Yevamot 78b — the Talmud in English

And

it is impossible to say so, for

Rav Kahana said: They taught this only: "

if he is not particular about it, it does not interpose,"

but

when the interposition was upon

most of

the immersing person alone.

But all of

the immersing person, upon whom there was an interposition, this

does interpose,

even though he is not particular.

And if so, the fetus that is entirely covered is an interposition even though she is not particular about it; and necessarily, the reason is because “a fetus is the thigh of its mother,” and its mother’s immersion is effective for the fetus. But this is difficult for you, since you said: a fetus is not the thigh of its mother?!

And we answer: Actually, the reason is that its mother does not interpose during the immersion of the fetus, and

a fetus is different, for this is its manner of growth

this is its manner of growth, and it is not considered an interposition at all.

When Ravin came [Rashash],

[Rashash],

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Among the nations—

he follows

with regard to their sons

the male.

If they converted—

he follows the more disqualified of the two.

That is to say: When we come to determine, concerning a child born of two nations, whether his law is that of the nation from which his father came or that of the nation from which his mother came, there is a difference between whether he was born to them before they converted—for in that case we ascribe the child to his father’s nation—and whether the child was born after his father and mother converted—for in that case we ascribe the child to the one who is more disqualified, as he proceeds to explain.

“Among the nations, he follows the male”:

As it was taught in a beraita: From where do we know concerning

a gentile

who is one of

the other

nations,

who is not of the seven nations,

who had relations with a

gentile woman, the

Canaanite ,

who is of the seven nations concerning whom we were commanded, “You shall not leave alive any soul,”

and he fathered

from her

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

that is to say: 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 that the man goes after his wife to her place of residence, whereas the woman does not go after her husband, because it is the way of a man to go into exile, but not the way of a woman.

As it is stated:

“Your male slave and your female slave who will be yours from the nations that are around you [and not from the nations in your land, concerning whom you were commanded: You shall not leave alive any soul]; from them you shall purchase a male slave and a female slave.”

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

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

Could it be even one of the Canaanites who had relations with one of

the other

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

The verse says:

“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 where their mother resides,

and not those “dwelling” in your land,

whose mother is not from this land, but rather bore him in her place of residence, and the son came to dwell in the land.

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

We further explain that which we said:

“If they converted, he follows the more disqualified of the two”:

With regard to what?

If you say it is with regard to a

convert

an Egyptian who married

a convert

an Ammonite woman,

and we follow the more disqualified Egyptian, to prohibit his sons, because the Torah said: “to them”; he follows their disqualification.

It is impossible to say so, for:

What is the meaning of “the more disqualified of the two

”? which implies that both of them are disqualified, but one is more disqualified—

is that so here?!

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

“an Ammonite man”

the Torah said

“and not an Ammonite woman.”

Rather, it is with regard to a

convert

an Ammonite who married

a female convert

an Egyptian woman [since both he and she are disqualified, for a first-generation Egyptian woman is prohibited, Rashi]. They follow the more disqualified of the two, since the Torah said, “to them; he follows their disqualification,”

and therefore:

If the child is male,

the child,

we cast him after the Ammonite—

who is more disqualified than the Egyptian woman, since he is prohibited forever—and he is to be prohibited forever.

If the child is female,

the child,

we cast

the child

after

the Egyptian woman,

and she will be a second-generation Egyptian woman, to prohibit her; do not judge her as an Ammonite woman, to permit her “because of ‘an Ammonite man and not an Ammonite woman.’”

Mishna:

Mamzerim and Netinim [they are the Gibeonites, who were from the seven nations in the Land of Israel and converted deceptively in the days of Joshua, and Joshua assigned them to chop wood and draw water]

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

are prohibited, and their prohibition is an eternal prohibition

that is to say: their offspring and their offspring’s offspring forever—

And although the Torah said only, “A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even the tenth generation shall not enter his congregation,” and this includes only up to the tenth generation, nevertheless they are prohibited forever. For we learn by gzera shava from an Ammonite and a Moabite that a mamzer too is prohibited with an eternal prohibition like them, as it is explained in the Sifrei and in the Gemara.

Both males

are prohibited

and females.

Gemara:

Reish Lakish said:

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

a female mamzer

female

after ten generations,

she is

permitted,

unlike what is stated in our Mishna, as he proceeds to explain.

And the reason is: Since the entire basis of the prohibition of a mamzer after ten generations is that

he derives “tenth

[also, “the tenth generation shall not enter”]

“tenth” from an Ammonite and a Moabite,

concerning whom it is said: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even the tenth generation shall not enter their congregation, ‘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 here too—

the mamzer after ten generations, from which he is derived—

females are permitted,

for you cannot learn more concerning the mamzer than concerning the Ammonite, and the female of Ammon and Moab is not prohibited after ten generations.

