Yevamot 77a — the Talmud in English

Doeg raised all those objections against them

all those objections that he had initially raised against Abner.

They fell silent:

the sages in the beit-midrash, and they did not know how to answer him.

He sought

Doeg wished

to proclaim concerning him:

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

Immediately

a man named Yitro arose, who was Yishai’s son-in-law, Yishai being David’s father, and prevented Doeg from proclaiming that David was disqualified from entering the congregation!

And the Gemara explains that we find that this man had two names—

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

And he appointed Amasa, the son of Abigail, over the army in place of Joab.

And Amasa

was

the son of a man, whose name was

the man’s name—

Yitro the Israelite,

and he was the man

who

that man, Amasa’s father,

went to Abigail, the daughter of Nahash.”

And Yishai, David’s father, was called “Nahash,” since he was one of the four righteous men who died only because of the serpent, which caused death to Adam.

You have therefore learned that the name of Amasa’s father was “Yitro 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 Yitro the Israelite by the name “Yeter the Ishmaelite,”

that Yeter girded

Yeter

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

he shall be stabbed with the sword!

This is what I have received

from the court of Samuel the Ramathite:

Only

an Ammonite

is forbidden to enter the congregation,

but not an Ammonite woman.

Only

a Moabite

is forbidden to enter the congregation,

but not a Moabite woman.

And we ask:

And is Yitro trustworthy

to testify about this now?

But did Rabbi Abba not say in the name of Rav: Every Torah scholar who rules a halakha

in the name of his teacher,

and 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 on account of the incident that came before him.

And we answer:

Here it is different, for Samuel and his court still exist!

And concerning a matter that is destined to be revealed as false, a person does not lie about it. Rather, even if we have a halakha given to Moses at Sinai concerning this,

nevertheless—

there is a difficulty

with the reason given by the verse for prohibiting the Ammonites and Moabites.

For the Torah said 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; and on the basis of this reason there would have been no place to distinguish between males and females!

And we answer: The women did not have to go out to meet the women, since it is not the way of a woman to leave her house; and this matter was learned in Babylonia and in the Land of Israel from two different sources:

Here,

they translated

here, in Babylonia, they explained:

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

In the West,

in the Land of Israel,

they say, and some say Rabbi Yitzhak

said this:

The verse says: “And they said to him

the angels said to Abraham when they came to announce to him 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 house.

As a dispute among the tannaim:

the tannaim disagreed concerning from where the permission for the females of Ammon and Moab is learned:

It is written: “An

Ammonite

shall not enter”—you have learned: an Ammonite

but not an Ammonite woman.

And it is written: “A

Moabite

shall not enter.” A Moabite

but not a Moabite woman, the words of Rabbi Judah.

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 with water,”

and yet

it is the way of a man to meet

and it is not the way of a woman to meet.

Rava expounded: What

is this

that is written

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

You have opened my bonds”?

David said before the Holy One, blessed is He: Master of the universe, two bonds

straps with which the yoke is tied to the animal

that were upon me—

You have opened them

you opened them by permitting the females of Ammon and Moab.

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

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 this

that is written

in the Book of Psalms, which David said,

“Many things have You done, O Lord

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

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

this teaches that Rehoboam was sitting in David’s lap

his grandfather’s.

And

he said to him

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

“Concerning me and concerning you

these two

the

verses were said [“Ammonite” but not an Ammonite woman, “Moabite” but not a Moabite woman, Maharshal ].

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

Rava expounded: What

is this

that is written

that David said,

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

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

just now, at the time when I was anointed, I attained greatness, for this greatness had only recently been decreed for me.

But I did not know that

already

in the scroll of the book

it is the Torah, see Maharsha, already

written concerning me!

That is to say: I did not know that already from the days of Abraham it had been written concerning 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 ones who were found.”

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 in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The daughter of an Ammonite convert—

is fit for the priesthood,

and he proceeds to explain it.

The initial assumption was to explain it as referring 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

Rab bar Ulla raised an objection

to Ulla: In accordance with whom

in accordance with whose view were Rabbi Yohanan’s words stated?

