Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth

Folio 77a

As, however, Doeg submitted to them all those objections¹  and they eventually remained silent, he desired to make a public announcement against him.²  Presently [an incident occurred]: Now Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Ithna the Israelite, that went in to Abigal³  the daughter of Nahash,⁴  but elsewhere it is written, Jether the Ishmaelite!⁵  This teaches, Raba explained, that he girded on his sword like an Ishmaelite and exclaimed, 'Whosoever will not obey the following halachah will be stabbed with the sword; I have this tradition from the Beth din of Samuel the Ramathite: An Ammonite but not an Ammonitess; A Moabite, but not a Moabitess'!⁶  Could he, however, be trusted?⁷  Surely R. Abba stated in the name of Rab: Whenever a learned man gives directions⁸  on a point of law, and such a point comes up [for a practical decision], he is obeyed if his statement was made⁹  before the event;¹⁰  but if it was not so made he is not obeyed! Here the case was different, since Samuel and his Beth din were still living.¹¹

The difficulty,¹²  however, still remains! — The following¹³  interpretation was given: All glorious is the king's daughter within.¹⁴  In the West¹⁵  it was explained. others quote it in the name of R. Isaac: Scripture said, And they said unto him: 'Where is Sarah thy wife?' etc.¹⁶

The question¹⁷  is a matter in dispute between Tannaim: An Ammonite,¹⁸  but not an Ammonitess; A Moabite,¹⁸  but not a Moabitess. So R. Judah. R. Simeon, however, said: Because they met you not with bread and with water;¹⁹  it is customary for a man to meet etc.²⁰

Raba made the following exposition: What was meant by, Thou hast loosed my bonds!²¹  David said to the Holy One, blessed be He, 'O Master of the world! Two bonds were fastened on me,²²  and you loosed them: Ruth the Moabitess²³  and Naamah the Ammonitess.²⁴

Raba made the following exposition: What was meant by the Scriptural text, Many things hast Thou done, O Lord my God, even Thy wondrous works, and Thy thoughts toward us?²⁵  It is not written, 'toward me', but toward us. This teaches that Rehoboam²⁶  sat on the lap of David when the latter said to him. 'Those two Scriptural verses²⁷  were said concerning me and you.'²⁸

Raba made the following exposition: What was meant by the Scriptural text, Then said I: 'Lo, I am come with the roll of a book which is prescribed for me'?²⁹  David said,³⁰  'I thought I have come³¹  only now; but I did not know that in the Roll of the Book³²  it was already³³  written about me'. For there it is written, That are found,³⁴  and here it is written. I have found³⁵  David My servant; with My holy oil have I anointed him.³⁶

'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: The daughter of an Ammonite proselyte³⁷  is eligible to marry a priest. Said Raba b. 'Ulla to 'Ulla: In accordance with [whose view is your statement made]? If in accordance with that of R. Judah, he surely had stated that the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male halal!³⁸  And if in accordance with the view of R. Jose, your statement is self-evident, for surely he had stated: Even where a male proselyte had married a female proselyte his daughter is eligible to marry a priest!³⁹  And were you to reply that this⁴⁰  applies to such as are fit to enter the assembly⁴¹  but not to this man who⁴²  is not fit to enter the assembly⁴³  whence [it may he asked] is this distinction⁴⁴  [inferred]! — It is inferred from the case of a High Priest who married a widow.⁴⁵  [But it may be objected] the marriage between a High Priest and a widow is different, since his cohabitation constitutes a transgression!⁴⁶  — [Then the case of the] halal proves it?⁴⁷  [But it may be objected that] a halal is different since his formation was in sin!⁴⁸  — [Then the case of the] High Priest⁴⁹  proves it; and thus the argument will go round;⁵⁰  though the aspect of the one is unlike that of the other and the aspect of the other is unlike that of the first, their common characteristic is that either of them is unlike the majority of the assembly⁵¹  and his daughter⁵²  is ineligible,⁵³  so here also since he⁵⁴  is unlike the majority of the assembly,⁵⁵  his daughter should be ineligible.⁵³  [But it may again be objected] their common characteristic⁵⁶  is different, since it also involves an aspect of sin!⁵⁷  Did you possibly⁵⁸  speak of an Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite,⁵⁹  [informing us that], though his cohabitation is an act of transgression, his daughter is nevertheless eligible? — The other replied: Yes; for when Rabin came⁶⁰  he reported in the name of R. Johanan on the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte⁶¹  and the daughter of an Egyptian of the second generation⁶¹  that R. Johanan declared her eligible⁶²  while Resh Lakish maintained that she was ineligible.⁶²

