Previous daf

1)

(a) The Torah writes (with regard to the Mitzri'im) "Banim Asher Yivaldu Lahem Dor Sh'lishi". Had the Torah written only ...

1. ... "Banim" and not "Dor" - we would have thought that the Torah is permitting the third son born to any Egyptian convert.
2. ... "Dor" and not "Banim" - that the third generation means the third generation from Sinai, and that, from then on, all Egyptian converts became acceptable.

(b) The Torah needs to write both "Asher Yivaldu" and "Lahem". Had it written only ...

1. ... "Asher Yivaldu" and not "Lahem" - we would have thought that one starts counting the three generations from their children (i.e. their children and grandchildren are forbidden, and it is only their great-grandchildren who are permitted).
2. ... "Lahem" and not "Asher Yivaldu" - we would have thought that if an Egyptian woman who is pregnant converts, then she and her child are considered to be one generation (and that it is only her grandchild who will become permitted). But now that we have *both* words, we reckon the pregnant Mitzris as the first generation, her child as the second, and her grandchild as the third generation, who is permitted.

(c) From "Yavo *Lahem* bi'K'hal Hashem" - we learn that if a Mitzri married a Yisre'eilis or vice-versa, we always go after them (and the child has the Din of a Mitzri Sheini).

(d) We make the same D'rashah from "Lo Yavo *Lo* by Mamzer. We cannot learn ...

1. ... Mamzer from Mitzri - because Mitzri descends from a Pasul source (a Nochri).
2. ... Mitzri from Mamzer - because a Mamzer is forbidden forever.

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan says - that the son of a Mitzri Sheini and a Mitzris Rishonah is a Mitzri Sh'lishi (proving that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, it is the male who determines the status).

(b) If a Mamzer wishes to rid his lineage of his Pasul status - Rebbi Tarfon advises him to 'marry' a Shifchah, and when his son (who will be an Eved) is born, to set him free. According to Rebbi Tarfon, it is the mother, and not the father, who determines the Yichus of the child (another of saying 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hi').

(c) We resolve Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement, with that of Rebbi Tarfon - by restricting Rebbi Tarfon's Din to the son of a Shifchah, by whom the Torah writes in Mishpatim "ha'Ishah vi'Y'ladehah Tihyeh la'Adonehah" (but in other areas of P'sul, it is the father who determines the Yichus of the child).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan amends the Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah quotes his Chaver Menimin as having said that he was a Mitzri Rishon, and that he would marry his son to a *Mitzris Sh'ni'ah*, in order that his grandson would be permitted to enter the Kahal - to *Mitzris Rishonah*.

(a) Rav Dimi quotes Rebbi Yochanan as saying - that if a Mitzri Sheini married a Mitzris Rishonah, his son is a Sheini (because, in his opinion, it is the mother who determines the Yichus of the child - due to the principle 'Ubar Yerech Imo').

(b) Rebbi Yochanan said that someone who designated a pregnant animal as a Chatas and it gave birth - he may use whichever of the two animals he wishes as his Chatas

(c) Rav Oshaya says that someone who designated two Chata'os - may pick whichever one he wishes, and the second one goes into the meadow until it becomes blemished ... .

(d) It is only possible to allow bringing either of the animals if we assume that 'Ubar La'av Yerech Imo', because then it is like designating two animals for one's Chatas (like the ruling Rav Oshaya). But if we hold 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hi' like Rav Dimi maintains - then the baby is a V'lad Chatas, and a V'lad Chatas has to die?

5)

(a) Even though we just concluded, 'Ubar La'av Yerech Imo Hu', Rava nevertheless ruled that if a pregnant Nochris Toveled in order to convert, the child will not require Tevilah - because of Rebbi Yitzchak, who said that min ha'Torah, it is only when Rubo u'Makpid (meaning that a. there is a majority dividing between the person or the object that is being Toveled, and the water, and b. the owner is particular), that that division is considered a Chatzitzah, but not Rubo ve'Eino Makpid (or Mi'uto u'Makpid).

(b) We initially object to this explanation - on the grounds that Rebbi Yitzchak spoke of 'Rubo', but not 'Kulo' (as in our case, where the baby is *completely* separated from the water).

(c) We overcome this objection - by pointing out that an Ubar is different, inasmuch as that is the way it grows. Consequently, it is not considered a Chatzitzah even though its mother separates it completely from the water.

6)

(a) When Ravina Amar Rebbi Yochanan says 'be'Umos Halach Achar ha'Zachar' - he meant that the Mitzvah of "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah" (pertaining to the seven nations), applies to someone whose father is from the seven nations, and not the mother.

(b) When the Pasuk writes ...

