Yevamot 76b (עו:) — the Talmud in English

But

this—

the daughter of Pharaoh, the king, who had grown up in a royal household—

does not require it

for Solomon’s royal table, and her conversion had been for the sake of Heaven; therefore they accepted her.

But we still raise an objection concerning Solomon, who married Pharaoh’s daughter:

and let him derive—

Pharaoh’s daughter—

was a first-generation Egyptian convert

(the first generation after conversion)

she

, whereas the Torah permitted Egyptians only in their third generation, as the verse states: “The third generation shall enter the assembly of the Lord.” And the difficulty is: How could Solomon marry her?!

And if you would say

to resolve the difficulty:

those—

the Egyptian nation that the Torah prohibited—

departed to the world

(they drowned in the sea ),

whereas these

the people dwelling in Egypt—

are others

(they are other nations that came and settled in Egypt), and the Torah did not prohibit them, and therefore Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter; the Torah’s prohibition applies only to the mixed multitude that became intermingled with Israel.

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: I had a colleague named Minyamin, an Egyptian convert, one of the disciples of Rabbi Akiva

and

he said,

Minyamin:

I am a first-generation Egyptian, and I married a first-generation Egyptian woman.

And I

will marry off my son—

who is a second-generation Egyptian—

to a second-generation Egyptian woman,

so that my grandson will be

a third-generation Egyptian and

fit to enter the assembly.

You have therefore learned that even Egyptians who currently dwell in Egypt are forbidden to enter the assembly.

Rav Pappa said

in answer:

Are we to rise up against Solomon and raise a difficulty from him

?

Are we to stand and challenge

(Can we stand and raise a difficulty from Solomon)?!

Solomon—

did not marry her at all!

He did not marry her; rather, it was only a relationship of love and not of marriage [Tosafot].

For

behold,

it is written concerning him

regarding Solomon:

“From the nations of which the Lord said

to the Children of Israel: You shall not enter among them, and they shall not enter among you; indeed, they will turn your hearts after their gods”—

with them Solomon was attached “to love

”!

Thus, this was not a marriage.

Rather, there is a difficulty

from the verse:

“And Solomon married

Pharaoh’s daughter,” which indicates that Solomon married her, and did not merely become attached to her out of love.

And we answer:

Because of the excessive love with which he loved her,

Scripture considers it as though he had married her.

The Gemara now returns to what was explained above, in order to resolve the uncertainty concerning a man with crushed testicles: Does he retain his sanctity, based on what we learned in the beraita: A man with crushed testicles is permitted to a netina—

Ravina said

he challenged

Rav Ashi: But we did not learn this

[the version of Rashi and the Bach] in our Mishna!

For we learned:

A man with crushed testicles and one whose member is severed are permitted to a female convert and a freedwoman.

This implies that specifically a female convert and a freedwoman, who are permitted to other Jews, are the ones who are permitted to a man with crushed testicles.

With regard to a netina,

who is forbidden even to other Jews—

they are forbidden,

a man with crushed testicles and one whose member is severed!

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Ravina:

According to your reasoning,

that you are attempting to infer the precise meaning from our Mishna,

say the latter clause:

And they are forbidden only from entering the assembly.

But this implies:

With regard to a netina—

they are permitted.

Rather, from this—

from our Mishna—

nothing can be inferred,

since the first clause implies one thing, while the latter clause implies the opposite.

Mishna:

An Ammonite and a Moabite

who converted—

are forbidden

to enter the assembly,

and their prohibition

is

an eternal prohibition

(for their sons and grandsons, until the end of all generations).

But their females,

of Ammon and Moab—

are permitted immediately,

once they convert.

An Egyptian and an Edomite

who converted

are forbidden only until the third generation,

but not including the third generation; only he himself and his son are forbidden, whereas his grandson is permitted.

Both males and females

are forbidden.

Rabbi Shimon permits the females

of Egypt and Edom

immediately,

once they convert.

Rabbi Shimon said:

And behold,

the kal va-chomer

is that

the matter

should be that the females of Egypt and Edom are permitted immediately:

And if, in the place—

Ammon and Moab—

where Scripture prohibited

the males

with an eternal prohibition, it permitted the females immediately.

In the place—

Egypt and Edom—

where it did not prohibit the males with an eternal prohibition,

but only until the third generation,

is it not logical that we should permit the females immediately?

The Sages said to him:

The Sages said to Rabbi Shimon:

If it is a halakha

you heard from your teachers, then indeed

we will accept

your words.

But

if, however,

it is a matter of logical inference

(if you derive the kal va-chomer on your own)—

there is an answer

that can be given against it, as the Gemara explains.

Rabbi Shimon said to them,

Rabbi Shimon said to the Sages:

No.

That is, not as you say: “If it is a matter of logical inference, there is an answer against it”; for even if I had derived it on my own, you would have no answer against it.

Nevertheless,

the halakha

from my teachers

is what I state.

Gemara:

And we inquire:

From where are these words derived

that their females, those of Ammon and Moab, are permitted immediately?

In order to explain this matter, the Gemara now presents the exchange concerning whether David was fit to enter the assembly, since he was descended from Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Boaz.

As it is stated: “And Boaz begot Obed, and Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David [at the end of Ruth].”

He said.

Rabbi Yohanan explained

that the verse says: “Now the Philistines gathered their camps for war.

A champion went out from the camps of the Philistines, named Goliath.

