Yevamot 78b (עח:) — the Talmud in English

And

it is impossible to say this, as

Rav Kahana said: They taught

“if he is not particular about it, it does not interpose,”

only

when the interposition was on

most

of the immersion object alone.

But if the entire

immersion object had an interposition upon it, then it

does interpose

even if he is not particular about it.

If so, a fetus that is entirely covered would constitute an interposition even if its mother is not particular about it. And necessarily, the reason is that “a fetus is the thigh of its mother,” and the mother’s immersion is effective for the fetus. But this contradicts what you said: A fetus is not the thigh of its mother!

And we answer: The reason is indeed that the mother does not constitute an interposition for the fetus’s immersion, but

a fetus is different, for this is its natural growth

—this is the way it develops—and therefore no interposition applies to it at all.

When Ravin came

[Rashash],

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Among the nations,

he follows

the sons

after the male.

If they converted,

he follows the more defective one of the two.

That is to say: When we come to determine, regarding a child born to parents from two nations, whether his status follows the nation from which his father came or the nation from which his mother came, there is a distinction. If he was born to them before they converted, we attribute the child to his father’s nation; whereas if the child was born after his father and mother converted, we attribute the child to whichever of them is more defective, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Among the nations, he follows the male:

As it was taught: From where do we know that a

gentile

from one of

the other

nations,

who is not one of the seven nations,

who had relations with a

Canaanite

woman,

who was one of the seven nations concerning whom we were commanded: “You shall not allow any soul to live,”

and fathered

a

son by her, whom you are permitted to purchase as a slave,

that is, he is not considered a Canaanite, and you are permitted to let him live, since he follows his father.

When a man marries a woman from another place, it is customary for the man to be exiled after his wife to her place of residence, but the woman is not exiled after her husband, because it is the way of a man to be exiled, but not that of a woman.

As it is stated:

“And your male and female slaves whom you may have from the nations that are around you [but not from the nations in your land, concerning whom you were commanded: ‘You shall not allow any soul to live’]—from them you shall purchase a slave and a maidservant.”

“And also from the children of the residents who reside with you, from them you shall purchase

”—and from their families who are with you, whom they fathered in your land; that is, from those whose fathers came to reside in your land from another place and became residents there [Rashi].

One might have thought that even a Canaanite who had relations with one of

the other

nations and fathered a son, whom you are permitted to purchase as a slave,

The verse states:

“And from their families who are with you,”

whom they ‘fathered’ in your land.

The Torah permitted only

those “born” in your land,

in the place of residence of their mother,

and not those who “reside” in your land,

whose mother is not from that land, but who gave birth to him in her place of residence, and the son came to reside in the land.

And presumably, the Torah prohibited those born in the land only when their father is a Canaanite, who followed his wife, and she gave birth there.

We now further explain what we said:

If they converted, he follows the more defective one of the two:

With regard to what?

If you say it is with regard to a

convert

Egyptian who married

a convert

Ammonite woman,

and the child follows the more defective one, the Egyptian, thereby prohibiting his descendants, because the Torah said: “To them”—he follows their disqualification.

It is impossible to say this, for

what “the more defective of the two”

—which implies that both are defective, but one is more defective than the other—

is there?!

For if we are dealing with an Ammonite woman, the woman is not defective at all, since

“Ammonite”

the Torah said,

“but not an Ammonite woman.”

Rather, it is with regard to a

convert

Ammonite who married

a female convert

Egyptian,

for both he and she are defective, since a first-generation Egyptian woman is prohibited [Rashi]. The child follows the more defective of the two, since the Torah said: “To them”—he follows their disqualification; and therefore:

If it is a male,

the child,

cast him after the Ammonite

—who is more defective than the Egyptian woman, since he is prohibited forever—and thus the child would be prohibited forever.

If it is a female,

the child,

cast

the child

after

the Egyptian woman,

so that she will be a second-generation Egyptian and prohibited; do not judge her as an Ammonite woman, permitting her because of “an Ammonite man, but not an Ammonite woman.”

