ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 78
(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.
(b) The Torah needs to write both "Asher Yivaldu" and "Lahem". Had it
written only ...
2. ... "Dor" and not "Banim" - that the third generation means the third
generation from Sinai, and that, from then on, all Egyptian converts became
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).
(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).
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.
(d) We make the same D'rashah from "Lo Yavo *Lo* by Mamzer. We cannot
1. ... Mamzer from Mitzri - because Mitzri descends from a Pasul source (a
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').
When Rav Dimi remained silent, Abaye, who posed the Kashya, suggested that
maybe 'Ubar Yerech Imo' applies exclusively to a Mitzris, because the Torah
writes there "Asher Yivaldu" - Rav Dimi retorted that he must have stuck his
head between the pillars and heard when Rebbi Yochanan said exactly that.
(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?
(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.
(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).
(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).
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.
(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
(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
(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
(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.
When that Safek Mamzer complained about Rav Ami's publicizing the fact that
he was a Mamzer - Rav Ami reassured him that it was very much to his
advantage, because the publicity gave him a lease of life.
(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
(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
(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.