And David was the son of this Ephrathite from Bethlehem of Judah, whose name was Jesse, and he had eight sons. And the man was old in the days of Saul, advanced in years among men. And he [David] was speaking with them, and behold, the champion was ascending, Goliath the Philistine by name, from Gath, from the ranks of the Philistines. And Saul said to David: You cannot go to this Philistine. And David said: The Lord, Who rescued me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said to David: Go, and may the Lord be with you. And Saul clothed David in his garments and placed a copper helmet on his head. And David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, struck the Philistine and killed him, although there was no sword in David’s hand.

And when Saul saw David going out toward the Philistine, he said to Abner, the army commander: Whose son is this lad, Abner?

And Abner said: As your soul lives, O king, I do not know.”

We are compelled to interpret Saul’s question differently from its plain meaning, for:

And

if

Saul did not know him

[did not recognize him], David—

but it is written

in the previous chapter: “And David came to Saul and stood before him,”

“and he loved him greatly, and he became his arms-bearer.”

Rather,

perhaps you will say that Saul was not asking about David, but

was asking about his father,

David’s father,

as Saul said

: “Whose son is this lad?”

This too is impossible. For did

his father,

David’s father,

Saul not know him

?

But it is written:

In that same chapter, when Scripture describes who David was: “And David was the son of this Ephrathite from Bethlehem of Judah, whose name was Jesse, and he had eight sons,”

“and the man

[Jesse]

in the days of Saul was old, advanced in years among men.”

And he said,

Rav, and some say Rabbi Abba,

explained

the verse:

This is Jesse, the father of David, who entered with a multitude

(as a commander over six hundred thousand),

and went out with a multitude.

Since he was a commander in Saul’s kingdom, Saul certainly knew him.

Rather, since it was clear to Saul that David would be king, or at least an important person [as the Gemara proceeds to explain],

this is what

Saul said to Abner:

Go, ask

about David’s ancestors:

Is he descended from Perez

[Is David descended from Perez, the son of Judah],

or from Zerah

[Judah’s other son]

is he descended?

For

if he is descended from Perez—

he will be king

(David will be king), for this is why he was called “Perez,”

“for a king breaks through

the fences of others

to make a path for himself

that is shorter from his house to his orchard or vineyard,

and no one protests against him.

And

if he is descended from Zerah—

he will merely be an important person

[David will be an important person, but not a king].

Why did he say to him

Saul said to Abner:

“Ask about him”?

That is: Why was it clear to Saul that David would be a king or an important person, so that he requested to know his lineage?

For Saul saw signs of kingship in David,

as it is written: “And Saul clothed David in his garments, according to his measure”.

That is, Saul’s garments fit David’s size miraculously [Maharsha].

And it is written concerning Saul,

that is, although it is stated about Saul:

“taller than all the people from his shoulders upward”,

and naturally Saul’s garments should not have fit David’s measurements, nevertheless a miracle occurred and Saul’s garments fit David.

Doeg the Edomite said to Saul,

:

While you are asking

[inquiring and seeking to know]

about him whether he is fit for kingship or not—

ask about him whether

he is at all

fit

to

enter the assembly, or not!? —

it follows that David too is disqualified from entering the congregation.

What is the reason

to question David’s fitness?

Since

he comes

David

from Ruth the Moabite, and it follows that David too is disqualified from entering the assembly.

And we interpret it:

Abner said to him:

Behold,

we learned

: It is written, “An ‘Ammonite’ shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.”

And we expound:

An Ammonite man, but not an Ammonite woman.

And likewise we expound:

“A Moabite man, but not a Moabite woman!”

Since David is descended from a Moabite woman, there is no reason to question his fitness.

Doeg said to him:

If so,

since you expound “an Ammonite man, but not an Ammonite woman,” perhaps you should also expound: A

mamzer

shall not enter the assembly of the Lord,

but not a female mamzer!?

Abner said to him: “A

‘mamzer’ is written

, and it is an acrostic:

‘a foreign defect

,” teaching you that anyone who bears the defect of “foreignness,” whose parents’ betrothal does not take effect because they are foreign to one another, is forbidden to enter the assembly. The female is forbidden as well, since her mother had relations with one who was foreign and a stranger to her [Ritva in his understanding of Rashi].

Doeg further challenged him: “If so, perhaps you should also expound: ‘You shall not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land. The children who are born to them, in the third generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord’”—

an Egyptian man, but not an Egyptian woman!?

Abner said to him:

Here it is different,

with regard to Ammon,

for the reason of the verse is explained: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord”

“because they did not greet you with bread and water.”

Therefore, the females are not forbidden, because only

it is the way of a man to greet, and

it is not the way of a woman to greet [see the additional explanation in the notes ].

Immediately—

Doeg said to him: In any event,

they should have—

the Ammonites—

had men greet men, and women greet women.

Since the women too did not greet Israel, the Torah should have prohibited the women as well.

Abner fell silent,

Abner had no answer.

Immediately—“

And Abner said: As your soul lives, O king, I do not know.

And the king said: You ask whose son this youth is.”

But

there,

in Saul’s earlier address to Abner,

he called him

Saul called David

“lad

” [as it is written: “And when Saul saw him, he said to Abner, the army commander: Whose son is this ‘lad’?”], whereas here

he calls him “youth

”?

This is what he said to him,

Saul said,

“The halakha has been ‘hidden’ from you

whether David is permitted to enter the assembly.

Go and ask in the beit-midrash.”

Abner asked

in the beit-midrash whether an Ammonite woman and a Moabite woman are forbidden.

They said to him

in the beit-midrash: It is written: “An

Ammonite

shall not enter,” and you have learned: An Ammonite

man, but not an Ammonite woman.

And it is written:

“A Moabite man, but not a Moabite woman.”