Yevamot 77b — the Talmud in English

For Rabbi Zakkai taught before Rabbi Yohanan:

it is written concerning the High Priest:

“For only a virgin from his people shall he take as a wife.”

To include a female convert from her source

from the expression “so,” “source”]! That is, one whose father and mother are “from one people,” such as an Ammonite who married an Ammonite woman, and the daughter was born in sanctity,

that she is fit for the priesthood.

But when she does not come from one people, for example, when an Ammonite convert married an Israelite woman, since she is forbidden to him and his intercourse is in transgression, his daughter is unfit for the priesthood.

And he said to him

Rabbi Yohanan said to Rabbi Zakkai:

I teach: “his people”

“from his people.”

That is: since the verse did not say, “He shall take a virgin of his people as a wife,” but said, “He shall take a virgin from his people as a wife,” it implies: even a virgin who is partly from his people [from Israel] and partly from another people—

to include a virgin who comes from two peoples,

who is also fit for the priesthood [and he explains it further].

And

if

you say: only a female convert from her source

is fit,

and no more!?

And the Gemara explains:

What

did Rabbi Yohanan intend by saying, “to include a virgin who comes from

two peoples”?

If you say

it means an

Ammonite convert who married

a female

Ammonite convert, and what does “from two peoples” mean?

A people containing two peoples, namely Ammon,

whose males

of this people

are forbidden, and whose females

of this people

are permitted, and the males and females are called two peoples.

It is impossible to say this.

For

this is “a female convert from her source,”

which Rabbi Zakkai also permitted; and what did Rabbi Yohanan come to add to him?

Rather, by

necessity, that an

Ammonite convert who married an Israelite woman

is what Rabbi Yohanan said was permitted, and he brings from the verse that his daughter, who comes from two peoples, an Ammonite convert and an Israelite woman, is permitted for the priesthood.

And it is proven that Rabbi Yohanan’s intention was to say that the daughter of an Ammonite convert who had intercourse with an Israelite woman is fit for the priesthood.

And there are those who say

that there is no need to prove that this is what Rabbi Yohanan said, for explicitly

he said to him

Rabbi Yohanan said to Rabbi Zakkai:

I teach “his people”

“from his people”—

to include a virgin who comes from two peoples,

namely, from an Israelite woman and a convert, who is fit for the priesthood.

However, according to the ikka de-amrei, Rabbi Yohanan adds a significant point in his words:

And

that convert came

from a people containing two peoples,

an Ammonite or a Moabite, whose males are forbidden from this people and whose females from it are permitted.

And

if

you,

Rabbi Zakkai,

say

that only one who is

“a female convert from her source”

is fit for the priesthood,

and no more!

And now the Gemara asks:

And according to this latter formulation,

according to the formulation of the ikka de-amrei, according to which Rabbi Yohanan explicitly says that the verse includes only an Ammonite convert who had intercourse with an Israelite woman, a convert who came from a people containing two peoples—one permitted [the females] and one forbidden, the males.

But concerning an Egyptian convert, whose females too are forbidden, we have not learned this from this verse!

If so,

the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian,

who married an Israelite woman, and whose intercourse was in transgression,

that she is fit

is she

for the priesthood

as Rabbi Yohanan explicitly said on the preceding page—

from where does he have it

from Rabbi Yohanan that she is fit, since she is not included in the permission of “from his people”?

And should you say: he derives

an Egyptian who married an Israelite woman

from

an

Ammonite convert who married an Israelite woman,

just as this one is fit although his intercourse was in transgression, so too I shall include an Egyptian convert whose intercourse was in transgression, and his daughter is fit for the priesthood.

There is a refutation:

What is there

about an

Ammonite convert who married an Israelite woman, for

the Torah was lenient concerning Ammon, since

the females

of theirs

are permitted,

and therefore it was lenient concerning them also to permit his daughter for the priesthood.

Can you say this concerning an Egyptian, concerning whom the Torah was stringent, forbidding even the females? If so, from where do you know that even the daughter of an Egyptian convert who had intercourse with an Israelite woman in transgression was nevertheless rendered fit by the Torah for the priesthood?

And we answer:

A second-generation Egyptian who married a second-generation Egyptian woman,

whose females are forbidden, and who have a stringent aspect, for all of them are forbidden to enter the community,

proves it: just as their daughter is permitted for the priesthood, so too the daughter of an Egyptian who married an Israelite woman is permitted for the priesthood.

The Gemara rejects this:

And we reject this:

What is there about a second-generation Egyptian who married a second-generation Egyptian woman, for his intercourse is not in transgression,

and they have only the stringent aspect that they are unfit to enter the community; can you say this concerning an Egyptian who married an Israelite woman, whose intercourse is in transgression? And from where do you know that his daughter is fit for the priesthood?

And we answer:

An Ammonite who married an Israelite woman,

whose intercourse is in transgression, and the Torah permitted [“among his people”] their daughter,

proves it.

So too I shall include an Egyptian who married an Israelite woman, whose daughter is fit for the priesthood, even though his intercourse was in transgression.

And the matter returns,

this one [an Ammonite who married an Israelite woman] is not like this one [a second-generation Egyptian who married a second-generation Egyptian woman], and this one is not like this one.

The common aspect between them is: although they are not part of the majority of the community, nevertheless the daughter is fit for the priesthood.

I too shall include an Egyptian who married an Israelite woman, who is not part of the majority of the community, and nevertheless his daughter is fit for the priesthood.

Rav Yosef said: This is what I heard Rav Judah say, for he said: “his people”—

“from his people,” but I did not know what he was saying [that is what I heard Rav Judah expound, “his people,” “from his people,” but I did not know what he was expounding by it]. And now I know: he came to permit the daughter of an Ammonite who married an Israelite woman.

When Rav Samuel bar Judah came, he said: This is how Rabbi Zakkai taught

before

Rabbi Yohanan:

An Ammonite woman—

she is

fit.

Her son from an Ammonite—

unfit.

And as will be explained.

And her daughter from an Ammonite—

fit.

In what case are these words stated? With an Ammonite and an Ammonite woman who converted.

But her daughter from an Ammonite—

unfit [and the entire explanation of the beraita is explained further in the sugya].

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan said to Rabbi Zakkai:

Go out and teach it outside [go and teach the beraita you brought outside],

for this is not a beraita, since:

It is understandable

what you said: a woman

a female convert

Ammonite

is

fit,

because:

an Ammonite and not an Ammonite woman.

And likewise what you said:

her son

—of the Ammonite female convert—

from

an

Ammonite

convert is

unfit,

also understandable,

for he is an Ammonite,

the son, by virtue of his father.

But this is difficult concerning your words:

For at first you teach:

and her daughter

of the Ammonite female convert

from

an

Ammonite

convert is

fit.

And it must be understood:

for what purpose

is she fit?

If you say

to render her daughter fit

to enter the community—

there is no need to say this,

for

now,

even

her mother,

the mother of this daughter, who is an Ammonite woman not born in sanctity, once she converted, she is

fit

to enter the community—

she—

her daughter, who was born in sanctity—

is it necessary!?

Do you need to say that she is fit!?

Rather,

it is certain that with regard to fitness

for the priesthood

you teach: an Ammonite daughter who married an Ammonite is fit.

And since this is so, what you teach at the continuation of the beraita is difficult:

In what case are these words stated? With an Ammonite and an Ammonite woman who converted, but her daughter from an Ammonite is unfit.

What is “her daughter from an Ammonite” that you teach is unfit for the priesthood?

If you say, the daughter of an

Ammonite

convert who married

a female

Ammonite convert.

But

this is “a female convert

from

her source”—

whom you yourself rendered fit for the priesthood. For you repeated, “and her daughter from an Ammonite is fit,” and it has already been explained that your intention is that she is fit for the priesthood!

Rather,

certainly it is the daughter of an

Ammonite convert who married an Israelite woman,

whom you render unfit for the priesthood, since his intercourse was in transgression.

Therefore

he said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Go out and teach your teaching outside, for it is not correct, since this too is fit for the priesthood, for I teach: “his people—from his people.”

We learned in the Mishna:

An Egyptian and an Edomite are not forbidden

except until three generations. Both males and females. Rabbi Shimon permits the females immediately.

Rabbi Shimon said: The kal va-chomer is logical: if in a place where He forbade the males with an eternal prohibition, He permitted the females immediately, in a place where He forbade the males only until three generations, is it not logical that we should permit the females immediately?

