Previous daf

1)

(a) The basic Machlokes between ...

1. ... the Tana Kama of the Beraisa ('Ger Amoni u'Mo'avi ... she'Ba'u al bas Yisrael, Pasluhah'), and Rebbi Yossi ('Kol she'Zar'o Posel, Pasul, ve'Chol she'Ein Zar'o Pasul ... ') is - the Almanah of a Mitzri Sheini, who is forbidden to marry a Kohen, but whose children is not?
2. ... Rebbi Yossi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ('Kol sha'Atah Nosei es Bito, Atah Nosei Almenaso; ve'Chol she'Ein Ata Nosei Bito ... ') is - the Almanah of a Ger Amoni u'Mo'avi, whose son is Pasul, but whose daughter is not.

(b) All three Tana'im derive their respective opinions from Kohe Gadol be'Almanah - the Tana Kama learns from an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, who Bi'ah, which is forbidden, renders her a Chalalah; Rebbi Yossi adds that her children become Chalalim too, precluding the wife of a Mitzri Sheini, whose children are Kasher; Raban Shimon ben Gamliel adds that all her children become Chalalim too, precluding the wife of an Amoni or Mo'avi, whose daughter at least, is Kasher.

(c) We learn that a Kohen Gadol renders an Almanah a Chalalah with his Bi'ah (even though the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o" is referring to their children) - from the extra 'Lamed' in "Lo Yechalel" (since the Torah could have written "ve'Lo Yachel Zar'o").

(a) All the above Tana'im agree, says Rav Chisda, that an Almanas Iysah does become a Chalalah through the Bi'ah of one of the Pesulim. 'An Almanas Iysah' (according to one explanation) is the widow of a Safek Chalal who threw her a Get that was a Safek (to whom it was closer, him or her).

(b) Rav Chisda say this on the grounds - that when all's said and done, her daughter is forbidden to marry a Kohen (in case his father is a Chalal), in which, she does not possess the requirements that permit her to marry a Kohen, even according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (the most lenient of all the opinions).

(c) This opinion is not however, unanymous. What is the reason of Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah in a Mishnah in Iduyos, who declare an Almanas Iysah Kasher is - because it is (not just a Safek, but) a S'fek S'feika (which overrides the fact that her daughter is forbidden to marry a Kohen anyway).

(a) 'Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Halachah ke'Rebbi Eliezer' (who differentiates between Vada'an be'Vada'an and Vada'an bi'S'feikan). Shmuel expressed surprise when Rav Yehudah told him that this is what Rav had ruled - because it clashes with the opinion of Hillel (the author of our Mishnah), who specifically permits S'feikan be'Vada'an as well Vada'an be'Vada'an.

(b) Elsewhere, Rav rules that if an Arusah became pregnant, Rav declares the child a Mamzer; Shmuel says - that he is a Shesuki.

(c)

1. Their respective reasons are - that Rav goes after the majority of people, who are forbidden to her, turning the Safek (Mamzer) into a Vaday; whereas according to Shmuel, because maybe the child is from the Arus, makinig it a Safek.
2. The ramifications of their Machlokes is - that, according to Rav, the child will be permitted to marry a Mamzeres, whereas according to Shmuel, he will not.

(d) This Machlokes now appears to clash with the previous one - inasmuch as Rav now follows our Mishnah (which considers a Safek Mamzer like a Vaday, whereas Shmuel does not.

(a) We initially amend the second Machlokes to conform with the previous one - by switching their opinions 'Rav Amar ha'V'lad Shesuki' u'Sh'muel Amar ha'V'lad Mamzer'.

(b) Having presented their Machlokes in the case of a Shesuki who is born to ...

1. ... an unmarried woman, they see fit to repeat it in the case of an Arusah who became pregnant - to teach us that even there, where most people are forbidden to her, the child is a Shesuki and not a Mamzer.
2. ... an Arusah who became pregnant, why do they see fit to repeat it in the case of an unmarried woman - to teach us that there, where we do have an Arus whose child it probably is, Rav still considers it a Shesuki and not a Mamzer.

(c) Alternatively, we reconcile their second Machokes with the first, even without amending their opinions, but by reinterpretating what they say. In the case of Arusah she'Ibrah, when Rav says 'ha'V'lad Mamzer', he means (not that he is permitted to marry a Mamzeres, but) that he is Asur to marry a bas Yisrael.

(d) We cannot interpret Shmuel ('ha'V'lad Shesuki') to mean ...

1. ... 'de'Asur be'Bas Yisrael' - because that is what Rav says.
2. ... 'she'Meshaskin Oso mi'Din Kehunah' (assuming the Arus to be a Kohen) - because if he is Asur to marry a Yire'elis, he is obviously Pasul li'Kehunah.
3. ... 'she'Meshaskin Oso mi'Nechsei Aviv' - because, seeing as we do not know who his father is, this too, is obvious.

