דכשרה לכהונה מנא ליה וכי תימא דיליף מעמוני שנשא בת ישראל מה לעמוני שנשא בת ישראל שכן נקבות מותרות

'I learn: ["Since, instead of] 'His people'. Of his people<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 14. ');">²</span> [was written], a virgin who is descended from two peoples<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the daughter of an Israelite who married an Ammonite proselyte. ');">⁷</span>

מצרי שני שנשא מצרית שניה יוכיח

and from a people consisting of two groups of people<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whose father is the Ammonite proselyte, a descendant of a people whose males are forbidden and whose females are permitted. ');">⁸</span> is included", and you mention only a fundamental proselyte and no other!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to this version, unlike the former where it was arrived at by inference. R. Johanan's view is explicitly stated. ');">⁹</span>

מה למצרי שני שנשא מצרית שניה שכן אין ביאתו בעבירה

According to this latter version, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the case of the Ammonite only was mentioned. (Cf. supra n. 2). ');">¹⁰</span> whence is it inferred that 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. ');">¹¹</span>

עמוני שנשא בת ישראל יוכיח וחזר הדין וכו'

is eligible to marry a priest? And should you suggest that this might be inferred from the case of an Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite, [it may be objected that] the case of the Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite is different since the Ammonite females are eligible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While the Egyptian females, like the man, are forbidden for three generations. ');">¹²</span> — An Egyptian of the second generation who married an Egyptian woman of the second generation might prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His daughter is permitted since she belongs to the third generation, although she also belongs to the Egyptian people whose males and females are equally forbidden. As this latter restriction is no bar in this case it should form no bar in the case of an Egyptian of the second generation who married the daughter of an Israelite. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רב יוסף היינו דשמענא ליה לרב יהודה דאמר עמיו מעמיו ולא ידענא מאי קאמר

But [it may be objected that the case] of an Egyptian of the second generation who married an Egyptian woman of the second generation is different since his cohabitation constitutes no transgression? — An Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite might prove it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His daughter is eligible though his marriage constitutes a transgression. ');">¹⁴</span> and thus the argument would go round etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Continued as supra 77a. ');">¹⁵</span>

כי אתא רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר הכי תנא קמיה אשה עמונית כשרה בנה מעמוני פסול ובתה מעמוני כשרה במה דברים אמורים בעמוני ועמונית שנתגיירו אבל בתה מעמוני פסולה

Said R. Joseph: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling permitting the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte who married the daughter of an Israelite. ');">¹⁶</span> then it is that I heard Rab Judah expounding on 'His people. Of his people' and I did not [at the time] understand what he meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph, as a result of a serious illness, lost his memory and only dimly recollected some of the rulings and expositions of his teachers. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר ליה פוק תני לברא מאי דאמרת אשה עמונית כשרה עמוני ולא עמונית בנה מעמוני פסול דהא עמוני הוא

When R. Samuel b. Judah came, he stated: Thus he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Zakkai. V. supra. ');">¹⁸</span> recited in his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan's. ');">¹⁹</span>

ובתה מעמוני כשרה למאי אילימא לבא בקהל השתא אמה כשרה היא מיבעיא אלא לכהונה

presence: An Ammonite woman is eligible;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');">²⁰</span> her son that is born from an Ammonite is ineligible; and her daughter that is born from an Ammonite is eligible. This, however, applies only to an Ammonite and an Ammonitess who were converted; but her daughter that was born from an Ammonite is ineligible. [On hearing this] the other said to him, 'Go recite this outside. For your statement that "an Ammonite woman is eligible" [is quite acceptable, since] Ammonite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 4. ');">²¹</span>

במה דברים אמורים בעמוני ועמונית שנתגיירו אבל בתה מעמוני פסולה מאי בתה מעמוני אילימא עמוני שנשא עמונית היינו גיורת מכנה אלא עמוני שנשא בת ישראל א"ל פוק תני לברא:

excludes the Ammonitess. That "her son that is born from an Ammonite is ineligible" [is also correct] since he is in fact an Ammonite. In what respect, however, is "her daughter that was born from an Ammonite eligible"? If in respect of entering the assembly, is there, now that her mother is eligible. any need to mention her! The eligibility must consequently be in respect of marrying a priest. [But then what of the statement], "this, however, applies only to an Ammonite and an Ammonitess who were converted; but her daughter that was born from an Ammonite is ineligible"? What is meant by "her daughter that was born of an Ammonite"? If it be suggested that it refers to an Ammonite who married an Ammonitess,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were converted prior to the birth of their daughter. ');">²²</span> then this is the same case as that of a fundamental proselyte!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, as stated in the first clause, is eligible! ');">²³</span>

מצרי ואדומי אינן אסורין וכו': מאי תשובה

Consequently it must refer to an Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter being ineligible because of the forbidden marriage of her parents. ');">²⁴</span> [Concerning this] he told him. 'Go recite this outside'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such a case also the daughter is eligible as deduced supra from the expression, Of his people (Lev. XXI. 14) instead of 'his people'. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן משום דאיכא למימר עריות יוכיחו שלא אסר בהן אלא עד שלשה דורות אחד זכרים ואחד נקבות

AN EGYPTIAN AND AN EDOMITE ARE FORBIDDEN ONLY etc. What is the OBJECTION?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That can be advanced, according to the Rabbis, against R. Simeon's argument in our Mishnah. ');">²⁶</span> — Raba b. Bar Hana replied in the name of R. Johanan: Because it may be said that the case of forbidden relatives proves it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Simeon's argument is untenable. ');">²⁷</span>

