ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 77
YEVAMOS 76, 77 - Dedicated by Eddie and Esther Turkel in prayer for a
Refu'ah Shelemah to Yitzchak ben Lanah. May the Talmud Torah d'Rabim
sponsored in his honor protect him and gain him a full and speedy recovery.
(a) We have reason to doubt the ruling of Amasa ben Ish (alias Yisra
ha'Yisre'eili) - because of Rebbi Aba Amar Rav, who said that we can only
accept the new ruling of a Talmid-Chacham if it is issued before a She'eilah
is asked, but not afterwards (because we suspect that he only issued the
ruling on account of the She'eilah - subjectively, rather than objectively).
(b) The reason that they accepted the ruling of Amasa ben Ish (despite the
fact that it was issued after the She'eilah was asked) is - because Shmuel
ha'Navi was still alive, and available to tell them so himself (in which
case, Amasa ben Ish would have been most unlikely to lie).
(c) They answer Do'eg's Kashya ('that the men ought to have gone out to
provide for the men, and the women for the women') - with the Pasuk in
Tehilim "Kol K'vudah bas Melech Penimah" (that a woman should be in the
home, and it would therefore not have been becoming for her to go out into
(d) We learn this from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Kol K'vudah bas Melech P'nimah"
. Others derive it from - the Pasuk in Vayeira "Hinei ba'Ohel" (with regard
(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, learns that Amoni and Mo'avi women are
permitted to marry into the Kahal, from "Amoni" 've'Lo Amonis' "Mo'avi"
've'Lo Mo'avis' - Rebbi Shimon derives it from the Pasuk "al D'var Asher Lo
Kidmu Eschem ... ", and it is appropriate for men to go out, but not for
(b) Rava explains that when David said the Pasuk "Pitachta le'Moseirai" - he
was acknowledging that Hashem had untied the two straps that hold the yoke
in place (meaning that He had relieved him of the two stigmas that held him
down, Rus ha'Mo'avi'ah [from whom he descended] and Na'amah ha'Amonis [the
wife of Shlomoh and mother of Rechavam and the kings of Yehudah]).
(c) And when he said there "Rabos Asisa Atah Hashem Elokai, Nifle'osecha
u'Machshevosecha *Eileinu"* - he was referring to Rechavam (when as a little
boy, he sat on his lap) and himself.
(d) And when he said "Az Amarti, Hinei Basi, bi'Megilas Sefer Kasuv Alai",
says Rava, he meant to say - that although, until then, he had assumed that
his anointing was something new, in fact Hashem had already hinted at it
long, long ago, when the Torah wrote in Vayeira (with regard to Lot's
daughters) "es Sh'tei B'nosecha *ha'Nimtza'os*" (hinting at David, in
connection with whom the Pasuk in Tehilim wrote "*Matzasi* David Avdi
be'Shemen Kodshi Meshachtiv".
(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan says that the daughter of a Ger Amoni is
permitted to marry a Kohen. The mother, we think at this stage, is an
(b) This clearly cannot go like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'bas Ger Zachar,
ke'Bas Chalal Zachar'. The problem with establishing it like Rebbi Yossi -
is that it appears to be obvious, since Rebbi Yossi has already taught us
that if a Ger marries a Giyores, their daughter may marry a Kohen.
(c) So we differentiate between an ordinary bas Ger and the daughter of a
Ger Amoni, and we try to learn a potential Isur from an Almanah le'Kohen
Gadol and a Chalal (for there to be a Chidush). We could not learn a bas
Ger Amoni ...
1. ... from an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol - because there, the Bi'ah is a
(d) Nor can we even learn the daughter of a Ger Amoni who married an Amonis
from a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' from the two together - because one way or another,
there is a prohibition attached, which is not the case by the child of an
Amoni and an Amonis. So at the end of the day, there is no Chidush.
2. ... from a Chalal - because the Chalal himself was formed through a
(a) So we establish Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement - with regard to the
daughter of an Amoni who married a bas Yisrael.
(b) This is substantiated by a statement of Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan - who
declares Kasher the daughter of an Amoni or of a second generation Mitzri
who married a bas Yisrael.
(c) Resh Lakish in fact, learns from Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, that both of
their daughters are Pasul - because, like Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, the Bi'ah
is in both cases is forbidden.
(a) When, commenting on the Pasuk "Ki im Besulah me'Amav Yikach Ishah" Rebbi
Zakai said that this comes to include a Giyores Mechanah - he meant that the
daughter of an Amoni and an Amonis is Kasher to marry a Kohen Gadol (but not
an Amoni who married a bas Yisrael, since their Bi'ah was a Bi'as Isur - the
opinion of Resh Lakish, as we just saw).
(b) Rebbi Yochanan commented on this - that he learned from the extra 'Mem'
in "*me*'Amav ... " - that a virgin who came from two nations (Amon and
Yisrael) is also Kasher to marry a Kohen Gadol (and not just a Giyores
(c) He cannot possibly have meant an Amoni who married an Amonis (who are
considered two nations, because the males are forbidden and the females,
permitted - because that is a Giyores Mechanah (on which he is coming to
(a) According to the second Lashon, Rebbi Yochanan explains 'mi'Sh'nei
Amamin' to mean the daughter of two nations, one of which is itself two
nations - meaning an Amoni (who are considered two nations to start off
with) who married a bas Yisrael.