Mishna:

Mamzerim and Netinim

[the Gibeonites, who were descendants of the seven nations in the Land of Israel and converted deceptively in the days of Joshua, who assigned them to cut wood and draw water]

are prohibited, and their prohibition is an eternal prohibition,

that is, their descendants and the descendants of their descendants forever—

Although the Torah said only, “A mamzer shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even the tenth generation shall not enter the assembly of the Lord,” which would include only up to the tenth generation, nevertheless they are prohibited forever. This is derived by means of a gzera shava from an Ammonite and a Moabite: Just as a mamzer is prohibited forever, so too is he prohibited forever, as explained in the Sifrei and in the Gemara.

Both males

are prohibited

and females.

Gemara:

Reish Lakish said:

Although a male mamzer is indeed prohibited even after ten generations, nevertheless

a female mamzer

is female

after ten generations

and she is

permitted,

contrary to what is stated in our Mishna, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

The reason is that the entire prohibition of a mamzer after ten generations is because he

derives “tenth

”—“even the tenth generation shall not enter”

“tenth” from an Ammonite and a Moabite,

concerning whom it is stated: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even the tenth generation shall not enter their assembly forever.”

This teaches you that here too, with regard to a mamzer, he is prohibited after ten generations—

If so, you must necessarily say:

Just as there

—with regard to Ammon and Moab—

females are permitted

immediately,

so too here

—with regard to a mamzer after ten generations, from which he is derived—

females are permitted,

for one cannot derive more concerning a mamzer than concerning an Ammonite, and female Ammonites and Moabites are not prohibited after ten generations.

You might say:

Just as there

—with regard to Ammon and Moab—females are permitted

immediately

when they convert,

so too here

a female mamzer should be permitted

immediately?!

Do not say this, since

when the gzera shava is effective

—to permit the females—

from

the

tenth generation onward

only, for it is only this aspect of the prohibition that is derived from Ammon and Moab. But until the tenth generation, which the Torah explicitly prohibited, the female too is prohibited, because the Torah said: A “mamzer” shall not enter the assembly of the Lord, and the term “mamzer” includes anyone who bears a foreign blemish [as above, 76b], both males and females.

We challenge this:

But didn’t we learn

in our Mishna:

“Mamzerim and Netinim are prohibited, and their prohibition is an eternal prohibition, both males and females”

—they are prohibited forever? This shows that the Mishna did not distinguish between males and females even after ten generations?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult

to reconcile our Mishna with Reish Lakish, for this law depends on a dispute between tannaim, and Reish Lakish follows the tanna who disagrees on this matter with the tanna of our Mishna.

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed [Ḥullin 120b] concerning every matter derived from another matter by means of a gzera shava or a binyan av: Do we say, “Judge from it and from it”—that is, derive from the teaching source to the subject being taught, so that the latter has all the laws of the former, like it in every respect?

Or do we say, “Judge from it, but leave it in its place”—that is, once you have learned a particular law of one from the other, leave the subject being taught with its own laws.

This

—Reish Lakish, who permits a female mamzer after ten generations—

follows the one who says: Judge from it and from it—

That is to say: Since you learned the prohibition of mamzerim after ten generations only from Ammon and Moab, you necessarily derive this additional matter exactly as it applies to Ammon and Moab. Since the Torah did not prohibit females among Ammon and Moab after ten generations, a female mamzer too is not prohibited beyond ten generations, but from that point onward she is permitted like a female Ammonite or Moabite.

And this

—our Mishna, which prohibits a female mamzer after ten generations—

follows the one who says: Judge from it, but leave it in its place—

That is to say: Although you derive the fundamental disqualification of a mamzer after ten generations from Ammon, you are not required to derive it exactly as it applies there and permit the female because she is permitted among Ammon. Rather, leave the law of a mamzer after ten generations in its own place. Since the Torah did not distinguish between males and females with regard to a mamzer, even after ten generations you do not distinguish between a male and a female.