For in either event there is a difficulty:

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

is disqualified from the priesthood

like the daughter of a male chalal,

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

And if it is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who disagrees with Rabbi Judah, 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 to say: It is not necessary to say that the daughter of a convert who married an Israelite woman is fit; rather, 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 Rab bar Ulla added to his objection:

And if you would say

to explain that Rabbi Yosei declared fit only

those who are fit to enter the congregation.

But this one,

the 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, to permit her to the priesthood.

From where does he have this,

from what basis can this be said?

Say

that he derives it

the initial assumption would be to learn it

from a High Priest with a widow,

for since he is not fit for her, his daughter is a chalala and disqualified from the priesthood; so too I will bring the daughter of an Ammonite convert, who has the defect of a prohibition concerning entry into the congregation, and therefore she is disqualified from the priesthood.

There is a basis for refuting this:

What is true of a High Priest with a widow

whose daughter is disqualified from the priesthood,

for his intercourse

the intercourse of the High Priest with his widow

is a transgression,

for he is prohibited to a widow.

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

Say

a chalal,

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

will prove

that his daughter is disqualified from the priesthood, since there is a defect in him himself, as he was born from forbidden intercourse, even though now there is no transgression in the intercourse of the chalal [for fit women were not warned against marrying chalalim]; nevertheless, the daughter of the chalal is disqualified—

so too I will bring an Ammonite convert, whose daughter should be disqualified, despite the fact that there was no prohibition in the intercourse from which she was born, since her father is defective, for he is prohibited from entering the congregation.

This can be refuted:

What is true of a chalal, for his formation was through a transgression,

for he was born from the intercourse of a priest with women disqualified from the priesthood, who are forbidden to him; therefore he disqualifies his daughter. Can you say the same of an Ammonite convert, whose formation was not through a transgression?

Rather, one could say that it was possible to learn it by the common side:

A High Priest

with a widow

will prove,

for his formation was not through a transgression, and nevertheless he disqualifies his daughter.

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

a High Priest with a widow

as that one is like this one

a chalal.

And that one is not like this one.

But

the common side between them is that he is not part of the majority of the congregation,

that is, they are not like the rest of the majority of Israel; rather, there is a defective aspect in them: the High Priest’s intercourse is a transgression, and likewise the chalal’s formation is through a transgression,

and

therefore

his daughter is disqualified.

Here too,

an Ammonite who converted,

who is not part of the majority of the congregation,

for he is prohibited from entering the congregation,

and

therefore his

daughter will be disqualified

from the priesthood.

Therefore Rabbi Yohanan had to innovate that she is fit.

This cannot be said! And it is obvious that the daughter of an Ammonite convert who married an Ammonite female convert is not disqualified from the priesthood, since there is a basis for refuting this:

What is true of the common side between them—

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

for there is a transgressive aspect in them,

for in the case of the daughter of a High Priest with a widow, the daughter’s formation is through a transgression, and in the case of the daughter of a chalal, her father’s formation is through a transgression.

Can you say this of the daughter of an Ammonite convert who married an Ammonite female convert, where there is no transgressive aspect whatsoever?

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

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

who is forbidden to him,

you said,

that nevertheless she is fit for the priesthood.

And there is an innovation in the matter:

even though his intercourse is a transgression,

and one might compare him to a High Priest with a widow, whose intercourse is a transgression 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 Rab bar Ulla:

No,

indeed, this was my intention in Rabbi Yohanan’s words, when I stated them in his name.

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

who is disqualified from the congregation, and nevertheless married an Israelite woman, and his intercourse is a transgression,

and

likewise

the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian,

who is disqualified from the congregation, and married an Israelite woman, and his intercourse is a transgression—

Rabbi Yohanan said: She is fit

the daughter is fit for the priesthood.

And Resh Lakish said: She is disqualified

the daughter is disqualified from the priesthood.

And we explain their reasons:

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

whose intercourse is a transgression and whose daughter is disqualified from the priesthood.

Rabbi Yohanan said: She is fit.