Yevamot 76b — the Talmud in English

But

this —

the daughter of Pharaoh the king, who was raised in a king’s house —

does not require it

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

And still we question Solomon, who married Pharaoh’s daughter:

and let it emerge from this —

Pharaoh’s daughter —

a first-generation Egyptian

(the first generation after conversion)

was; and the Torah permitted Egyptians only in their third generation, as the verse says: “A third generation shall enter them into the assembly of the Lord.” And let it be difficult: how did Solomon marry her!?

, 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 it:

those —

the Egyptian nation that the Torah prohibited —

went to the world

(they drowned in the sea ),

whereas these

who dwell in Egypt —

are other ones

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

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: “Minyamin, an Egyptian convert, was a colleague of mine, among the students of Rabbi Akiva,”

and

he said

Minyamin:

“I am a first-generation Egyptian, and I married a first-generation Egyptian.”

And I

shall marry 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 the Egyptians who currently dwell in Egypt are forbidden to enter the assembly.

Said

he answered,

Rav Pappa:

Is it that

we should stand and derive an objection from Solomon

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

Solomon —

did not marry at all!

He did not have marriage with her, but only a relationship of love and not a way of intermarriage [Tosafot].

For

behold,

it is written concerning him

concerning Solomon:

“From the nations of which the Lord said

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

“with them Solomon clung ‘to love’”!

”!

Thus, this was not intermarriage.

But there is a difficulty

from the verse:

“And Solomon intermarried

with Pharaoh’s daughter,” and it is explained that Solomon married her, and did not cling to her only out of love.

And we answer:

Because of the excessive love with which he loved her,

Scripture accounts it to him as though he had intermarried with her.

And here the Gemara returns to what was explained above, to resolve the uncertainty concerning a man with crushed genitals, whether he retains his sanctity, from what we learned in the beraita: a man with crushed genitals is permitted to a netina —

Said

he objected,

Ravina to Rav Ashi: But we did not learn so in the Mishna

(the version of Rashi and the Bach) in our Mishna!

For we learned:

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

And it implies that specifically a female convert and a freedwoman, who are permitted to other Israelites, are the only ones permitted to a man with crushed genitals.

But with a netina,

who is forbidden even to other Israelites —

they are forbidden,

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

He said to him,

Rav Ashi to Ravina:

And according to your reasoning,

that you come to be exact about the language of our Mishna,

say its latter clause:

“And they are forbidden only from entering the assembly.”

But it implies:

with a netina —

they are permitted.

Rather, from this,

from our Mishna —

there is nothing to infer,

since the first clause implies one thing and the latter clause implies another.

Mishna:

An Ammonite and a Moabite

who converted —

are forbidden

to enter the assembly,

and their prohibition

is

an eternal prohibition

(their sons and their grandsons, until the end of the world).

But their females,

of Ammon and Moab —

are permitted immediately,

when they convert.

An Egyptian and an Edomite

who converted

are forbidden only until three generations,

with the third not included, and only he himself and his son are forbidden, but his grandson is permitted.

Both males and females

are forbidden.

Rabbi Shimon permits the females

of Egypt and Edom,

immediately

when they convert.

Rabbi Shimon said:

And behold,

a kal va-chomer

are

the matters,

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

And if in the place —

Ammon and Moab —

where the verse prohibited

the males

with an eternal prohibition, it permitted the females immediately.

In a place —

Egypt and Edom —

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

but only until three generations,

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

They said to him

the Sages:

If it is a halakha

that you heard from your teachers, indeed

we shall accept

your words.

But

however,

if it is a logical derivation

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

there is an answer

to respond to it, and the Gemara explains it.

He said to them

Rabbi Shimon to the Sages:

No.

That is, not as you say: “If it is a logical derivation, there is an answer,” for even if I were expounding it on my own, you would have no answer.

Nevertheless,

a halakha

from my teachers

I say.

Gemara:

And we inquire into it:

From where are these words

that their females of Ammon and Moab are permitted immediately?

And in order to explain this matter, the Gemara now brings the exchange that took place concerning David’s fitness to enter the assembly, since he was descended from Ruth the Moabite woman, the wife of Boaz.

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

Said

he explained,

Rabbi Yohanan: The verse says: “

The Philistines gathered their camps for battle.