They said to him: If it is a received halakha, we shall accept it, but if it is an inference, there is an answer. He said to them: No; I am stating a halakha.

And we explain:

What answer

is there to the kal va-chomer that Rabbi Shimon derived from Ammon and Moab, such that even the females of Egypt would be permitted?

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Because one can say: forbidden sexual relations prove it,

that is, the prohibition of the daughter and the daughter of the son or the daughter of the daughter,

concerning which He did not forbid

the Torah

except until three generations [his daughter, and the daughter of his daughter or his son], and the Torah forbade

both males and females.

For it forbade the daughter of his daughter just as the daughter of his son.

I too shall include an Egyptian and an Edomite, whom He forbade only until three generations, and both males and females are forbidden.

And we refute:

What is there about forbidden sexual relations, for there is karet,

and therefore the Torah was stringent concerning them and forbade both males and females.

Can you say this concerning an Egyptian and an Edomite, where there is only a prohibition of a positive commandment, as it is stated: “A third generation shall enter their assembly,” but not the first and second generations!

A mamzer

who does not involve karet

proves it,

for the Torah made females like males in his case; I too shall include an Egyptian and an Edomite, to forbid males like females.

What is there about a mamzer, for he is unfit to enter the community forever;

can you say this concerning an Egyptian and an Edomite, whom the Torah forbade only until three generations?

Forbidden sexual relations,

concerning which too the Torah did not forbid forever,

prove it,

for the Torah forbade males like females in their case. [See the language of Rashi and what Maharsha wrote concerning it.]

And the matter returns: this one is not like that one [forbidden sexual relations]

as that one is [a mamzer],

and this one is not like that one; the common aspect between them is: they are forbidden, and both males and females,

so too I shall include an Egyptian and an Egyptian woman, that both males and females shall be forbidden.

What is there about the common aspect between them [forbidden sexual relations and a mamzer]

for there is an aspect of karet among them,

for even the mamzer, although there is no karet in his intercourse, nevertheless he comes from those liable for karet.

And the Rabbis,

who answered, answered as follows: Forbidden sexual relations prove it, for the Torah forbade them only until three generations, and both males and females are forbidden.

Perhaps you will say: What is there about forbidden sexual relations, for there is karet? I too shall prove to you

a profaned person from those liable for a positive commandment [such as a High Priest who married a woman who had been forced or seduced, who is subject to the positive commandment, “And he shall take a woman in her virginity,” and not a woman who had had intercourse, and she bore a child], in whose case the Torah made females like males,

and according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob,

who holds that there is a profaned person from those liable for a positive commandment.

And the Gemara explains Rabbi Shimon’s answer:

And what

did he say to them,

“No,” but rather I am stating a halakha? And this means that he disagrees with their answer.

This is what he said to them,

Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis:

For my part, I do not

hold like Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob,

and there is no answer to the kal va-chomer that I derived.

And even

for your part, since you hold like Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob—

I am stating a halakha.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon said to the Sages:

I am stating a halakha

from the mouths of my teachers, that Egyptian females are permitted.

And furthermore, a verse supports me,

as it is written: “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land.

Sons

who are born to them, in the third generation, shall enter their assembly.” Sons

and not daughters!

That is: I permitted sons to you only in the third generation, whereas daughters I permitted immediately.

The Sages taught: “Sons” and not daughters, the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Judah said: Behold, it says: “Sons who are born to them, in the third generation.”

Thus the

verse made them dependent upon birth,

that is: all those born to them are permitted only in the third generation, and females too are included.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Had Rabbi Judah not said, “the verse made them dependent upon birth”—

which implies that even the females are forbidden—

he would not have found his hands and feet in the house of study [he could not have maintained his words, Rashi], for how would he explain the verse, “Sons who are born to them [to the Egyptians], in the third generation, shall enter their assembly”?

For if the females of the Egyptians are permitted, then once they converted they are included in the “assembly” into which the Torah forbade those unfit for the assembly [such as an Egyptian] to enter, and how would he find a third generation for an Egyptian?

And according to Rabbi Judah, you cannot permit them to marry those unfit for the assembly on account of their conversion, because of the permission that “a community of converts is not called a community,”

since

Rabbi Judah does not hold this permission.

For the Master said [that is, Rabbi Judah]:

A community of converts—

is called a community!

And if so: