Yevamot 77b (עז:) — the Talmud in English

As Rabbi Zakkai taught before Rabbi Yohanan:

it is written concerning the High Priest:

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

To include a female convert of his own kind

from the language of “so,” “of his kind”]! 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 after their conversion,

so that she is fit to marry into the kehunah.

But when she does not come from one people—for example, when an Ammonite convert married an Israelite woman—since she was forbidden to him and his relations constituted a transgression, their daughter is unfit to marry into the kehunah.

And he said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Zakkai:

I distinguish between “his people” and

“from his people.”

That is: Since the verse did not say, “He shall take a virgin of his people as a wife,” but rather 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 to marry into the kehunah [and the Gemara explains this below].

And

if

you were to say: Only a female convert of her own kind

is fit,

and no more!?

The Gemara explains:

What

did Rabbi Yohanan mean when he said “to include a virgin who comes from

two peoples”?

If we say

that it refers to an

Ammonite convert who married

a female

Ammonite convert, and what is meant by “from two peoples”?

A people containing two peoples, namely Ammon,

whose males

among this people

are forbidden, while its females

among this people

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

This cannot be said.

For

this is precisely “a female convert of her own kind,”

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

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that an

Ammonite convert who married an Israelite woman

was what Rabbi Yohanan said may be permitted, and he derives from the verse that his daughter, who comes from two peoples—an Ammonite convert and an Israelite woman—is permitted to marry into the kehunah.

It is thus proven that Rabbi Yohanan intended to say that when an Ammonite convert has relations with an Israelite woman, their daughter is fit to marry into the kehunah.

And there are those who say

that there is no need to prove that this is what Rabbi Yohanan said, since he said it explicitly.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Zakkai:

I distinguish between “his people” and

“from his people”—

to include a virgin who comes from two peoples,

namely, from an Israelite woman and a convert, who is fit to marry into the kehunah.

However, according to this second version, Rabbi Yohanan adds a significant point to his statement:

And

that convert came

from a people containing two peoples,

an Ammonite or a Moabite, whose males are forbidden because they belong to that people, while its females are permitted.

And

if

you,

Rabbi Zakkai,

were to say

that only one who is

“a female convert of her own kind”

is fit to marry into the kehunah,

and no more!

The Gemara now asks:

And according to this latter version, according to the version of those who say that Rabbi Yohanan explicitly stated that the verse includes only an Ammonite convert who had relations with an Israelite woman, a convert who came from a people containing two peoples—one permitted [the females] and one forbidden, the males—

the verse does not teach us anything about an Egyptian convert, whose females are also forbidden.

If so,

a

second-generation Egyptian woman,

who married an Israelite woman, and whose relations constituted a transgression,

that she is fit

to marry

into the kehunah,

as Rabbi Yohanan explicitly stated on the previous page—

from where

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

And if you say: He derives

the case of an Egyptian who married an Israelite woman

from

an

Ammonite convert who married an Israelite woman: just as the latter’s daughter is fit despite the fact that his relations constituted a transgression, so too I will apply this to an Egyptian convert whose relations constituted a transgression, and his daughter is fit to marry into the kehunah.

This can be refuted:

What is special about an

Ammonite convert who married an Israelite woman, in that

the

Ammonite convert who married an Israelite woman, since

the Torah was lenient regarding Ammon, as their

females

are

permitted, and therefore the Torah was also lenient with them by permitting his daughter to marry into the kehunah.

Can you say the same regarding an Egyptian, concerning whom the Torah was stringent and prohibited even the females? If so, from where do you know that even when an Egyptian convert has relations with an Israelite woman in violation of a prohibition, the Torah nevertheless rendered his daughter fit to marry into the kehunah?

And we answer:

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

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

will prove the point:

just as their daughter is permitted to marry into the kehunah, so too the daughter of an Egyptian who married an Israelite woman is permitted to marry into the kehunah.

The Gemara rejects this:

And we reject this proof:

What is special about a second-generation Egyptian who married a second-generation Egyptian woman, in that their relations do not constitute a transgression? They possess only the stringent aspect that they are unfit to enter the congregation. Can you say the same regarding an Egyptian who married an Israelite woman, whose relations constitute a transgression? From where do you know that his daughter is fit to marry into the kehunah?