'Resh Lakish maintained that she was ineligible', for he infers this case from that of a High Priest who married a widow. 'R. Johanan declared her eligible'.

1. Addressed to Abner supra.
2. To brand David publicly as a descendant of a Moabitess, and unfit to enter the congregation of Israel in accordance with Deut. XXIII, 4.
3. Cur. edd., 'Abigail', is apparently a printer's error (cf. M.T.). V., however, I Chron. II, 17.
4. II Sam. XVII, 25.
5. I Chron. II, 17. Some MSS, read Ishmaelite in the [text of Sam. also. How then are the two readings to be reconciled?
6. V. supra p. 517, n. 17. [On the political issues involved in this controversy v. Aptowitzer, Parteipolitik der Hasmonaerzeit pp. 31ff. He regards the attack on the legitimacy of David as a movement inspired by the Sadducees to support the Hasmoneans' right to the throne against the challenge of their opponents. V. Kid. Sonc. ed. pp. 332ff].
7. In such circumstances.
8. Basing his ruling on traditional law which he claims to have received from his teachers.
9. In the course of his discourses and studies.
10. Before the point of law assumed practical importance.
11. Had not the statement been a true on, he would not have ventured to make it when its validity could be so easily tested.
12. Raised by Doeg (supra 76b) to which no reply was forthcoming
13. Cf. BaH. a.l.
14. Ps. XLV, 14. Respectable women remain at home and do not go into the open road even to meet members of their own sex. No blame, therefore, is attached to the Ammonite and Moabite women for not meeting the Israelites with bread and with water. Cf. Deut. XXIII, 5.
15. Palestine.
16. Gen XVIII, 9, and he answered, 'Behold in the tent'. Sarah remained indoors attending to the duties of her household, though there were visitors whom Abraham was entertaining in the open under the tree (ibid. 4).
17. As to the Scriptural text from which the admission of Ammonite and Moabite women is deduced.
18. Deut. XXIII, 4.
19. Ibid. 5.
20. V. supra 76b.
21. Ps. CXVI, 16.
22. Upon David's dynasty.
23. From whom David himself descended. V. Ruth IV. 13. 17ff.
24. The wife of Solomon and mother of Rehoboam, David's grandson. V. I Kings XIV, 21, 31.
25. Ps. XL, 6.
26. V. supra p. 519. n. 17.
27. Gen. XVIII. 9 and Ps, XLV. 14, from which the permissibility of admitting Ammonite and Moabite women into the congregation of Israel was deduced.
28. Divine providence which permitted Ammonite and Moabite women to enter the assembly has saved them from being excluded from the congregation of Israel.
29. Ps. XL. 8.
30. When he was anointed king.
31. To the kingship.
32. The Scroll of the Law, the Pentateuch.
33. Since the days of Abraham.
34. Gen. XIX. 1, (rt. [H]) referring to the two daughters of Lot, from whom descended Ammon and Moab respectively.
35. Rt. [H].
36. Ps. LXXXIX. 21.
37. It is now assumed that the daughter was born from an Ammo- nite father and mother after their conversion.
38. Who is forbidden to marry a priest! Kid. 77a. For halal v. Glos.
39. Kid. loc. cit.
40. The dispute between 'R. Judah and R. Jose.
41. Those of the nations who are not forbidden by the prohibitions prescribed in Deut. XXIII.
42. As an Ammonite.
43. In accordance with the prohibition in Deut. XXIII. 4.
44. Between an Ammonite's daughter who, as a female, is not included in the prohibition, and the daughter of any other people. What proof is there that a father's status deprives a daughter of her rights?
45. As the daughter of a High Priest who is forbidden to marry a widow, is ineligible to marry a priest, so is the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte.
46. The marriage between an Ammonite and an Ammonitess, however, is no transgression.
47. The marriage by a halal (v. Glos.) of the daughter of an Israelite constituting no transgression, and yet his daughter is ineligible to marry a priest.
48. A halal is the offspring of a forbidden union; the Ammonite proselyte is not. How, then, could the latter be inferred from the former?
49. Whose formation was not in sin, and yet his daughter is forbidden.
50. If objection is raised against the case of the High Priest. that of the halal will be adduced as proof; and if objection is raised against that of the halal, the case of the High Priest will be adduced as proof.
51. As to the High Priest his cohabitation is forbidden, and as to the halal his formation was in sin.
52. The High Priest's and the halal's.
53. To marry a priest.
54. The Ammonite proselyte.
55. He is forbidden to enter the assembly of the Lord (Deut. XXIII. 4).
56. That of the High Priest and the halal.
57. The daughter of the High Priest was born in sin, since the marriage of her parents was a forbidden one, and in the case of the daughter of the halal, the birth of the father was in sin. In the case of the Ammonite proselyte, however, neither the daughter nor her father was born in sin. How, then, could this case be inferred from the two former? And thus the question remains, what need was there for R. Johanan to teach the evident case of the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte?
58. 'Certainly' is to be deleted. V. BaH.
59. Not as previously assumed (v. supra p. 520, n. 13)
60. From Palestine to Babylon.
61. Who married the daughter of an Israelite and thus contracted a forbidden union.
62. To marry a priest.

