Yevamot 77a (עז.) — the Talmud in English

Doeg presented all those objections to him

—all those objections that he had initially raised against Abner.

They fell silent:

the sages in the beit-midrash were unable to answer him.

He sought

Doeg wanted

to proclaim concerning him—

concerning David—that he was disqualified from entering the congregation.

Immediately

a man named Yeter arose. He was the son-in-law of Jesse, David’s father, and prevented Doeg from proclaiming that David was disqualified from entering the congregation!

And the Gemara explains that we find this man referred to by two names—

On the one hand, we find in the Book of Samuel [II Samuel 17:25] that his name was Yittra the Israelite, as it is written: “

And Absalom placed Amasa in place of Joab over the army.

And Amasa

was

the son of a man, whose name was

the man’s name

Yittra the Israelite,

and he was the man

who

that man, Amasa’s father,

came to Abigail, the daughter of Nahash.”

And Jesse, David’s father, was called “Nahash,” since he was one of the four righteous men who died only because of the serpent, which brought death into the world for Adam.

You have therefore learned that the name of Amasa’s father was “Yittra the Israelite.”

And

on the other hand,

it is written

in Chronicles that he had another name: “And the father of Amasa

was Yeter the Ishmaelite.”

Rava said: The verse teaches

that it called Yittra the Israelite “Yeter the Ishmaelite,”

that Yeter girded on

Yeter

his sword like an Ishmaelite and said: Whoever does not accept this halakha—

let him be stabbed with the sword!

This is what I have received

from the court of Samuel the Ramathite:

Only an

Ammonite

is prohibited from entering the congregation,

but not an Ammonite woman.

Only a

Moabite

is prohibited from entering the congregation,

but not a Moabite woman.

And we raise an objection:

But is he reliable

for Yeter to testify about this now?

But Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: Any Torah scholar who rules a halakha

in the name of his teacher

and then comes—

if, before the incident

before the ruling came before him,

he stated it

and taught it to his students in the beit-midrash in the name of his teacher, then

we heed him.

But if not, we do not heed him,

because perhaps he stated it because of an incident that had come before him.

And we answer:

Here it is different, for Samuel and his court are still in existence!

And with regard to a matter that is destined to be exposed as false, a person does not lie about it. However, even if we have a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai concerning this matter,

in any event—

there remains a difficulty:

the rationale given by the verse for prohibiting the Ammonites and Moabites.

For the Torah stated that the reason for their prohibition is “because they did not meet you with bread,” and women too should have gone out to meet the women with bread; on the basis of this rationale, there would be no reason to distinguish between males and females!

And we answer: The women were not required to go out to meet the women, since it is not the way of a woman to leave her home. This matter was learned in Babylonia and in Eretz Yisrael from two different sources:

Here,

they explained

here, in Babylonia, they answered:

“All the honor of a king’s daughter is within.”

In the West,

in Eretz Yisrael,

they said, and some say that Rabbi Yitzhak

said this:

The verse says: “And they said to him

the angels said to Abraham when they came to announce the birth of Isaac:

‘Where is Sarah your wife?’

And he said: “Behold, she is in the tent”—for it is not the way of a woman to leave her home.

As they disagree,

the tannaim disputed the matter: From where is the permission for female Ammonites and Moabites derived?

It is written: “No

Ammonite

shall enter,” from which you learn: an Ammonite

but not an Ammonite woman.

And it is written: “No

Moabite

shall enter.” A Moabite

but not a Moabite woman—these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says

there is another source for this:

Since the verse stated as the reason for the prohibition

“because they did not meet you with bread and water,”

and

it is the way of a man to meet others,

but it is not the way of a woman to meet others.

Rava expounded: What

is the meaning of

that which is written

in the Book of Psalms, which David said: “Please, Lord, for I am Your servant; I am Your servant, the son of Your maidservant,

You have released my bonds”?

David said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe, two bonds

straps with which the yoke is fastened to an animal

that were upon me—

You released them

you released them by permitting the female descendants of Ammon and Moab.

And these are the two “bonds” that were released:

Ruth the Moabite

from whom David descended,

and Naamah the Ammonite,

the mother of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, from whom the kings of the house of David descended.

Rava expounded: What

is the meaning of

that which is written

in the Book of Psalms, which David said,

“Many things have You done, You, Lord

my God; Your wonders and Your thoughts are for us.”

It does not say “for me,” but “for us”—

this teaches that Rehoboam was sitting on David’s lap

his grandfather’s.

And

he said to him

David said to his grandson Rehoboam, the son of Naamah the Ammonite:

“Concerning me and concerning you

two

of the

verses were stated [“Ammonite,” but not Naamah the Ammonite; “Moabite,” but not Ruth the Moabite, Maharshal ].”

And this is what David said: “Your wonders and Your thoughts are for us”—for me and for Rehoboam, my grandson: You thought for our benefit when You permitted the female descendants of Ammon and Moab.

Rava expounded: What

is the meaning of

that which is written

that David said,

“Then I said: Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written about me”?

David said: I said, “Now I have come”—

just now, when I was anointed, I attained greatness, for this greatness had only recently been assigned to me.

But I did not know that

already

in the scroll of the book

which is the Torah, see Maharsha, already

it was written about me!

That is: I did not know that from the days of Abraham it had already been written about me in the “scroll of the book” of the Torah.

For

there,

concerning the daughters of Lot, from whom Ammon and Moab descended,

it is written: “The found ones.”

And

here,

concerning David’s selection,

it is written: “I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him.”

Ulla said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The daughter of an Ammonite convert—

is fit for the priesthood,

and the Gemara proceeds to explain this statement.

