Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IS A MITZRIS PERMITTED?

1. Suggestion #1: Perhaps the Torah only says, Bedi'avad, if he married, his children are permitted!
2. Rejection: The Torah did not speak of a Bedi'avad case.
3. Question: Mamzerim are B'diavad, and the Torah speaks of them!
4. Answer: The Torah gives prohibitions which come B'diavad, not leniencies.
5. Question: A man that remarries his divorcee (after she was married in between) - the Torah wrote that their children are Kosher!
6. Answer: Primarily, the Torah wrote her prohibition - we deduced from it that her children are Kosher.

(b) (Beraisa) Question: Since the Torah said children, why did it need to say generations? Since the Torah said generations, why did it need to say children?
(c) Answer: If the Torah only said children, we would think that the first 2 children of a Mitzri are forbidden, and the 3rd is permitted;

1. If the Torah only said generations, we would think that the Torah refers to the 3rd generation born after the giving of the Torah.

(d) "To them" - count from them; "To them" - go after the disqualified one.
(e) It was needed to write both "To them" and "That will be born".

1. If the Torah only said "That will be born", we would think to count 3 generations starting with their children;
2. If the Torah only said "To them", we would think that a pregnant Mitzris that converted, her son is also a Mitzri Rishon (1st generation Mitzri) - it said, "that will be born" to teach that he is a Mitzri Sheni.

(f) It was needed to write "To them" by Mitzrim and "To him" by Mamzerim.

1. If the Torah only wrote "To them" by Mitzrim (to forbid a child if either parent is a Mitzri) - we would think, this is because Mitzrim come from improper seed (but this does not apply to Mamzerim).
2. If the Torah only wrote "To him" by Mamzerim - (to forbid a child if either parent is a Mamzer) - we would think, this is because they never become permitted (which is not true of Mitzrim).

(a) (Rabah Bar Bar Chanah, citing R. Yochanan): A Mitzri Sheni that married a Mitzris Rishonah - the child is a Shlishi.

1. We see, we go after the father.

(b) Question (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): R. Tarfon says, Mamzerim can purify their seed: If a Mamzer marries a slave, the child is a slave; if he frees the child, the child is permitted.

1. We see, we go after the mother!

(c) Answer: There is different, the Torah said, the woman (slave) and her children will be to her master.
(d) Question (Rava - Beraisa): Minyamin was a Mitzri Rishon; he married a Mitzris Rishonah, and planned to marry his son to a Mitzris Shniyah, so his grandchildren would be permitted.

1. If we go after the father - he could even marry his son to a Mitzris Rishonah!

(e) Answer: Indeed, R. Yochanan said the correct text is, he will marry her to a Rishonah.
(f) (Rav Dimi, citing R. Yochanan): A Mitzri Sheni that married a Mitzris Rishonah - the child is a Sheni.

1. We see, we go after the mother.

(g) Question (Abaye): But R. Yochanan said, a man that set aside a pregnant animal for his sin-offering, and it gave birth - he may atone with the mother or the child.

1. This fits well if we say that a fetus is not a limb of the mother - it is as if he set aside 2 animals, in case one of them cannot be offered;

i. R. Oshiya said, in such a case, he may atone with either one, and the other grazes (is permitted).

2. But if we say that a fetus is a limb of the mother - when born, it has the law of the child of a sin-offering, and it must die (and cannot be offered)!
3. Rav Dimi was silent.

(h) Answer (Abaye): (R. Yochanan really holds, it is not a limb of the mother) - perhaps the law of Mitzrim is different, because it says, "That will be born", it depends on birth.
(i) Rav Dimi: I saw, you were there when R. Yochanan gave this explanation - had the Torah not ascribed the prohibition to birth, we would go after the father, as the norm.
(j) Question: Rava said, a (pregnant) Nochris that converted, her child does not need to immerse - why not (if we normally go after the father).

1. Suggestion: Perhaps, as R. Yitzchak taught - mi'Dioraisa, a blockage only invalidates an immersion if it covers most of the body, and the blockage bothers the person (since it does not bother the fetus, the mother's immersion also counts as immersion of the fetus).

2. Rejection: Rav Kahana taught, this only applies to a majority - but if the entire body is covered, the immersion is invalid!

