POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Yevamos 78
1) IS A MITZRIS PERMITTED?
2) DO WE COUNT GENERATIONS FROM THE MOTHER OR FATHER?
1. Suggestion #1: Perhaps the Torah only says,
Bedi'avad, if he married, his children are
(b) (Beraisa) Question: Since the Torah said children, why
did it need to say generations? Since the Torah said
generations, why did it need to say children?
2. Rejection: The Torah did not speak of a Bedi'avad
3. Question: Mamzerim are B'diavad, and the Torah
speaks of them!
4. Answer: The Torah gives prohibitions which come
B'diavad, not leniencies.
5. Question: A man that remarries his divorcee (after
she was married in between) - the Torah wrote that
their children are Kosher!
6. Answer: Primarily, the Torah wrote her prohibition -
we deduced from it that her children are Kosher.
(c) Answer: If the Torah only said children, we would think
that the first 2 children of a Mitzri are forbidden, and
the 3rd is permitted;
1. If the Torah only said generations, we would think
that the Torah refers to the 3rd generation born
after the giving of the Torah.
(d) "To them" - count from them; "To them" - go after the
(e) It was needed to write both "To them" and "That will be
1. If the Torah only said "That will be born", we would
think to count 3 generations starting with their
(f) It was needed to write "To them" by Mitzrim and "To him"
2. If the Torah only said "To them", we would think
that a pregnant Mitzris that converted, her son is
also a Mitzri Rishon (1st generation Mitzri) - it
said, "that will be born" to teach that he is a
1. If the Torah only wrote "To them" by Mitzrim (to
forbid a child if either parent is a Mitzri) - we
would think, this is because Mitzrim come from
improper seed (but this does not apply to Mamzerim).
2. If the Torah only wrote "To him" by Mamzerim - (to
forbid a child if either parent is a Mamzer) - we
would think, this is because they never become
permitted (which is not true of Mitzrim).
(a) (Rabah Bar Bar Chanah, citing R. Yochanan): A Mitzri
Sheni that married a Mitzris Rishonah - the child is a
1. We see, we go after the father.
(b) Question (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): R. Tarfon says, Mamzerim
can purify their seed: If a Mamzer marries a slave, the
child is a slave; if he frees the child, the child is
1. We see, we go after the mother!
(c) Answer: There is different, the Torah said, the woman
(slave) and her children will be to her master.
(d) Question (Rava - Beraisa): Minyamin was a Mitzri Rishon;
he married a Mitzris Rishonah, and planned to marry his
son to a Mitzris Shniyah, so his grandchildren would be
1. If we go after the father - he could even marry his
son to a Mitzris Rishonah!
(e) Answer: Indeed, R. Yochanan said the correct text is, he
will marry her to a Rishonah.
(f) (Rav Dimi, citing R. Yochanan): A Mitzri Sheni that
married a Mitzris Rishonah - the child is a Sheni.
1. We see, we go after the mother.
(g) Question (Abaye): But R. Yochanan said, a man that set
aside a pregnant animal for his sin-offering, and it gave
birth - he may atone with the mother or the child.
1. This fits well if we say that a fetus is not a limb
of the mother - it is as if he set aside 2 animals,
in case one of them cannot be offered;
(h) Answer (Abaye): (R. Yochanan really holds, it is not a
limb of the mother) - perhaps the law of Mitzrim is
different, because it says, "That will be born", it
depends on birth.
i. R. Oshiya said, in such a case, he may atone
with either one, and the other grazes (is
2. But if we say that a fetus is a limb of the mother -
when born, it has the law of the child of a
sin-offering, and it must die (and cannot be
3. Rav Dimi was silent.
(i) Rav Dimi: I saw, you were there when R. Yochanan gave
this explanation - had the Torah not ascribed the
prohibition to birth, we would go after the father, as
(j) Question: Rava said, a (pregnant) Nochris that converted,
her child does not need to immerse - why not (if we
normally go after the father).
1. Suggestion: Perhaps, as R. Yitzchak taught -
mi'Dioraisa, a blockage only invalidates an
immersion if it covers most of the body, and the
blockage bothers the person (since it does not
bother the fetus, the mother's immersion also counts
as immersion of the fetus).