Perhaps you will say:

If just as there—

with regard to Ammon and Moab, the females are permitted

immediately

when they converted—

so here too

the female mamzer should be permitted

immediately?!

Do not say so, since

when the gzera shava is effective—

to permit the females—

from

the generation

of the tenth and onward

only, since its entire prohibition is learned from Ammon and Moab; but until the tenth generation, which the Torah prohibited explicitly, the female too is prohibited, for the Torah said: “A ‘mamzer’ shall not enter the congregation of the Lord,” and included in “mamzer” is anyone who has a “foreign blemish” [as above, 76b], both males and females.

And we object:

But we learned in our Mishna

in our Mishna:

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

they are prohibited forever; thus the Mishna did not distinguish between males and females even after ten generations?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult

from our Mishna against Reish Lakish, for this law depends upon a dispute between tannaim, and Reish Lakish follows that tanna who disagreed about this matter with the tanna of our Mishna.

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed [in Hullin 120b] concerning every matter learned from another by a gzera shava or by a binyan av: Do we say, “Judge from it and from it” [learn from it, and from it], meaning that the law is learned from the teaching matter for the taught matter, so that the taught matter is like the teaching matter in all its laws, like it?

Or do we say, “Judge from it, and establish it in its place” [learn only the specific matter from it, but afterward establish it in its own place], meaning: Once you have learned in a specific detail the law of one from another, leave the taught matter according to its own law.

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 must necessarily learn this additional matter that you learned as it exists with regard to Ammon and Moab. And since the Torah did not prohibit females among Ammon and Moab after ten generations, the female mamzer too will be prohibited only until ten generations, but from that point onward she is permitted like a female of Ammon and Moab.

But this—

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

follows the one who says: “Judge from it and establish it in its place.”

That is to say: Although you learn the essential disqualification of a mamzer after ten generations from Ammon, you are not required to learn it as it exists there and to permit the female because she is permitted among Ammonites. Rather, leave the law of the mamzer after ten generations in its place; and since, with regard to a mamzer, the Torah did not distinguish between males and females, even after ten generations you should not distinguish between a male and a female.

They asked Rabbi Eliezer:

A female mamzer after ten generations [ten generations]—

[ten generations]—

what is her status?

He said to them: Would that I were given a third generation

of a mamzer

and I would purify him,

that is to say: If only I could see with my own eyes a third generation of a mamzer, I would indeed purify him; but a mamzer has no third generation.

Apparently he holds

Rabbi Eliezer:

a mamzer does not live [a mamzer does not live], so that fit people should not become assimilated among his generations [Rashi].

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

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

And we challenge this:

But we learned

in our Mishna:

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

so there are generations of a mamzer?!

Rabbi Zeira said: For me, it was explained to me from Rav Yehuda [this is how I heard it explained from Rav Yehuda]:

[this is how I heard it explained by Rav Yehuda]:

A mamzer

who is known [known]—

known clearly to everyone—

lives [he is alive and his generations live],

for there is no concern that fit people will become assimilated among his offspring, since his prohibition is known to everyone.

A mamzer

who is not known

at all, even to the mamzer himself,

does not live

even he, so that he should not marry a fit woman.

A mamzer

who is known and not known,

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

until three generations [until three generations, that is: he and his son]

during which it is the way of the world to be careful—the mamzer

lives,

but

more

than three generations

he does not live,

the mamzer, because since his disqualification is not clear, the matter is forgotten after time. And this is what Rabbi Eliezer said: “Would that I were given a third generation and I would purify him.”

That

mamzer who was not known

who was in Rabbi Ami’s neighborhood [who lived in Rabbi Ami’s neighborhood],

[who lived near Rabbi Ami].

he proclaimed concerning him

Rabbi Ami

that he was a mamzer,

Rabbi Ami made his disqualification known publicly.

He was

crying

that mamzer

and going along.

Rabbi Ami said to him:

Rabbi Ami: Why are you crying?! Behold,

I have given you life,

for a mamzer who is not known has no hope of life.

Rav Hana bar Ada said: Concerning the Netinim, David decreed upon them

slavery, and by virtue of this it became prohibited to marry them, like other slaves [according to Tosafot in Ketubot 29a, in their understanding of Rashi].

As it is stated: “The king called [David]

[David]

the Gibeonites and said to them: ‘And the Gibeonites are not among the children of Israel’,

that is to say: they are not fit to enter the congregation.

