Previous daf

1)

(a) According to (our initial understanding of) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Shimon ha'Teimani (whom he refers to as 'everybody') agrees that a baby who is born from a slave or from a Nochri and a Jewess is a Mamzer (despite the fact that it is only a Chayvei La'avin) - because (like Chayvei K'risos) Kidushin is not effective by them.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Sh'vu Lachem Poh im ha'Chamor" - 'Am ha'Domeh la'Chamor' (that just as there is no Kidushin by a donkey, so too, there is no Kidushin by a slave.
2. ... "Lo Tischaten Bam" - that there is no Kidushin by the seven nations of Cana'an.
3. ... "ve'Achar-Kein Tavo Eilehah u'Ve'altah" (with regard to Eishes Yefas To'ar) - that there is no Kidushin by other Nochrim (besides the seven nations) either.

(c) We learn that the Kidushin of a (male) Nochri is not effective either, from a Nochris (with a Mah Matzinu).

(d) The She'iltos de'Rebbi Acha'i Gaon learns that there is no Chupah by Nochrim from "ve'Hi Be'ulas Ba'al". He learns ...

1. ... that there is no Kidushei Kesef - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Chupah.
2. ... that there is no Kidushei Bi'ah - because we learn all the three forms of Kidushin (Kesef, Sh'tar and Bi'ah) from each other with a Hekesh).

(a) 'Akum ve'Eved ha'Ba al Bas Yisrael, ha'V'lad Mamzer; Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Omer, Ein Mamzer Ela mi'Mi she'Isuro Ervah ve'Anush Kareis'. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah clearly holds like Shimon ha'Teimani, and he also holds that the child of Chayvei La'avin is not a Mamzer - disproving our initial version of Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement.

(b) We conclude that the 'everybody agrees' referred to by Rabah bar bar Chanah is Rebbi. Rebbi said - that the Mishnah in Perek Raban Gamliel 'Ein Bi'ah Achar Chalitzah' goes according to Rebbi Akiva, who considers a Chalutzah like an Ervah, but that he did not concur with it.

(c) The new version of Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement is - that even though Rebbi disagrees with the Mishnah in Raban Gamliel (and the son of a Chalutzah le'Shuk is not a Mamzer), he concedes however, that Akum ve'Eved ha'Ba al BAs Yisrael, ha'V'lad Mamzer. The source of this opinion is Rav Dimi Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi.

(a) When Rebbi Ami ruled that the baby of a certain redeemed Jewess, who was pregnant from a Nochri, would be a Mamzer, on the basis of the ruling of Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Chanina, who all concurred with that ruling - Rav Yosef commented that mentioning all those names was no big deal, seeing as he could quote just as impressive a list of Amora'im who hold that the child is Kasher (Rav and Shmuel in Bavel, and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and bar Kapara or the Ziknei Darom in Eretz Yisrael).

(b) According to Rav Yosef - Rebbi Ami's ruling is based on Rebbi (as quoted by Rav Dimi Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi), whose opinion overrides that of the Amora'im.

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds that the child is a 'Mekulkal'. He cannot have meant 'Mekulkal le'Kahal' - because we just quoted him as saying 'ha'V'lad Kasher (le'Kahal)'.

(a) Everybody agrees that the child of a Nochri ha'Ba al Bas Yisrael, is Pagum li'Kehunah - which they learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol (whose La'av is restricted to a Kohen Gadol, how much so our case, where the La'av applies to every woman - whether she is a Kohenes, a Leviy'ah or a Yisre'eilis).

(b) When they use the expression 'B'nah Pagum', it cannot be taken literally - because, on the one hand, it is obvious that the son of Nochri is not a Kohen, and on the other, there is no reason why he should be forbidden to marry a Kohenes (since Kohanos are not forbidden to marry men who are Pasul li'Kehunah). Consequently, they can only have meant 'Bitah Pegumah'.

(c) We ask the same Kashya on the 'Kal va'Chomer' from Almanah as we asked in the previous Sugya (that Almanah le'Kohen Gadol is different because she herself becomes a Chalalah) - and we answer that the woman in our case is actually Pesulah too, as Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon (or Rebbi Yishmael) specifically said.

(d) We learn from the Pasuk "u'Bas Kohen *Ki Sihyeh Almanah u'Gerushah*, ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah ... " - that when a Yisrael dies, leaving behind an Almanah who is a Kohenes, and no children, the widow or the divorcee is permitted to return to her father's house and to eat Terumos, but only because she becomes an Almanah or a Gerushah, but not if she had relations with someone from whom she cannot become an Almanah or a Gerushah (such as an Akum or an Eved).

(a) Ravin disagrees with Rav Dimi's quotation of Rebbi (that the child of a Nochri ha'Ba al Bas Yisrael is a Mamzer). In his opinion - Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi taught that the child is Kasher.