(a) We nevertheless do adopt the final suggestion ('she'Meshaskin Oso mi'Nechsei Aviv'). And we eliminate the problem 'Mi Yad'inan Avuhah Menu' - by establishing the case when he actually siezed the money of the Arus, claiming that the Arus was his father. Shmuel now teaches us that we take it away from him.

(b) We might also interpret 'Shesuki' to mean - that we examine the woman, believing her shen she says that the Ubar is from a Kasher person (like Aba Shaul).

(c) This is indeed the opinion of Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah is Kesuvos ('Haysah Me'uberes ... Ish P'loni ve'Kohen Hu'), like whom Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel has already ruled - but that was in a case when most people were permitted to her, whereas here, Shmuel follows that ruling even by Arus, where most people are forbidden to her (like Aba Shaul, as we established above).

(a) Rebbi Elazar in a Beraisa rules - that a Kuti may not marry a Kutis.

(b) The Tana of another Beraisa - forbids a Ger after ten generations to marry a Mamzeres, because the Ger's Yichus is likely to have been forgotten, and people will think that a Yisrael is permited to marry a Mamzeres.

(c) Yesh Omrim says - that the determining factor is not the time period of ten years, but from the time that the Ger stops mentioning the names of idols.

(d) Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's suggestion that the Chachamim gave a Kuti and a Kutis the same Din as a Ger after ten generations - on the grounds that whereas the passing of time is good reason to assume that the latter's Yichus has been forgotten, there is no reason to assume this to be the case in the former.

7)

(a) Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) established Rebbi Elazar (ben Shamua)'s Din ('Kuti Lo Yisa Kutis') - like Rebbi Yishmael - who categorizes the Kutim as 'Gerei Arayos' (insincere Geirim who converted only out of fear of as plague of lions. This occurred when, after Sancheriv moved them from Kuta to Eretz Yisrael, they continued to worship idols).

(b) And Rebbi Yishmael in turn, holds like Rebbi Akiva - who describes the status of the child of an Akum or Eved who had relations with a bas Yisrael as a Mamzer.

(c) The problem with Rav Dimi's latter statement is - a statement by Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Yishmael, who says that an Akum or Eved who had relations with a Kohenes, a Leviyah or a bas Yisrael invalidates her. Now if the child was a Mamzer, as Rebbi Akiva maintains, why would Rebbi Yishmael then need to inform us that the woman is Pasul? Is this not obvious?

(d) So we suggest - that it is Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) who holds both like Rebbi Yishmael and like Rebbi Akiva.

(a) Beis Shamai permit a Tzaras Ervah to perform Yibum - Beis Hillel permit her to marry le'Shuk, without even requiring Chalitzah.

(b) The children of those who practice like ...

1. ... Beis Shamai, according to Beis Hillel - are Mamzeirim (because they have transgressed the La'av of Eishes Ach she'Lo be'Makom Mitzvah (for which one is Chayav Ka'res).
2. ... Beis Hillel, according to Beis Shamai - are not Mamzeirim, because a Yevamah le'Shuk is only a La'av, and not Chayav Ka'res.

(c) This latter ruling is part of a statement of Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das). The gist of his statement is - ' ... Modim she'Ein Mamzer Ela mi'Mi she'Isuro Isur Ervah ve'Chayav Ka'res'.

(d) This statement refutes our previous contention, equating Rebbi Elazar with Rebbi Akiva - who considers the child of Chayvei La'avin (incorporating Akum ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael) a Mamzer.

(a) So we quote Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Chanina or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who lists three different opinions re. the Kutim. Rebbi Yishmael considers them Geirei Arayos, as we explained earlier, and the Kohanim who mixed with them - Pesulim.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael interprets "Vaya'as Lahem *Miktzosam* Kohanei Bamos" - to mean 'min ha'Kotzim' (the thorns) or 'min ha'Muktzin' (those who were disqualified - either way, a derogatory term).

(c) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael's interpretation. He ...

1. ... categorizes the Kutim as - Geirei Arayos (as we explained above).
2. ... defines the Kohanei Bamos who mixed with them - as the elite 'min ha'Bechirim she'be'Am (or, reinterpreting the word "mi'Ketzosam", 'min ha'Ketzinim she'be'Am' [the captains]).

(d) The Chachamim declared the Kutim Mamzeirim, according to Rebbi Akiva - because they performed Yibum only with women whom their brothers had betrothed, but permitted those whom they had married, to marry le'Shuk without Yibum or Chalitzah. And Rebbi Akiva follows his reasoning elsewhere, where he declares children of all Chayvei La'avin Mamzeirim.