3) THE PROHOBITION OF MAMZERIM
2. Rejection: Rav Kahana taught, this only applies to a
majority - but if the entire body is covered, the
immersion is invalid!
(k) Answer: The case of a fetus is different, since the
blockage (the mother) is what he grows in, it does not
invalidate the immersion.
(l) (Ravina citing R. Yochanan): By other nations, we go
after the father; after conversion, we go after problems
in either parent.
1. By other nations, we go after the father - as a
i. (Beraisa) - Question: How do we know that if a
Nochri had relations with a Kana'anis (of the 7
nations of Eretz Kana'an), that the child may
be bought as a slave (and need not be killed)?
2. Question: 'After conversion, we go after problems in
either parent' - what is the case?
ii. Answer: "Also, from the children of the
residents that live with you, from them you may
iii. Suggestion: Perhaps this even applies to a
Kana'ani that had a child from a Nachris?
iv. Rejection: "That they fathered in your land" -
those born in your land, not from those that
live in your land.
i. Suggestion: If a Mitzri married an Amonis -
there is no problem with her - Amoni, not an
3. Answer: Rather, an Amoni married a Mitzris.
i. If the child is a boy - we consider him an
ii. If the child is a girl - we consider her a
(a) (Mishnah): Mamzerim and Nesinim are forbidden forever,
both males and females.
4) THE PROHIBITION OF THE NESINIM
(b) (Gemara - Reish Lakish): A Mamzeres is permitted after 10
1. He learns a Gezeirah Shaveh "10th, 10th" from Amoni
and Moavi; just as there, females are permitted,
(c) Question: But the Mishnah says that they are forbidden
forever, both males and females!
2. Objection: There, females are permitted immediately
- he should learn the same to Mamzerim!
3. Answer: The Gezeirah Shaveh only teaches after 10
(d) Answer: Reish Lakish holds as the Tana that learns all
laws of the case being learned from the case teaching
(here, Amoni teaches that Mamzerim are forever forbidden,
and also that females are permitted);
1. The Mishnah is as the Tana that only learns some
laws from the teaching case, (here, Amoni only
teaches that Mamzerim are forever forbidden).
(e) Question: What is the law of a Mamzeres after 10
(f) R. Eliezer: Even a 3rd generation Mamzer is not found!
1. He holds, Mamzerim do not live (to have
2. (Rav Huna): Mamzerim do not live.
3. Question: But the Mishnah says, they are forbidden
4. Answer (R. Zeira): Rav Yehudah explained - known
Mamzerim live, unknown Mamzerim do not, those that
are not known well only live up to 3 generations.
i. R. Ami announced that a certain man was a
Mamzer; the man cried.
ii. R. Ami: I have given you life!
(a) (Rav Chana Bar Ada): David decreed (not to marry) Nesinim
- "The king ... said, the Givonim are not from Bnei
(b) Question: Why did he decree?
(c) Answer: "There was a famine for 3 straight years in the
days of David".
1. The 1st year, he said, maybe there is idolatry among
you - "And you will serve foreign gods ... and there
will not be rain".
i. He checked, and did not find idolatry.
2. The 2nd year, he said, maybe there is immorality
among you - "The early and late rains were withheld,
and you had the countenance of a harlot".
i. He checked, and did not find.
3. The 3rd year, he said, maybe there are people that
publicly pledge Tzedakah and do not give it -
"Clouds and wind, but no rain - a man glorifies
himself in false gifts."
i. He checked, and did not find; he concluded, it
was his fault.
4. Question: "And David sought Hash-m's countenance" -
5. Answer (Reish Lakish): Through the Urim v'Tumim.
i. Question: How is this learned from the verse?
6. "Hash-m said, because of Shaul and the house of
blood, that he killed the Givonim".
ii. Answer (R. Elazar): It says "Pnei
(countenance)", and by the Urim v'Tumim it says
i. Because of Shaul - he was not eulogized
7. Question: "That he killed the Givonim" - where do we
find that he did this?
8. Answer: Because he killed Nob, the city of Kohanim,
that supplied food and water to the Givonim, the
verse considers it as if he killed them.
9. Question: Hash-m punished for not properly
eulogizing Shaul, and also for Shaul's sin?!
10. Answer: Yes!
i. (Reish Lakish): "Seek Hash-m, ... his judgment
they acted" - when Hash-m judges, he recounts a