(b) Rav concurs with this ruling. When he ruled that that man who was the son of a Nochri ha'Ba al Bas Yisrael was Kasher - the man asked him for his daughter's hand in marriage.

(c) Shimi bar Chiya supported the man - because, if Rav would not give him his daughter, nobody else would.

(d) When Shimi bar Chiya persisted - Rav said that, even if he was like Yehoshua ben Nun, he would not give him his daughter, (because the children would be Pesulim li'Kehunah - Maharsha).

(a) When the man refused to leave - Rav gave him an Ayin ha'Ra and he died.

(b) Rav Yehudah told the son of a Nochri ha'Ba al Bas Yisrael that he should either hide in a place where he was unknown or marry a woman like himself. Rava told a man with the same status - to go into Galus or to marry a woman like himself.

(c) They must both hold like Rebbi and Rav - because otherwise, they would never have issued a ruling permitting the men concerned to go to a place where they were unknown and to marry a Bas Yisrael.

7)

(a) They asked Rabah about the status of a child who is born to a Bas Yisrael from a Chazti-Eved and Chatzi-ben Chorin. Rabah figured that if the child of a complete Eved and a Bas Yisrael is Kasher, then why should that of a Chazti-Eved and Chatzi-ben Chorin be any worse?

(b) Yet Rav Yehudah rules Pasul, in spite of his previous ruling (that in a case of a complete Eved, 'ha'V'lad Kasher') - because, we try to answer, he is speaking about a Chazti-Eved and Chatzi-ben Chorin who was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael before having relations with her.

(c) It is worse when he is Mekadesh her - because then, she is betrothed to the part of him that is free, and the part of him that is not, is committing adultery with a married woman, explaining why the child is a Mamzer.

(a) The compromise between a Chatzi-Eved and Chatzi-ben Chorin who had relations with a Bas Yisrael *with* Kidushin and one who did so *without* Kidushin, is not workable however, due to a statement by the Neherda'i in the name of Rebbi Ya'akov - who said that those who invalidate the child, do so even when he does *not* marry her, and those who do not, declare him Kasher even if he *does*.

(b) The source for this statement is 'Eishes Av' (from whom each side derived his respective view) - because the Torah juxtaposes Eishes Av right beside the La'av of "Lo Yavo Mamzer" in Ki-Seitzei.

(c) One learns from Eishes Av that Eved ha'Ba al Bas Yisrael is ...

1. ... Pasul even though he does *not* marry her - because an Eved is like Eishes Av, inasmuch as Kidushin does not take effect.
2. ... Kasher even if he *does* - because Eved is not like Eishes Av, where Kidushin *does* take effect by other people, whereas the Kidushin of an Eved does not take effect by anyone.

(d) When Rav Yehudah said that the child of a Chatzi Eved va'Chatzi ben Chorin and a Bas Yisrael has no Takanah (meaning that he is a Mamzer) - he was referring to the case of a Chatzi Eved va'Chazti ben Chorin who had relations with a married woman.

10)

(a) The Halachah by Akum ve'Eved ha'Ba al Bas Yisrael is - ha'V'lad Kasher (though he is Pasul li'Kehunah).

(b) The connection between this ruling and Rami bar Chama is - that Rami bar Chama was the son of a Bas Yisrael who was raped by an Akum.

(c) It is necessary to inform us that Rava appointed him to the position of Gabai in Bavel - to teach us that, even though a regular Ger is *invalidated* from occupying any position of leadership, Rami bar Chama was *not*, because his mother was a Kasher Bas Yisrael (in fact, she was the daughter of Shmuel, who had been raped by Isur Giyora, one of her captors, who subsequently converted).

(d) We learn from the Pasuk "Som Tasim Alecha Melech" - that any important appointment can only be given to a Jew, but not to a Ger.

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Ami's slave Toveled a certain Nochris for her Nidus. Rav Yosef legalized both her status as a Bas Yisrael, and that of any daughter that was born to them. He legalized ...

1. ... her - on the grounds that her Tevilah for her Nidus counted as a Tevilah for Geirus.
2. ... her daughter - because we have already ruled that Eved ha'Ba al Bas Yisrael, ha'V'lad Kasher.

(b) We know that Tevilah for Nidus counts for Geirus - from Rav Asi, who declared that a certain Giyores, whose son people referred to as the son of a Nochris, was in fact a Kasher Giyores, because she must, on some occasions, have Toveled for her Nidus.

(c) It is not possible to explain 'Atb'lah L'shem Int'sah' to mean that he Toveled her for Geirus, in order to take her as a wife, and that as we learned earlier (on Daf 22b.), a conversion that is specifically for marriage purposes, is invalid - because we ruled there that that is the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah, and is not Halachah.

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi declared a certain man whom people referred to as a Nochri - to be a Kasher Ger, because his father was bound to have Toveled for his Keri, and Tevilas Keri (like Tevilas Nidah) is Kasher for Geirus too.