It was initially understood that this refers to the daughter of an Ammonite convert whose wife converted together with him, and whose daughter was conceived and born in sanctity; this daughter is fit for the priesthood.

He said

Rava bar Ulla challenged

Ulla: In accordance with whom

were Rabbi Yohanan’s words stated?

For in either case there is a difficulty:

If it is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, he said: The daughter of a male convert

is disqualified from the priesthood

like the daughter of a male ḥalal—

so how could Rabbi Yohanan declare the daughter of an Ammonite convert fit?!

And if it is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda, then

it is obvious

that she is permitted to the priesthood, for

he said

Rabbi Yosei:

Even if a convert married a female convert—

his daughter is fit for the priesthood!

That is: it goes without saying that the daughter of a convert who married an Israelite woman is fit; even if the convert married a female convert, the daughter is not disqualified from the priesthood.

If so, according to whose view did Rabbi Yohanan innovate that the daughter of an Ammonite convert is fit for the priesthood?!

And Rava bar Ulla added this challenge:

And if you would say

by way of explanation that Rabbi Yosei declared fit only

those who are fit to enter the congregation,

but this one,

an Ammonite convert,

who is not fit to enter the congregation—

did not

Rabbi Yosei say that his daughter is fit for the priesthood, and this is Rabbi Yohanan’s innovation in permitting her to the priesthood—

from where does he derive it,

what basis is there for saying so?

You might say that

he derives

it was initially thought that one could derive it

from a High Priest with a widow,

since, as he is not fit to marry her, his daughter is a ḥalala and disqualified from the priesthood; likewise, I would bring the daughter of an Ammonite convert, who has the defect of being prohibited from entering the congregation, and therefore she is disqualified from the priesthood.

But this can be refuted:

What is true of a High Priest with a widow

whose daughter is disqualified from the priesthood,

is that his intercourse

the High Priest’s intercourse

is transgressive

with his widow, since he is prohibited from marrying a widow.

But an Ammonite convert is permitted to marry his Ammonite wife who converted with him.

You might say that a

ḥalal,

born from a priest who had intercourse with women disqualified from the priesthood,

proves

that his daughter is disqualified from the priesthood, since he himself has a defect, having been born from a forbidden union, even though now the intercourse of the ḥalal involves no transgression—for fit women were not warned against marrying ḥalalim—and nevertheless the daughter of a ḥalal is disqualified—

so too, I would bring an Ammonite convert, whose daughter would be disqualified even though there was no prohibition in the union from which she was born, since her father is defective, as he is prohibited from entering the congregation.

This can be refuted:

What is true of a ḥalal is that his creation was through a transgression,

as he was born from the intercourse of a priest with a woman disqualified from the priesthood, who was prohibited to him. Therefore he disqualifies his daughter. Can you say the same regarding an Ammonite convert, whose creation was not through a transgression?

Rather, one could say that there would be room to derive it by means of the common aspect:

A High Priest

with a widow

proves

that his creation was not through a transgression, and nevertheless he disqualifies his daughter.

And the argument returns: This one is not like that one

a High Priest with a widow

just as that one is not like this one

a ḥalal.

And that one is not like this one.

But

the common aspect between them is that he is not part of the majority of the congregation—

that is, they are unlike the rest of Israel, but each has some defective aspect: the High Priest’s intercourse is transgressive, and likewise the ḥalal was created through a transgression;

and

therefore

his daughter is disqualified.

Here too,

an Ammonite convert

who is not part of the majority of the congregation,

for he is prohibited from entering the congregation,

and

therefore his

daughter should be disqualified

from the priesthood.

Therefore Rabbi Yohanan had to innovate that she is fit.

This cannot be said! It is obvious that the daughter of an Ammonite convert who married an Ammonite female convert is not disqualified from the priesthood, since this can be refuted:

What is true of the common aspect between them—

the daughter of a High Priest with a widow and the daughter of a ḥalal—

is that they contain an element of transgression,

for in the case of the daughter of a High Priest with a widow, the daughter was created through a transgression, while in the case of the daughter of a ḥalal, her father was created through a transgression.

Can you say the same regarding the daughter of an Ammonite convert who married an Ammonite female convert? There is no element of transgression here at all.

And since Rava bar Ulla had explained that there was no basis for disqualifying the daughter of an Ammonite convert who married an Ammonite female convert, and there is no innovation in declaring her fit for the priesthood, he added and said to Ulla:

Perhaps you are speaking of an Ammonite who married an Israelite woman,

who is prohibited to him,

you are saying

that nevertheless she is fit for the priesthood.

There is an innovation in this matter, for

even though his intercourse is transgressive,

and one might compare him to a High Priest with a widow, whose intercourse is transgressive and whose daughter is disqualified from the priesthood, nevertheless, in the case of an Ammonite, the law is not so; rather,

his daughter is fit

for the priesthood [as the reason will be explained below, from “among his people”].

He said to him

Ulla said to Rava bar Ulla:

No,

indeed, this was my intention in the words of Rabbi Yohanan that I transmitted in his name.

For when Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The daughter of an Ammonite convert,

who is disqualified from entering the congregation, but who nevertheless married an Israelite woman, and whose intercourse was transgressive,

and

similarly,

the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian,

who is disqualified from entering the congregation, married an Israelite woman, and whose intercourse was transgressive—

Rabbi Yohanan said: She is fit

the daughter is fit for the priesthood.

And Reish Lakish said: She is disqualified

the daughter is disqualified from the priesthood.

And the Gemara explains their reasoning:

Reish Lakish said: She is disqualified, as he derives it from a High Priest with a widow,

whose intercourse is transgressive and whose daughter is disqualified from the priesthood.

Rabbi Yohanan said: She is fit.