מה לעריות שכן כרת ממזר יוכיח

since in respect of them the prohibition extends to the third generation only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both in the ascending and the descending line. ');">²⁸</span> [and is nevertheless applicable to] both males and females.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Similarly in the case of the Egyptian and the Edomite. ');">²⁹</span>

מה לממזר שכן אינו ראוי לבא בקהל לעולם עריות יוכיחו וחזר הדין

[But can it not be argued that the case] of forbidden relatives is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is more restricted than that of marriage with an Egyptian etc. ');">³⁰</span> since in their case the penalty of <i>kareth</i> is involved?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are subject to the one restriction (kareth) they are also subject to the other (equal prohibition of males and females). The case of the Egyptian and the Edomite, however, which does not involve kareth might not include the females either! ');">³¹</span>

לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שאסורין ואחד זכרים ואחד נקבות אף אני אביא מצרי ומצרית שיהיו אסורין אחד זכרים ואחד נקבות

— [The case of the] bastard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cohabitation with whom is not subject to the penalty of kareth, and both males and females are nevertheless equally subject to the prohibition. ');">³²</span> proves it. [But can it not be suggested that the case] of the bastard is different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is more restricted than that of marriage with an Egyptian etc. ');">³³</span>

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד כרת

since he is forever ineligible to enter the congregation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he is subject to this restriction he is also subject to the other (cf. supra n. 1). ');">³⁴</span> — [The case of] forbidden relatives<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are only forbidden to intermarry with each other, but are severally permitted to all the other members of the congregation. ');">³⁵</span>

ורבנן מחלל דחייבי עשה וכר' אליעזר בן יעקב

proves it. Thus the argument could go round.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should objection be raised against the case of the forbidden relatives, that of the bastard could be adduced as proof; and should objection be raised against that of the bastard, that of the forbidden relatives might be adduced as proof. ');">³⁶</span> The aspects of one are unlike those of the other and the aspects of the other are unlike those of the first. Their common characteristic, however, is that both males and females are equally forbidden; so might one also include the Egyptian man and the Egyptian woman so that in their case also both males and females should be equally forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This then, is the objection which the Rabbis could raise against R. Simeon's a minori argument. ');">³⁷</span>

ומאי לא כי הכי קאמר להו לדידי לא סבירא לי דר' אליעזר בן יעקב לדידכו דסבירא לכו כר"א בן יעקב הלכה אני אומר

This common characteristic, however, [it may be retorted,] is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is more restricted than that of marriage with an Egyptian etc. ');">³³</span> since in one respect it also involves <i>kareth</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the case of the bastard, kareth is involved as the penalty of his parents for the action which was the origin of his birth. In the case of the Egyptian and Edomite, however, there is no aspect whatsoever involving this penalty. The latter, therefore, cannot be deduced from the others. ');">³⁸</span>

תניא אמר להן ר"ש הלכה אני אומר ועוד מקרא מסייעני בנים ולא בנות

And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could they still maintain their objection against R. Simeon's argument. ');">³⁹</span> They infer it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of the females. ');">⁴⁰</span>

ת"ר בנים ולא בנות דברי ר"ש אמר ר' יהודה הרי הוא אומר (דברים כג, ט) בנים אשר יולדו להם דור שלישי הכתוב תלאן בלידה

from the <i>halal</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not, as has previously been assumed, from the bastard. ');">⁴¹</span> who is the offspring of a union between those who through it, are guilty of transgressing a positive commandment;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When, e.g., a High Priest married a seduced woman (cf. supra 60a) who is forbidden to him by virtue of the positive precept of Lev. XXI. 13. ');">⁴²</span>

א"ר יוחנן אי לאו דאמר ר' יהודה הכתוב תלאן בלידה לא מצא ידיו ורגליו בבית המדרש כיון דאמר מר קהל גרים איקרי קהל

and in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, contrary to the view of the Sages, regards such a child as halal (supra 59b and 60a). Thus it has been proved that even where no kareth is involved, both males and females (the halalah like the halal) are included in the prohibition. Similarly in the case of the Egyptians and the Edomites. ');">⁴³</span> Then what is meant by, NOT SO?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The objection of the Rabbis is strong enough! ');">⁴⁴</span> — It is this that he said to them: As far as I am concerned, I do not accept the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 523. n. 13. ab. init., R. Simeon being of the opinion that the offspring of a union between those who are thereby guilty of transgressing a positive precept only is not regarded as a halal. ');">⁴⁵</span> but according to you, since your view is that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And consequently you might derive the prohibition of the females from the law of the halal. ');">⁴⁶</span> [my reply is that] IT IS AN <i>HALACHAH</i> THAT I AM REPORTING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And an objection is of no validity in the face of a definite tradition. ');">⁴⁷</span> It was taught: R. Simeon said to them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis of our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁸</span> 'I am reporting an <i>halachah</i> and, moreover, a Scriptural text supports my view, [it having been written] sons<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Deut. XXIII, 9. ');">⁴⁹</span> but not daughters'. Our Rabbis taught: Sons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Deut. XXIII, 9. ');">⁴⁹</span> but not daughters; so R. Simeon. R. Judah, however, said: Behold it is said in Scripture. The sons of the third generation that are born unto them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. emphasis on are born. ');">⁵⁰</span> Scripture has made them dependent on birth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Irrespective of sex. Had the law applied to males only the clause 'that are born etc,' should have been omitted. ');">⁵¹</span> R. Johanan said: Had not R. Judah declared, 'Scripture made them dependent on birth',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the females also are forbidden. ');">⁵²</span> he would not have found his hands and feet at the house of study.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His position would have been untenable. ');">⁵³</span> For as a Master said that a congregation of proselytes is also called an assembly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assembly of the Lord (cf. Deut. XXIII, 2, 3, 4, 9. and Kid. 73a.). ');">⁵⁴</span>