(b) The difference between the two Leshonos is - the daughter of a Mitzri
Sheini who married a bas Yisrael, who will have the same Din as the daughter
of an Amoni to a bas Yisrael according to the first Lashon, but not
according to the second Lashon.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan will now learn that the daughter of a second generation
Mitzri who married a Yisre'eilis is permitted to marry a Kohen - from the
Tzad ha'Shaveh between an Amoni who married a bas Yisrael and a Mitzri
Sheini who married a Mitzris Sh'ni'ah.
(a) Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah cites Rebbi Zakai differently. According to his
version, Rebbi Yochanan accepted the statement 'Ishah Amonis Kesheirah,
B'nah me'Amoni Pasul, u'Bitah me'Amoni Kesheirah.'
The reason that ...
1. ... 'Ishah Amonis Kesheirah' is - because "Amoni" 've'Lo Amonis'.
(b) Initially, Rebbi Yochanan has a problem with 'u'Bitah me'Amoni
Kesheirah' however - because if it to tell us that she is Kasher, to permit
her to marry into the Kahal, that is obvious, seeing as her mother is
already permitted to do so.
2. ... 'B'nah me'Amoni Pasul' - because he is an Amoni.
(c) It must therefore be coming to teach us - that she is even permitted to
marry a Kohen (even though her mother is not).
(d) He rejects the Beraisa on the basis of the final statement 'ba'Meh
Devarim Amurim ba'Amoni ve'Amonis she'Nisgayru; Aval Bitah me'Amoni,
Pesulah'. This cannot be referring to the daughter of an Amoni who married
an Amonis, because that is a Giyores Mechanah, whom we just permitted. So it
must be referring to the daughter of an Amoni who married a bas Yisrael, and
whom the Tana considers Pasul. Rebbi Yochanan objects to this - on the
grounds of "Amav" "me'Amav" as we learned above (in 5b.).
(a) Rebbi Shimon permits a Mitzris and an Edomis immediately, from a 'Kal
va'Chomer' from an Amonis, who is permitted immediately, even though the men
are forbidden forever (certainly a Mitzris and an Edomis, where the men are
not). The Rabbanan ask on him from Arayos - where the men are also forbidden
for only two generations, yet the women are forbidden, too.
(b) Their proof from Arayos is not acceptable however - because Arayos are
Chayvei Kareis (whereas a Mitzri and an Edomi are only Chayvei Asei).
(c) Their proof from Mamzer is not acceptable either - because a Mamzer will
never be fit to enter the Kahal (whereas a Mitzri and an Edomi will be fit
to enter it after three generations).
(d) Neither can we learn from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from both of them (Arayos and
a Mamzer) - seeing as they have a common Chumra over a Mitzri and an Edomi,
inasmuch as they both have a Tzad Kareis (the one is Chayav Kareis, the
other, is born from a union for which there was a Chiyuv Kareis) which the
latter pair do not.
(a) So the Rabbanan ask Rebbi Shimon from a Chalal of Chayvei Asei (instead
of Mamzer) - a Kohen Gadol who married an Anusah or a Mefutah according to
Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.
(b) We bring a Chalal of Chayvei Asei to the 'Mah ha'Tzad' to answer the
Kashya that one cannot learn from Arayos because they are Chayav Kareis. And
we also need to bring Arayos to the 'Mah ha'Tzad', because a Chalal of
Chayvei Asei has a Chumra over Mitzri and Edomi - inasmuch as a Chalal is
formed through a sin, which Mitzri and Edomi (and Arayos) are not.
(c) When Rebbi Shimon said to the Rabbanan 'Lo Ki, Halachah Ani Omer' - he
meant that as far as he was concerned, he did not hold like Rebbi Eliezer
ben Ya'akov anyway, but that, even according to them, who *did*, his ruling
was Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (and therefore not disputable).
(a) In a Beraisa, Rebbi Shimon brings another proof from the Pasuk
"*Banim* Asher Yivaldu" - from which he Darshens "Banim" 've'Lo Banos'.
(b) According to Rashi's second explanation, Rebbi Yehudah learns from
"Banim Asher *Yivaldu* - that the sons go after their mother (e.g. if the
mother is a *first*-generation Mitzris, then her son is a *second* (a
D'rashah which only makes sense if the women are forbidden just like the
(a) Bearing in mind that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Kahal Geirim Ikri Kahal', the
problem, had he agreed here with Rebbi Shimon would have been - that even a
first or second-generation Mitzris would be considered Kahal, and would
therefore be forbidden to a first or second generation Mitzri - in which
case, there would be no way for a Mitzri Sheini to become permitted. So how
can the Torah inform us that they are permitted?
(b) We cannot answer that the Torah's case of Mitzri Sh'lishi in the Torah
speaks when a Mitzri Sheini married a bas Yisrael or a Giyores *be'Isur* -
because the Torah does not speak about cases that came about through an
(c) The Torah does speak about a Mamzer, who came into the world be'Isur -
because that is to teach us a Chumra (but it would not do so to teach us a
(d) Nevertheless, it does speak about a Machzir Gerushaso, who took his wife
back, together with the leniency ("Hi To'eivah" 've'Ein Banehah To'eivin') -
because it comes chiefly, to teach us the *prohibition* of taking her back.