(k) Answer: The case of a fetus is different, since the blockage (the mother) is what he grows in, it does not invalidate the immersion.
(l) (Ravina citing R. Yochanan): By other nations, we go after the father; after conversion, we go after problems in either parent.

1. By other nations, we go after the father - as a Beraisa teaches.

i. (Beraisa) - Question: How do we know that if a Nochri had relations with a Kana'anis (of the 7 nations of Eretz Kana'an), that the child may be bought as a slave (and need not be killed)?
ii. Answer: "Also, from the children of the residents that live with you, from them you may but slaves."
iii. Suggestion: Perhaps this even applies to a Kana'ani that had a child from a Nachris?
iv. Rejection: "That they fathered in your land" - those born in your land, not from those that live in your land.

2. Question: 'After conversion, we go after problems in either parent' - what is the case?

i. Suggestion: If a Mitzri married an Amonis - there is no problem with her - Amoni, not an Amonis!

3. Answer: Rather, an Amoni married a Mitzris.

i. If the child is a boy - we consider him an Amoni.
ii. If the child is a girl - we consider her a Mitzris.

(a) (Mishnah): Mamzerim and Nesinim are forbidden forever, both males and females.
(b) (Gemara - Reish Lakish): A Mamzeres is permitted after 10 generations.

1. He learns a Gezeirah Shaveh "10th, 10th" from Amoni and Moavi; just as there, females are permitted, also here.
2. Objection: There, females are permitted immediately - he should learn the same to Mamzerim!
3. Answer: The Gezeirah Shaveh only teaches after 10 generations.

(c) Question: But the Mishnah says that they are forbidden forever, both males and females!
(d) Answer: Reish Lakish holds as the Tana that learns all laws of the case being learned from the case teaching (here, Amoni teaches that Mamzerim are forever forbidden, and also that females are permitted);

1. The Mishnah is as the Tana that only learns some laws from the teaching case, (here, Amoni only teaches that Mamzerim are forever forbidden).

(e) Question: What is the law of a Mamzeres after 10 generations?
(f) R. Eliezer: Even a 3rd generation Mamzer is not found!

1. He holds, Mamzerim do not live (to have generations).
2. (Rav Huna): Mamzerim do not live.
3. Question: But the Mishnah says, they are forbidden forever!
4. Answer (R. Zeira): Rav Yehudah explained - known Mamzerim live, unknown Mamzerim do not, those that are not known well only live up to 3 generations.

i. R. Ami announced that a certain man was a Mamzer; the man cried.
ii. R. Ami: I have given you life!

(a) (Rav Chana Bar Ada): David decreed (not to marry) Nesinim - "The king ... said, the Givonim are not from Bnei Yisrael".
(b) Question: Why did he decree?
(c) Answer: "There was a famine for 3 straight years in the days of David".

1. The 1st year, he said, maybe there is idolatry among you - "And you will serve foreign gods ... and there will not be rain".

i. He checked, and did not find idolatry.

2. The 2nd year, he said, maybe there is immorality among you - "The early and late rains were withheld, and you had the countenance of a harlot".

i. He checked, and did not find.

3. The 3rd year, he said, maybe there are people that publicly pledge Tzedakah and do not give it - "Clouds and wind, but no rain - a man glorifies himself in false gifts."

i. He checked, and did not find; he concluded, it was his fault.

4. Question: "And David sought Hash-m's countenance" - how?
5. Answer (Reish Lakish): Through the Urim v'Tumim.

i. Question: How is this learned from the verse?
ii. Answer (R. Elazar): It says "Pnei (countenance)", and by the Urim v'Tumim it says "LiFNEI Hash-m".

6. "Hash-m said, because of Shaul and the house of blood, that he killed the Givonim".

i. Because of Shaul - he was not eulogized properly.

7. Question: "That he killed the Givonim" - where do we find that he did this?
8. Answer: Because he killed Nob, the city of Kohanim, that supplied food and water to the Givonim, the verse considers it as if he killed them.
9. Question: Hash-m punished for not properly eulogizing Shaul, and also for Shaul's sin?!
10. Answer: Yes!

i. (Reish Lakish): "Seek Hash-m, ... his judgment they acted" - when Hash-m judges, he recounts a person's merits.