ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 45
(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
(c) We learn that the Kidushin of a (male) Nochri is not effective either,
from a Nochris (with a Mah Matzinu).
2. ... "Lo Tischaten Bam" - that there is no Kidushin by the seven nations
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
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(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*.
It happened once that Rebbi Yossi bar Avin arrived in Rav Gaza's town and he
validated an unmarried woman, and invalidated a married one. Others quoting
Rebbi Yossi bar Z'vida, say that he validated both women. In each of the
cases - the woman had relations with a complete Eved.
(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.
(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.
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.
(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.
(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.
2. ... her daughter - because we have already ruled that Eved ha'Ba al Bas
Yisrael, ha'V'lad Kasher.
(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