as R. Zakkai recited¹  in the presence of R. Johanan, '[The expression,] But a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife,²  includes a woman who is fundamentally a proselyte³  who is eligible to marry a priest', and the other said to him, 'I learn: ["Since. instead of] 'His people'. Of his people [was written]. a virgin who descended from two peoples⁴  is also included", and you mention only a fundamental proselyte and no other!' Now. what is meant by 'two peoples'? If it be suggested that it refers to the case of an Ammonite who married an Ammonitess. and that these are described as of 'two peoples' because the males are forbidden and the females are permitted, such a case [it may be objected] is the same as that of a fundamental proselyte! Consequently it must refer to an Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite.⁵

Others say: He said to him,⁶  'I learn: ["Since, instead of] 'His people'. Of his people²  [was written], a virgin who is descended from two peoples⁷  and from a people consisting of two groups of people⁸  is included", and you mention only a fundamental proselyte and no other!'⁹

According to this latter version, however,¹⁰  whence is it inferred that the daughter of an Egyptian of the second generation¹¹  is eligible to marry a priest? And should you suggest that this might be inferred from the case of an Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite, [it may be objected that] the case of the Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite is different since the Ammonite females are eligible.¹²  — An Egyptian of the second generation who married an Egyptian woman of the second generation might prove it.¹³  But [it may be objected that the case] of an Egyptian of the second generation who married an Egyptian woman of the second generation is different since his cohabitation constitutes no transgression? — An Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite might prove it,¹⁴  and thus the argument would go round etc.¹⁵

Said R. Joseph: This¹⁶  then it is that I heard Rab Judah expounding on 'His people. Of his people' and I did not [at the time] understand what he meant.¹⁷