They asked Rabbi Eliezer:

A female mamzer after ten generations

—ten generations—

what is her status?

He said to them: If only I could have a third generation

of a mamzer

and purify it,

meaning: If only I could see with my own eyes a third generation of a mamzer; I would indeed purify it. But a mamzer has no third generation.

Apparently, he holds

Rabbi Eliezer:

A mamzer does not survive

[a mamzer does not live], so that those who are fit will not become assimilated among his descendants [Rashi].

And Rav Huna likewise said: A mamzer does not survive.

We challenge this:

But didn’t we learn

in our Mishna:

“Mamzerim are prohibited, and their prohibition is an eternal prohibition”

—this indicates that a mamzer has descendants?!

Rabbi Zeira said: For me, it was explained by Rav Yehuda

[this is what I heard from Rav Yehuda]:

A mamzer

whose status is known

[known clearly]—to everyone—

survives

[he lives, and his descendants live], because there is no concern that those who are fit will become assimilated among his descendants, since his prohibition is known to all.

A mamzer

whose status is not known

at all, even to the mamzer himself,

does not survive,

even he himself, so that he will not marry a woman who is fit.

A mamzer

whose status is known but not fully known

—that is, a mamzer whose disqualification is not clear and certain in the eyes of the people—

up to three generations

[up to three generations, that is, he and his son], during which people ordinarily remain cautious, the mamzer

survives,

but

beyond

three generations,

he does not survive,

because since his disqualification is not clear, the matter is forgotten over time. This is what Rabbi Eliezer said: “If only I could have a third generation and purify it.”

A certain

unknown mamzer

who was in Rabbi Ami’s neighborhood

[who lived near Rabbi Ami],

Rabbi Ami announced about him

Rabbi Ami

that he was a mamzer,

for Rabbi Ami publicized his disqualification.

That

unknown mamzer was crying

and

walking along.

He said to him

Rabbi Ami: Why are you crying? After all,

I have given you life,

for an unknown mamzer has no hope of living.

Rav Ḥana bar Adda said: David decreed slavery upon the Netinim,

and because of this they were prohibited from marrying into them, like other slaves [according to the Tosafot in Ketubot 29a, in their understanding of Rashi].

As it is stated: “The king

[David]

summoned the Gibeonites and said to them: ‘The Gibeonites are not among the Children of Israel’”,

that is, they are not fit to enter the congregation.

What is the reason that

David decreed this upon them?

The continuation of the tradition explains the verses in Samuel that form the background for David’s decree, as follows:

A. There was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year, and David sought the presence of the Lord [he inquired through the Urim VeTummim, as will be explained below]; and the Lord said: [The rains were withheld for two reasons:] because of Saul, and because of the bloodguilt of his house, for he had killed the Gibeonites, [as will be explained below].

B. The king summoned the Gibeonites [to appease them] and said to them; and the Gibeonites were not among the Children of Israel, but were a remnant of the Amorites, and the Children of Israel had sworn an oath to them. Saul had sought to strike them in his zeal for the Children of Israel and Judah.

C. David said to the Gibeonites: What shall I do for you, and with what shall I make atonement, so that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord?

D. The Gibeonites said to him: We have no [claim concerning] silver or gold against Saul and his house [rather, we seek lives], nor do we have a man whom we wish to put to death in Israel [except from the house of Saul, for he is the one who sinned against us]; and he said [to the Gibeonites]: What do you say I should do for you?

E. They said to the king: The man who consumed us, and who plotted against us so that we would be destroyed and no longer stand anywhere within the border of Israel—

F. Let seven men of his sons be given to us, and we shall hang them [hanging on a tree] before the Lord at Gibeah of Saul, on the mountain of the Lord. And the king said: I shall give [you descendants of Saul, to put them to death].

G. The king spared Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of Saul [so that he would not be put to death], because of [due to] the oath of the Lord

that was between David and Jonathan, son of Saul.