And we answer:

An Ammonite who married an Israelite woman, whose relations constitute a transgression, and the Torah permitted their daughter [“among his people”],

will prove the point.

I will likewise apply this to an Egyptian who married an Israelite woman: his daughter is fit to marry into the kehunah, even though his relations constitute a transgression.

And the argument returns:

the case of this one [an Ammonite who married an Israelite woman] is not comparable to the case of that one [a second-generation Egyptian who married a second-generation Egyptian woman], and the case of that one is not comparable to the case of this one.

The common denominator between them is that although they are not part of the majority of the congregation, nevertheless the daughter is fit to marry into the kehunah.

I will likewise apply this to an Egyptian who married an Israelite woman: although he is not part of the majority of the congregation, nevertheless his daughter is fit to marry into the kehunah.

Rav Yosef said: This is what I heard Rav Yehuda say: “His people” and

“from his people,” but I did not know what he was saying [this is what I heard Rav Yehuda expound: “his people,” “from his people,” but I did not know what he was expounding]. Now I understand: he came to permit the daughter of an Ammonite who married an Israelite woman.

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came, he said: This is how Rabbi Zakkai taught

before

Rabbi Yohanan:

An Ammonite woman—

she is

fit.

Her son from an Ammonite—

unfit.

As will be explained.

And her daughter from an Ammonite—

fit.

When does this statement apply? To an Ammonite man and an Ammonite woman who converted.

But her daughter from an Ammonite—

unfit [and the entire explanation of the beraita is clarified later in the sugya].

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Zakkai:

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

for this beraita cannot be correct, since:

It is understandable

what you said, that an

Ammonite

female convert

is

fit, because:

“Ammonite,” and not an Ammonite woman.

And likewise, what you said:

her son—

the son of the Ammonite female convert—

from

an

Ammonite

convert, he is

unfit,

is also understandable,

for he is an Ammonite

son, by virtue of his father.

But this is difficult concerning your statement:

For at first you teach:

and her daughter,

the daughter of the Ammonite female convert,

from

an

Ammonite

convert, she is

fit.

And one must understand:

for what purpose

is she fit?

If we say

it is to render her daughter fit

to enter the congregation—there is no need to state this,

because

now,

even

her mother, the mother of this daughter, who is an Ammonite woman who was not born after conversion, nevertheless once she converted she is

fit

to enter the congregation—

she,

the daughter, who was born after conversion,

need it be said!? Is it necessary to state that she is fit?

Rather, it is certainly with regard to fitness

for the kehunah that you teach: an Ammonite woman who married an Ammonite is fit.

And since that is so, the continuation of the beraita presents a difficulty:

When does this statement apply? To an Ammonite man and an Ammonite woman who converted; but her daughter from an Ammonite is unfit.

What is meant by “her daughter from an Ammonite”

when you teach that she is unfit for the kehunah?

If we say that it refers to the daughter of an

Ammonite convert who married an

Ammonite

female convert—

this is precisely “a female convert

of her own kind,”

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

Rather, it certainly refers to the daughter of an

Ammonite convert who married an Israelite woman; that is the one you declare unfit for the kehunah, since his relations constituted a transgression.

Therefore,

he said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

Go and teach your beraita outside,

teach your teaching outside, for it is incorrect, since this daughter too is fit for the kehunah, as I teach: “his people—from his people.”

We learned in the Mishna:

An Egyptian and an Edomite are forbidden

only until the third generation. Both males and females are included. Rabbi Shimon permits the females immediately.

Rabbi Shimon said: The matter follows from a kal va-chomer: If in a case where the males are prohibited with an eternal prohibition, the females are permitted immediately, then in a case where the males are prohibited only until the third generation, is it not all the more so that we should permit the females immediately?

The Sages said to him: If this is a halakha, we 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 is the answer to the kal va-chomer that Rabbi Shimon derived from Ammon and Moab, such that the females of Egypt too should be permitted?