When R. Samuel b. Judah came, he stated: Thus he¹⁸  recited in his¹⁹  presence: An Ammonite woman is eligible;²⁰  her son that is born from an Ammonite is ineligible; and her daughter that is born from an Ammonite is eligible. This, however, applies only to an Ammonite and an Ammonitess who were converted; but her daughter that was born from an Ammonite is ineligible. [On hearing this] the other said to him, 'Go recite this outside. For your statement that "an Ammonite woman is eligible" [is quite acceptable, since] Ammonite²¹  excludes the Ammonitess. That "her son that is born from an Ammonite is ineligible" [is also correct] since he is in fact an Ammonite. In what respect, however, is "her daughter that was born from an Ammonite eligible"? If in respect of entering the assembly, is there, now that her mother is eligible. any need to mention her! The eligibility must consequently be in respect of marrying a priest. [But then what of the statement], "this, however, applies only to an Ammonite and an Ammonitess who were converted; but her daughter that was born from an Ammonite is ineligible"? What is meant by "her daughter that was born of an Ammonite"? If it be suggested that it refers to an Ammonite who married an Ammonitess,²²  then this is the same case as that of a fundamental proselyte!²³  Consequently it must refer to an Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite'.²⁴  [Concerning this] he told him. 'Go recite this outside'.²⁵

AN EGYPTIAN AND AN EDOMITE ARE FORBIDDEN ONLY etc. What is the OBJECTION?²⁶  — Raba b. Bar Hana replied in the name of R. Johanan: Because it may be said that the case of forbidden relatives proves it,²⁷  since in respect of them the prohibition extends to the third generation only²⁸  [and is nevertheless applicable to] both males and females.²⁹  [But can it not be argued that the case] of forbidden relatives is different.³⁰  since in their case the penalty of kareth is involved?³¹  — [The case of the] bastard³²  proves it. [But can it not be suggested that the case] of the bastard is different³³  since he is forever ineligible to enter the congregation?³⁴  — [The case of] forbidden relatives³⁵  proves it. Thus the argument could go round.³⁶  The aspects of one are unlike those of the other and the aspects of the other are unlike those of the first. Their common characteristic, however, is that both males and females are equally forbidden; so might one also include the Egyptian man and the Egyptian woman so that in their case also both males and females should be equally forbidden.³⁷  This common characteristic, however, [it may be retorted,] is different.³³  since in one respect it also involves kareth.³⁸  And the Rabbis?³⁹  They infer it⁴⁰  from the halal⁴¹  who is the offspring of a union between those who through it, are guilty of transgressing a positive commandment;⁴²  and in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob.⁴³  Then what is meant by, NOT SO?⁴⁴  — It is this that he said to them: As far as I am concerned, I do not accept the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob;⁴⁵  but according to you, since your view is that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob,⁴⁶  [my reply is that] IT IS AN HALACHAH THAT I AM REPORTING.⁴⁷

It was taught: R. Simeon said to them,⁴⁸  'I am reporting an halachah and, moreover, a Scriptural text supports my view, [it having been written] sons⁴⁹  but not daughters'.

Our Rabbis taught: Sons,⁴⁹  but not daughters; so R. Simeon. R. Judah, however, said: Behold it is said in Scripture. The sons of the third generation that are born unto them;⁵⁰  Scripture has made them dependent on birth.⁵¹

R. Johanan said: Had not R. Judah declared, 'Scripture made them dependent on birth',⁵²  he would not have found his hands and feet at the house of study.⁵³  For as a Master said that a congregation of proselytes is also called an assembly.⁵⁴

1. I.e., from this statement it is deduced what was R. Johanan's view.
2. Lev. XXI, 14.
3. Or 'a proselyte of her own status' (Jast.). who was a proselyte from her birth, i.e., when her father and mother were converted after their marriage and before her birth. Where an Ammonite proselyte marries the daughter of an Israelite, the offspring of such a union is not fundamentally a proselyte and is ineligible to marry a priest since the union was a forbidden one.
4. This is explained presently
5. Thus it is proved (v. supra n. 4) that, in the opinion of R. Johanan, such a case is eligible.
6. R. Johanan to R. Zakkai.
7. From the daughter of an Israelite who married an Ammonite proselyte.
8. I.e., whose father is the Ammonite proselyte, a descendant of a people whose males are forbidden and whose females are permitted.
9. According to this version, unlike the former where it was arrived at by inference. R. Johanan's view is explicitly stated.
10. Since the case of the Ammonite only was mentioned. (Cf. supra n. 2).
11. Who married the daughter of an Israelite and thus contracted a forbidden union.
12. While the Egyptian females, like the man, are forbidden for three generations.
13. His daughter is permitted since she belongs to the third generation, although she also belongs to the Egyptian people whose males and females are equally forbidden. As this latter restriction is no bar in this case it should form no bar in the case of an Egyptian of the second generation who married the daughter of an Israelite.
14. His daughter is eligible though his marriage constitutes a transgression.
15. Continued as supra 77a.
16. The ruling permitting the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte who married the daughter of an Israelite.
17. R. Joseph, as a result of a serious illness, lost his memory and only dimly recollected some of the rulings and expositions of his teachers.
18. R. Zakkai. V. supra.
19. R. Johanan's.
20. This is explained presently.
21. Deut. XXIII, 4.
22. Who were converted prior to the birth of their daughter.
23. Who, as stated in the first clause, is eligible!
24. The daughter being ineligible because of the forbidden marriage of her parents.
25. In such a case also the daughter is eligible as deduced supra from the expression, Of his people (Lev. XXI. 14) instead of 'his people'.
26. That can be advanced, according to the Rabbis, against R. Simeon's argument in our Mishnah.
27. That R. Simeon's argument is untenable.
28. Both in the ascending and the descending line.
29. Similarly in the case of the Egyptian and the Edomite.
30. I.e., it is more restricted than that of marriage with an Egyptian etc.
31. Since they are subject to the one restriction (kareth) they are also subject to the other (equal prohibition of males and females). The case of the Egyptian and the Edomite, however, which does not involve kareth might not include the females either!
32. Cohabitation with whom is not subject to the penalty of kareth, and both males and females are nevertheless equally subject to the prohibition.
33. I.e., it is more restricted than that of marriage with an Egyptian etc.
34. As he is subject to this restriction he is also subject to the other (cf. supra n. 1).
35. Who are only forbidden to intermarry with each other, but are severally permitted to all the other members of the congregation.
36. Should objection be raised against the case of the forbidden relatives, that of the bastard could be adduced as proof; and should objection be raised against that of the bastard, that of the forbidden relatives might be adduced as proof.
37. This then, is the objection which the Rabbis could raise against R. Simeon's a minori argument.
38. Even in the case of the bastard, kareth is involved as the penalty of his parents for the action which was the origin of his birth. In the case of the Egyptian and Edomite, however, there is no aspect whatsoever involving this penalty. The latter, therefore, cannot be deduced from the others.
39. How could they still maintain their objection against R. Simeon's argument.
40. The prohibition of the females.
41. And not, as has previously been assumed, from the bastard.
42. When, e.g., a High Priest married a seduced woman (cf. supra 60a) who is forbidden to him by virtue of the positive precept of Lev. XXI. 13.
43. Who, contrary to the view of the Sages, regards such a child as halal (supra 59b and 60a). Thus it has been proved that even where no kareth is involved, both males and females (the halalah like the halal) are included in the prohibition. Similarly in the case of the Egyptians and the Edomites.
44. The objection of the Rabbis is strong enough!
45. Cf. supra p. 523. n. 13. ab. init., R. Simeon being of the opinion that the offspring of a union between those who are thereby guilty of transgressing a positive precept only is not regarded as a halal.
46. And consequently you might derive the prohibition of the females from the law of the halal.
47. And an objection is of no validity in the face of a definite tradition.
48. The Rabbis of our Mishnah.
49. [H] Deut. XXIII, 9.
50. Ibid. emphasis on are born.
51. Irrespective of sex. Had the law applied to males only the clause 'that are born etc,' should have been omitted.
52. I.e., that the females also are forbidden.
53. His position would have been untenable.
54. The assembly of the Lord (cf. Deut. XXIII, 2, 3, 4, 9. and Kid. 73a.).