For what reason did

David decree it?

The continuation of the teaching explains the verses in Samuel that are the background to David’s decree, and there it is written as follows:

A. And there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year, and David sought the presence of the Lord [he asked through the Urim and Tummim, as it explains below]; and the Lord said: [because of two matters the rains were withheld], concerning Saul, and concerning the house of blood, because he killed the Gibeonites, [it explains this below].

B. And the king called the Gibeonites [to appease them] and said to them; and the Gibeonites were not of the Children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorite, and the Children of Israel had sworn to them, and Saul sought to strike them in his zeal for the Children of Israel and Judah.

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

D. And the Gibeonites said to him: We have no [claim of] silver or gold with Saul and with his house [rather, we demand lives], and we have no man to put to death in Israel [rather, in the house of Saul, for he is the one who sinned against us]; and he [David] said [to the Gibeonites]: What are you saying that I should do for you?

E. And they said to the king: The man who consumed us, and who planned that we be destroyed, so that we should not stand in any border of Israel.

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

G. And the king had compassion on Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of Saul [so that he should not be put to death], because of [on account of] the oath of the Lord

that was between them, between David and between Jonathan, son of Saul.

H. And the king took the two sons of Rizpah daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth [son of Saul, his teacher of David, Tosafot], and the five sons of Michal daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

I. And he gave them into the hand of the Gibeonites, and they impaled them on the mountain before the Lord, and the seven of them fell together, and they were put to death in the days of the harvest, at the beginning of the barley harvest [in the days of Nisan].

For it is written: “And 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 first

year

of

the drought,

David said to them

to the Children of Israel:

Perhaps there are idol-worshippers among you,

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

for

it is

written: “And 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 examined

themselves

and did not find

idol-worshippers among them.

In the

second

year

David said to them

to the Children of Israel:

Perhaps there are transgressors [

adulterers]

among you; for

it is

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

for the forehead]

of a harlot was yours”

etc.?

The Children of Israel examined

themselves

and did not find

transgressors among them.

In the

third year David said to them

to the Children of Israel:

Perhaps there are among you those who pledge charity publicly and do not give it; for

it is

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

for

a man who boasts of a false gift.”

They examined

themselves

and did not find

any of these among them.

Since this was so,

David said

:

The matter depends only upon me.

Immediately:

And there was a famine in the land,

and David sought the presence of the Lord!

And we explain:

What is it

that this seeking was?

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He asked

David

through the Urim and Tummim.

What is the implication

that “and David sought the presence of the Lord” is to be interpreted as asking through the Urim and Tummim?

Rabbi Elazar said: It is derived by

a gzera shava

“presence, presence”,

for

it is written here

concerning David:

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

[when Joshua was appointed king]: “And he shall stand before Elazar the kohen” [Joshua]

“and he shall ask for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord.” “

[And David sought the presence of the Lord]

and the Lord said:

A.

Concerning Saul.

B.

And concerning the house of blood, because he killed

[Saul] the

Gibeonites

[because of these two reasons the rains were withheld].”

And the Gemara explains:

“Concerning Saul”

that is:

because he was not mourned in accordance with halakha,

for he was buried suddenly and secretly, since the people of Jabesh-gilead stole him and buried him, and he was not mourned according to his honor [Rashi in the Book of Samuel].

“And concerning the house of blood, because he killed the Gibeonites.” —

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

Rather, since he killed

Saul

the city of Nob, the city of the kohanim, who supplied

[the kohanim supplied the Gibeonites with]

with water and food—

Scripture imputes it to him

[to Saul]

as though he had killed them,

the Gibeonites.

And we raise a difficulty: On the one hand,

the Holy One

for the honor of Saul and says:

“Concerning Saul,”

that is,

because he was not mourned in accordance with halakha,

and at that same time

the Holy One

the offense of Saul,

because he killed

Saul

the Gibeonites?!

And we answer:

No,

this is indeed the way of the Holy One!

For Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: What is written: “Seek the Lord

all the humble of the earth

[this is how it should read],

who have performed His judgment”

[the lamed has a shuruk]?

Where His judgment is—

there is His deed,

His acts of righteousness. In the place where a person is judged, his acts of righteousness are mentioned as well. So too, Saul was judged concerning the Gibeonites, and at that same time the Holy One mentioned his acts of righteousness and demanded that his honor be upheld, because he had not been eulogized in accordance with the proper law.

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 repair it, since already

there have passed ![](pamud.bmp "

exact position of the page")

twelve months of the year,

more than twelve months of the year have already passed since he died,

and it is not the way to mourn him,

and it is not customary to mourn him after twelve months have elapsed.