H. The king took the two sons of Rizpah daughter of Aiah, whom she had borne to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth [son of Saul, David’s teacher, Tosafot], and the five sons of Michal daughter of Saul, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

I. He handed them over to the Gibeonites, and they hanged them on the mountain before the Lord. The seven of them fell together, and they were put to death in the first days of the harvest, at the beginning of the barley harvest [during the month of Nisan].

As it is written: “There was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year”;

and David sought to know the reason for the drought that had descended upon the Land of Israel.

In the

year

the

first

of the drought,

David said to

the Children of Israel:

Perhaps there are idolaters among you,

and for that reason there is no rain upon the earth;

for

it is

written: “You shall serve other gods and bow down to them, and He will restrain the heavens, and there will be no rain”?

The Children of Israel investigated,

and

did not find

any idolaters among them.

In the

second

year of the drought

David said to

the Children of Israel:

Perhaps there are sinners [

adulterers ]

among you; for

it is

written: “The showers were withheld, and there was no latter rain, and the forehead [

for the forehead ]

of a harlot you had

and so forth?

The Children of Israel investigated,

and

did not find

any sinners among them.

In the

third year he said to

the Children of Israel:

Perhaps there are among you people who publicly pledge charity but do not give it; for

it is

written: “Clouds and wind, but there is no rain [

because ]

—such is a man who boasts of a false gift.”

The Children of Israel investigated,

and

did not find

any such people among them.

Once this was so,

David

said:

“The matter depends only upon me.”

Immediately:

There was a famine in the land,

and David sought the presence of the Lord!

And we explain:

What was

this request?

Reish Lakish said: He inquired

David

through the Urim VeTummim.

From where is it understood

that “David sought the presence of the Lord” refers to an inquiry through the Urim VeTummim?

Rabbi Elazar said: It is derived through

a gzera shava,

“presence, presence”,

for

it is written here

concerning David:

“David sought the ‘presence’ of the Lord,” and it is written there [

when Joshua was appointed king ]: and Joshua shall stand before Elazar the priest [Joshua]

“and he shall inquire of him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord.” " [

“David sought the presence of the Lord” ]

and the Lord said:

A.

“Because of Saul

B.

and because of the bloodguilt of his house, for he killed [

Saul the ]

Gibeonites [

the rains were withheld because of these two reasons ]"

The Gemara explains:

“Because of Saul”

means:

he was not eulogized in accordance with halakha,

for he was buried suddenly and secretly: the people of Jabesh-gilead stole his body and buried him, and he was not eulogized in accordance with his honor [Rashi in the book of Samuel].

“And because of the bloodguilt of his house, for he killed the Gibeonites.” -

But where do we find that Saul killed the Gibeonites!?

Rather, since he killed

Saul

Nob, the city of the priests, who supplied them [

the priests supplied the Gibeonites ]

with water and food—

the verse regards it [

Saul ]

as though he had killed

the Gibeonites.

And we ask: On the one hand,

the Holy One, blessed be He, demands

the honor due to Saul and says:

“Because of Saul”

that is,

because he was not eulogized in accordance with halakha,

and

at that same time

the Holy One, blessed be He, demands an account of Saul’s wrongdoing,

for he killed

Saul the

Gibeonites!?

And we answer:

No,

this is indeed the way of the Holy One, blessed be He!

For Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Seek the Lord,

all the humble of the land

as it should read,

who have performed His judgment”

with the lamed vowelled with a shuruk?

“Where His judgment is,

there He performs

In the place where a person is judged, his righteous deeds are mentioned there as well. So too, Saul, who was judged concerning the Gibeonites: at that same time, the Holy One, blessed be He, mentioned his righteous deeds and demanded the honor due to him, because he had not been eulogized in accordance with halakha.

After David heard about the two reasons that had brought about the drought,

David said:

As for the claim concerning the honor of

Saul,

we can no longer rectify it, since

more than

twelve months of the year have already passed,

more than twelve months of the year have already elapsed since his death,

and it is not customary to eulogize him

and there is no practice of eulogizing someone after twelve months have passed.