1. ... "ve'Gam mi'B'nei ha'Toshavim ha'Garim Imachem, Meihem Tiknu" - it refers to children who were born from men who came from other countries to live in Eretz Yisrael and who married Kena'ani women (because it is usually the *men* who travel, and the women who remain in their country of origin).
2. ... "Asher Holidu be'Artzechem" - it is to imply 've'Lo ha'Garim be'Artzechem', meaning that his mother is from another nation, but his father is a Kena'ani who bore him in the land of his mother, and then returned with him to live in Kena'an.

(c) Ravina's statement continues 'Nisgayru, Halach Achar Pagum she'bi'Sh'neihem'. This cannot refer to a case of a Mitzri who married an Amonis - because 'Pagum she'bi'Sh'neihem' implies that both of them are forbidden (and in this case, an Amonis is not forbidden).

(d) It refers therefore, to an Amoni who married a Mitzris. If they gave birth to ...

1. ... a boy - he is Asur forever like his father.
2. ... a girl - she will be considered a second generation Mitzri, after her mother.

(a) According to Resh Lakish, a Mamzeres is permitted after ten generations. He learns this from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Asiri" "Asiri" - from Amoni and Mo'avi - because, just like the "Asiri" written by them extends forever, so too, does the "Asiri" mentioned by Mamzer extend forever. And just like by Amoni and Mo'avi, the females are not included in the Isur, so too are they not included in the generations that we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (i.e. from the eleventh generation and onwards).

(b) Resh Lakish resolves his statement with our Mishnah, which rules that she is forbidden forever - by establishing it like the opinion which holds 'Don Minah ve'Uki be'Asra', whereas he holds like those who hold 'Don Minah u'Minah'.

(c) 'Don Minah u'Minah' - means that once we make a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', we make it completely, like we just saw with "Asiri" "Asiri", where we use it to learn both the Isur by the men ('Don Minah') and the Heter by the women ('u'Minah' - Zecharim ve'Lo Nekeivos).

(d) The Tana of our Mishnah holds 'Don Minah ve'Ukei be'Asra' - meaning that we learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' only for what it is needed, in our case to extend "Ad Dor Asiri" to "Ad Olam" ('Don Minah') but not to exclude the women ('ve'Uki be'Asra'), seeing as for the first ten generations, the women are certainly Asur like the men (as is inherent in the word 'Mamzer' - 'Mum Zar'.

(a) When they asked Rebbi Eliezer whether one may marry a Mamzeres after ten generations - he replied how he wished that they could just give him a third generation Mamzer (because, in his opinion, they cannot survive until ten generations), so that he might permit him.

(b) In order to resolve Rebbi Eliezer with our Mishnah, which forbids Mamzeirim forever (implying even more than ten generations) - Rebbi Zeira quoting Rav Yehudah establishes our Mishnah by a Mamzer who is *well-known*, and Rebbi Eliezer by one who is *not*.

(c) A Mamzer whose Yichus is well-known can even survive ten generations - whereas one whose Yichus is doubtful can survive a maximum of three generations, but no more.

(d) The lineage of a Mamzer whose Yichus is unknown will not survive - because of the fear that, purely for lack of knowledge, people will marry his children.

10)

(a) There was a famine in Eretz Yisrael for three years. During the first year, David ascribed it to Avodah-Zarah, during the second year, to the sin of immorality. During the third year - he ascribed it the sin of people undertaking to give Tzedakah and not keeping their word.

(b) When all these suggestions drew a blank - David Hamelech ascribed the sin to himself and turned to Divine Assistance via the Urim ve'Tumim.

(c) "P'nei Hashem" implies the Urim ve'Tumim - because of a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "P'nei" (here - in Shmuel 2) "P'nei" (in Pinchas) "ve'Sha'al Lo be'Mishpat ha'Urim *Lifnei* Hashem".

(a) Hashem ascribed the famine to two sins - to their failure to eulogize King Shaul properly, and to Shaul's killing of the Giv'onim.

(b) Shaul did not really kill the Giv'onim - but because he killed the city of Kohanim, Nov, who provided them with water and food, it was as if he had killed *them*.

(c) The Pasuk ascribes the famine at one and the same time to the fact that Shaul was not mourned properly (a fact that highlights his credit) and to his treatment of the Giv'onim (highlighting his shame) - because of the Pasuk in Tz'fanyah " ... Asher Mishpato Pa'alo", from which we derive 'ba'Asher Mishpato Sham Pa'alo' (at the same time as one judges a person, one also discloses his merits).

(d) King David's reaction ...

1. ... to the former reason - was to do nothing, because, since more than twelve months had passed since King Shaul's death (in fact, it was almost thirty years), it would have been pointless to have eulogized him then.
2. ... to the latter one - was to gather the Giv'onim (alias the Nesinim), and to offer them any compensation that they chose.