And a man of the intermediates came out from the camps of the Philistines, Goliath his name. And David was the son of this Ephrathite man from Bethlehem of Judah, and his name was Jesse, and he had eight sons. And the man was old in the days of Saul, advanced among men. And he [David] was speaking with them, and behold, the man of the intermediates was ascending, Goliath the Philistine his name, from Gath, from the battle lines of the Philistines. And Saul said to David: You cannot go to this Philistine. And David said: The Lord, Who rescued me from the hand of the lion and from the hand 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 bronze helmet on his head. And David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him, and there was no sword in David’s hand.

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

And Abner said: ‘As your soul lives, O king, if I knew.’”

And we are compelled to explain Saul’s question in a different manner from its simple meaning, for:

And

if

he did not know him

(he did not recognize him), Saul did not know David?

But it is written

in the preceding 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: Saul did not ask about David, but

about his father,

David’s

he was asking,

as he said: “Whose son is this youth?”

This too is impossible. For: Did Saul

not know

David’s

father,

Saul?!

But it is written:

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

“and the man

(Jesse)

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

And

he explained

Rav, and some say Rabbi Abba,

the verse:

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

(who was commander over six hundred thousand),

and went out with a population.”

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

Rather, certainly, since it was clear to Saul that David would be king, or at least an important person [as he will explain],

this is what

Saul said to Abner:

Go, ask

about David’s earlier ancestors:

whether he comes from Peretz

(whether David is descended from Peretz son of Judah),

or whether he comes from Zerach

(Judah’s son),

he comes.

For

if he comes from Peretz —

he will be king

(David will be king), for that reason his name is called “Peretz,”

“for a king breaks through

the fences of others

to make a path for himself

shorter from his house to his orchard or vineyard,

and no one protests against him.”

And

if he comes from Zerach —

he will merely be an important person

(David will be only an important person).

For what reason did he say to him

Saul to Abner:

“Ask about him”?

That is: why was it clear to Saul concerning David that he would be king or important, to the point that he wanted to know his lineage?

For Saul saw signs of kingship in David.

As it is written: “And Saul clothed David—his garments were according to his measure.”

That is: Saul’s garments fit David’s measure by way of a miracle [Maharsha].

And it is written concerning Saul,

that is, although it is said about Saul:

“From his shoulders and upward he was taller than all the people”,

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

Doeg the Edomite said to him

to Saul:

“While you are asking

(asking and seeking to know)

about him, whether he is suitable for kingship or not—ask about him: whether

he is, in general,

fit

to

be

permitted to enter the assembly or not!?” —

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

For what reason

is there room 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.

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,” but not an Ammonite woman.

And likewise we expound:

“A Moabite,” but not a Moabite woman!

And since David comes from a Moabite woman, there is no room to question his fitness.

Doeg said to him:

“If so”,

since you expound “an Ammonite,” but not an Ammonite woman, perhaps you will also expound “A

mamzer

shall not enter the assembly of the Lord,”

but not a female mamzer!?

Abner said to him: Behold,

“mamzer” is written,

and it is a notarikon:

“a foreign blemish”,

to teach you: anyone who has the blemish of “foreignness,” whose parents’ betrothal does not take effect because they are foreign to one another, is forbidden to enter the assembly. And the female too is forbidden, since her mother had relations with one who was foreign and alien to her [Ritba in understanding Rashi].

Doeg further objected to him: “If so, perhaps you will 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,” but not an Egyptian woman?!

Abner said to him:

“Here it is different”,

with regard to an Ammonite,

“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 meet you with bread and water.”

sent men to greet men and women to greet women.

And therefore the females are not forbidden, because only

“it is the way of a man to meet, but it is not the way of a woman to meet,”

(and see additional explanation in the notes ).

Doeg said to him: In any event,

they should have

for the Ammonites

sent men to meet men, and women to meet women.

And since the women too did not meet Israel, the Torah prohibited the women too.

Abner fell silent

.

Immediately — “

And Abner said: ‘As your soul lives, O king, if I knew.’

And the king said: ‘Ask whose son this young man is.’”

But

there,

(in Saul’s earlier address to Abner), he

calls him

Saul called David

“youth”,

(as it is written: “And when Saul saw him, he said to Abner, the commander of the army: Whose son is this ‘youth’”), whereas

here he calls him “young man”?

Rather, certainly,

this is what he said to him

Saul:

“The halakha has ‘escaped’ you

whether David is permitted to enter the assembly.

Go out 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

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

Ammonite

shall not enter,” and you have thereby learned: an Ammonite

but not an Ammonite woman. And it is written:

“A Moabite, but not a Moabite woman.”

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