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

Because one could say: The forbidden relations will prove the point, that is, the prohibition of a daughter, a daughter’s daughter, or a daughter’s son,

whom

the Torah

did not prohibit

except until the third generation

[one’s daughter, and the daughter of one’s daughter or son], while the Torah prohibited

both males and females.

For it prohibited one’s daughter’s daughter just as it prohibited one’s son’s daughter.

I will likewise apply this to an Egyptian and an Edomite: since the Torah prohibited them only until the third generation, both males and females are prohibited.

And we refute this:

What is special about the forbidden relations, in that they entail karet,

and therefore the Torah was stringent and prohibited both males and females?

Can you say the same regarding an Egyptian and an Edomite, for their prohibition is only a positive prohibition, as it is stated: “The third generation shall enter the congregation of the Lord,” but not the first and second generations?

A

mamzer,

who does not entail karet,

will prove the point: the Torah treated females like males in his case. I will likewise apply this to an Egyptian and an Edomite, to prohibit both their males and their females.

What is special about a mamzer, in that he is never fit to enter the congregation? Can you say the same regarding an Egyptian and an Edomite, whom the Torah prohibited only until the third generation?

The forbidden relations,

which the Torah likewise did not prohibit forever,

will prove the point: the Torah prohibited males like females in their case. [

See Rashi’s wording and what the Maharsha wrote about it.]

And the argument returns: This one is not comparable to that one

[the forbidden relations]

as a basis for comparison

[the mamzer],

and this one is not comparable to that one. The common denominator between them is that they are forbidden, and both males and females are included. I will likewise apply this to an Egyptian man and an Egyptian woman: both males and females should be forbidden.

What is special about the common denominator between them

[the forbidden relations and the mamzer],

in that they possess an aspect of karet?

For although the mamzer’s relations do not entail karet, nevertheless he derives from those liable to karet.

And the Rabbis,

who responded, answered as follows: The forbidden relations will prove the point, for the Torah prohibited both males and females in their case only until the third generation.

Perhaps you will say: What is special about the forbidden relations, in that they entail karet? I will prove it to you

from one who profanes

through those liable for a positive prohibition [such as a High Priest who married a woman who had been raped or seduced, who is subject to the positive prohibition “He shall take a woman in her virginity,” but not a woman who had had relations, and she gave birth], for the Torah treated females like males in their case,

and in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who holds that there is a ḥalal resulting from those liable for a positive prohibition.

The Gemara explains Rabbi Shimon’s response:

And what

did he mean when he said to them,

“No,”

but rather, I am stating a halakha? This means that he disagreed with their response.

This is what Rabbi Shimon said to them,

the Rabbis:

As for me, I do not

hold in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

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

And even

as for you, who hold in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov—

I am stating a halakha.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon said to the Sages:

I am stating a halakha

that I heard from my teachers, that Egyptian females are permitted immediately.

Moreover, 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.

Children

who are born to them, in the third generation, shall enter the congregation of the Lord.” “Children”

and not daughters!

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

The Sages taught: “Children” and not daughters—this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yehuda said: It says: “Children who are born to them, in the third generation.”

Thus the

verse made their status dependent on birth, meaning: all those born to them are permitted only in the third generation, and females are included as well.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Had Rabbi Yehuda not said, “The verse made their status dependent on birth”—which implies that even the females are forbidden—

he would not have found his hands and feet in the beit-midrash [he would not have been able to sustain his position, Rashi], for how would he interpret the verse: “Children who are born to them [the Egyptians], in the third generation, shall enter the congregation of the Lord”?

For if Egyptian females are permitted, then once they convert they are included in the “congregation” into which the Torah prohibits those unfit for the congregation [such as an Egyptian] from entering. How, then, can there be a third generation of an Egyptian?

And according to Rabbi Yehuda, you cannot permit them to marry those unfit for the congregation on the basis of their conversion, invoking the permission that “a congregation of converts is not called a congregation,”

since

Rabbi Yehuda does not accept this permission.

For the Master said

[that is, Rabbi Yehuda]:

A congregation of converts—

is called a congregation!

And if so:

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: