Yevamot 155

מצרי שני במאי יטהר דלמא דאי עבר ונסיב דאי לא כתיב קרא

how<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If Egyptian women were not included in the prohibition to enter the assembly. ');">¹</span> could an Egyptian of the second generation ever attain purity!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Entry into the assembly. Egyptian women proselytes being regarded, like Israelites, as an assembly (v. supra n. 12), no Egyptian male proselyte of the first or second generations would ever be permitted to marry them. How then, since he can marry neither a woman of Israel nor a proselyte of his own people, would he ever produce a third generation (v. Deut. XXIII, 9) that would be fit to enter the assembly? ');">²</span> But is not this possible when he transgressed and did marry one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman in Israel or an Egyptian woman proselyte. ');">³</span> — Scripture<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In permitting the third generation (v. Deut. XXIII, 9). ');">⁴</span>

הרי ממזר דאי וכתביה קרא דאי לאיסורא כתב דאי להיתרא לא כתב

would not have written of a case of 'when'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of a possibility that a person might transgress and thus produce a generation that will be fit. ');">⁵</span> Behold the case of the bastard which is one of 'when'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assumption of a bastard's birth is dependent on the possibility that someone will commit an offence. ');">⁶</span> and yet Scripture did write it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 3. ');">⁷</span> — It wrote of a 'when' [leading] to a prohibition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the bastard was stated in order to forbid his entry into the assembly. ');">⁸</span>

הרי מחזיר גרושתו דאי להיתרא וכתביה התם משום עיקר איסורא הוא דכתביה

it would not have written of a 'when' [if it led] to permissibility.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third generation may enter (ibid.). ');">⁹</span> Behold the case of the man who remarried his divorced wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After she had been married to another man (v. Deut. XXIV, 1ff). ');">¹⁰</span> which involves a 'when' [leading] to a permitted act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The children of such a marriage, as deduced from Deut. XXIV, 4, are eligible. (Kid. 77a and supra 11b). ');">¹¹</span> and yet did Scripture write of it! — In that case it was written mainly for the purpose of the original prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ineligibility of the woman herself. The eligibility of her children is only indirectly arrived at by a deduction. ');">¹²</span>

ת"ר אם נאמר בנים למה נאמר דורות ואם נאמר דורות למה נאמר בנים אם נאמר בנים ולא נאמר דורות הייתי אומר בן ראשון ושני אסור שלישי מותר לכך נאמר דורות

Our Rabbis taught: If the expression of sons<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXIII, 9: The sons (E.V., children) that are born&nbsp;… the third generation. ');">¹³</span> was used, why was also that of generations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXIII, 9: The sons (E.V., children) that are born&nbsp;… the third generation. ');">¹³</span> used; and if that of generations was used, why also that of sons?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either the one expression or the other should have been used throughout the context. ');">¹⁴</span> If the expression of 'sons' had been used and not that of 'generations'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text reading the 'third son' instead of third generation. ');">¹⁵</span>

ואם נאמר דורות ולא נאמר בנים הייתי אומר לאותן העומדים על הר סיני לכך נאמר בנים

it might have been assumed that only the first and second son is forbidden but that the third<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the son of a proselyte of the first generation. ');">¹⁶</span> is permitted, the expression of 'generations'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Indicating all the sons of the same generation. ');">¹⁷</span> was, therefore, used. And had the expression of 'generations' only been used and not that of sons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reading 'generations that are born'. ');">¹⁸</span> it might have been assumed that the precept was given only to those who stood at Mount Sinai,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that Egyptians born three generations later than the date of the promulgation of the Law shall no more be subject to its restrictions. ');">¹⁹</span>

להם מהם מנה להם הלך אחר פסולן

the expression of sons' was therefore used.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Indicating respectively individual sons in all subsequent generations. ');">²⁰</span> Unto them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ovk Deut. XXIII, 9. ');">²¹</span> Count from them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the generation of the proselyte. He represents the first generation; his son, the second; and his grandson, being of the third, is permitted to enter the congregation. ');">²²</span> Unto them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A second ovk (v. p. 527. n. 18) not translated in E.V. ');">²³</span>

ואיצטריך למיכתב להם ואיצטריך למיכתב אשר יולדו דאי כתב רחמנא אשר יולדו ה"א מבניהם מנה כתב רחמנא להם ואי כתב רחמנא להם ה"א מצרית מעוברת שנתגיירה היא ובנה חד כתב רחמנא אשר יולדו

Be guided by the status of the ineligible among them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the father is an Egyptian proselyte and the mother is of Israel, or whether the mother is an Egyptian and the father is an Israelite. the children are in either case ineligible until the third generation. ');">²⁴</span> It was necessary [for Scripture] to write <i>Unto them</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII. 9. ');">²⁵</span> and it was also necessary for it to write, That are born.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII. 9. ');">²⁵</span> For had the All Merciful written only. 'That are born', it might have been presumed that the counting must begin from their children,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The proselytes themselves not being counted at all in the generations. ');">²⁶</span>

ואיצטריך למיכתב להם הכא ואיצטריך למיכתב לו גבי ממזר

hence did the All Merciful write 'Unto them'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To indicate that the proselytes themselves are regarded as the first generation. ');">²⁷</span> And had the All Merciful written only 'Unto them',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 9. ');">²⁸</span> it might have been presumed that, where a pregnant Egyptian woman became a proselyte, she and her child are regarded as one generation. hence did the All Merciful write. 'That are born'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That birth constitutes a new generation: ');">²⁹</span> It was, furthermore, necessary to write <i>Unto them</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 9. ');">²⁸</span>

דאי כתב רחמנא הכא משום דבא מטיפה פסולה אבל ממזר דבא מטיפה כשרה אימא לא

in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the Egyptian. ');">³⁰</span> and Unto him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 3. ');">³¹</span> in respect of the bastard. For had the All Merciful used the expression here only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the Egyptian. ');">³⁰</span> [the restriction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the ineligibility of any one of the parents causes the ineligibility of the child. Cf. supra note 2. ');">³²</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא גבי ממזר משום דאין ראוי לבא בקהל לעולם אבל הכא אימא לא צריכא

might have been assumed to apply to this case only], because the child descended from a tainted origin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'drop'. One of his parents at least was ineligible. ');">³³</span> but not to a bastard, since he is descended from an untainted origin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His father and mother may have been proper Israelites. ');">³⁴</span> And had the All Merciful written the expression in respect of the bastard, [the restriction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the ineligibility of any one of the parents causes the ineligibility of the child. Cf. supra note 2. ');">³²</span> might have been presumed to apply to him only]. because he is for all time unfit to enter into the assembly, but not in this case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since an Egyptian is permitted after the third generation. ');">³⁵</span>

אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מצרי שני שנשא מצרית ראשונה בנה שלישי הואי אלמא קסבר בתר דידיה שדינן ליה

[Both texts were, therefore,] required. Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in the name of R. Johanan: If an Egyptian of the second generation married an Egyptian woman of the first generation, her son is [regarded as belonging to the] third generation. From this it is obvious that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan. ');">³⁶</span> is of the opinion that the child is ascribed to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had he been ascribed to her he should have been regarded as belonging to the second generation. ');">³⁷</span> R. Joseph raised an objection: R. Tarfon said, 'Bastards may attain to purity. How? If a bastard married a female slave, their child is a slave. When, however, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The child. ');">³⁸</span>

מתיב רב יוסף רבי טרפון אומר יכולין ממזרים ליטהר כיצד ממזר נשא שפחה הולד עבד שחררו נמצא בן חורין אלמא בתר דידה שדינן ליה שאני התם דאמר קרא (שמות כא, ד) האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדוניה

is emancipated he becomes a free man'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kid. 69a. ');">³⁹</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the child, prior to emancipation, is regarded as a slave. ');">⁴⁰</span> clearly proves that the child is ascribed to her! — There it is different, because Scripture said, The wife and her children shall be her master's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 4, indicating that in this particular case, (that of the children of a female slave), the children are ascribed to their mother. This is no proof, however, that in other cases also children are to be ascribed to their mother. ');">⁴¹</span> Raba raised an objection: R. Judah related, 'Menjamin, an Egyptian proselyte. was one of my colleagues among the disciples of R. Akiba, and he once told me: I am an Egyptian of the first generation and married an Egyptian wife of the first generation; and I shall arrange for my son to marry an Egyptian wife of the second generation in order that my grandson shall be eligible to enter the congregation'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Kid. V; Sotah 9a; supra 76b. ');">⁴²</span>

מתיב רבא אמר ר' יהודה מנימין גר מצרי היה לי חבר מתלמידי רבי עקיבא ואמר אני מצרי ראשון ונשאתי מצרית ראשונה אשיא לבני מצרית שניה כדי שיהא בן בני ראוי לבא בקהל ואי ס"ד בתריה דידיה שדינן ליה אפילו ראשונה נמי הא אמר ליה רבי יוחנן לתנא תני ראשונה

Now, if it could be assumed that the child is ascribed to his father, [he could have married a wife] even of the first generation!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the child would have been eligible by virtue of his father. ');">⁴³</span> — The fact is that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'surely'. ');">⁴⁴</span> R. Johanan said to the Tanna:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who recited the Baraitha mentioned. ');">⁴⁵</span> Read, '[a woman of the] first generation'.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן מצרי שני שנשא מצרית ראשונה בנה שני הואי אלמא בתר אימיה שדינן ליה

When R. Dimi came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">⁴⁶</span> he stated in the name of R. Johanan: If an Egyptian of the second generation married an Egyptian wife of the first generation. her son is [regarded as belonging to the] second generation. From this it is obvious that a child is ascribed to his mother. Said Abaye to him: What then of the following statement of R. Johanan. 'If a man set aside a pregnant beast as a sin-offering and it then gave birth, his atonement may be made, if he desires, with the beast itself, and, if he prefers, his atonement may be made with her young'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 25a. ');">⁴⁷</span> This law would be intelligible if you admit that an embryo is not regarded as a part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thigh'. ');">⁴⁸</span>

אמר ליה אביי אלא הא דאמר ר' יוחנן הפריש חטאת מעוברת וילדה רצה מתכפר בה רצה מתכפר בולדה

of its mother, since this case would be similar to that of one who set aside as a security two sin-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case one should be lost, the other would take its place. ');">⁴⁹</span> in respect of which R. Oshaia had stated that a man who set aside two sin-offerings as a security<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case one should be lost, the other would take its place. ');">⁴⁹</span> is to be atoned for with either of them, while the other goes to the pasture.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until it contracts a blemish, when it is redeemed. As the young and its mother spoken of in R. Johanan's statement are regarded as separate beasts, they also would be subject to the same law, and atonement may be made by either. ');">⁵⁰</span> If you maintain, however, that an embryo is a part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thigh'. ');">⁵¹</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא הוה ליה כמפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות ואמר רב אושעיא הפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות מתכפר באחת מהן והשניה תרעה

of its mother, the former is like the young of a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was without child at the time of its dedication. ');">⁵²</span> and the young of a sin-offering is sent to die!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How', then, could R. Johanan state that atonement may be made with either? ');">⁵³</span> The other remained silent. 'Is it not possible', the first said to him, 'that there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling about the ascription of the Egyptian child to its mother, reported in the name of R. Johanan. ');">⁵⁴</span> it is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From other cases. While elsewhere the child may be ascribed to its father, in the case spoken of by R. Johanan it is ascribed to the mother. ');">⁵⁵</span>

אלא אי אמרת עובר ירך אמו הוא הוה ליה ולד חטאת וולד חטאת למיתה אזיל

since it is written That are born,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 9. ');">⁵⁶</span> Scripture made it dependent on birth'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on its mother. ');">⁵⁷</span> — 'Clever man',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (adj. of [H] or [H] 'head') 'mann von Kopf'. 'Geistreicher' v. Levy. ');">⁵⁸</span> the other replied, 'I saw your chief<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah who was Abaye's teacher (v. Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l., and cf. Tosaf. 'Er. 22b, s.v. [H]). ');">⁵⁹</span>

אישתיק א"ל דלמא שאני התם דכתיב אשר יולדו הכתוב תלאו בלידה א"ל קרקפנא חזיתיה לרישך ביני עמודי כי אמר רבי יוחנן להא שמעתא

between the pillars<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the college. ');">⁶⁰</span> when R. Johanan gave the following traditional ruling: The reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the children are ascribed to the mother. ');">⁶¹</span> here is because it was written, That are born;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 9. ');">⁵⁶</span> elsewhere, however, the child is ascribed to the father'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The suggestion was consequently not the result of Abaye's own ingenuity but a mere repetition of what he heard from his Master, Rabbah. ');">⁶²</span>

טעמא דכתיב אשר יולדו הא בעלמא בתר אבוה שדינן ליה אלא הא דאמר רבא נכרית מעוברת שנתגיירה בנה אין צריך טבילה אמאי אין צריך טבילה

What, however, of the following statement of Raba. 'If a pregnant gentile woman was converted, there is no need for her son to perform ritual immersion'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which forms a part of the conversion ceremonial. The immersion that had been performed by his mother exempts him also. ');">⁶³</span> Why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the child is elsewhere not regarded as part of its mother. ');">⁶⁴</span> is there no need for him to perform immersion? Should you reply that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exemption of the child from the immersion. ');">⁶⁵</span> is due to a ruling of R. Isaac; for R. Isaac stated: Pentateuchally [a covering of] the greater part,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a hair (v. Rashi, Suk. 6b); that prevents it from coming in direct contact with the water. ');">⁶⁶</span>

וכי תימא משום דרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק דבר תורה רובו ומקפיד עליו חוצץ רובו שאינו מקפיד עליו אינו חוצץ

if one objects to it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the object or substance that causes the interposition. ');">⁶⁷</span> constitutes legally an interposition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And invalidates the immersion. ');">⁶⁸</span> and if one does not object to,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The presence of the interposition, when, e.g., it is necessary for it to remain there. ');">⁶⁹</span> no legal interposition is constituted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Er. 4b, Nid. 67b. As the embryo must necessarily remain within its mother's body during the period of conception, it cannot possibly object, so to speak, to its mother's interposition. ');">⁷⁰</span>