יבמות 78:1 — Soncino English Talmud

how could an Egyptian of the second generation ever attain purity! But is not this possible when he transgressed and did marry one? — Scripture would not have written of a case of 'when'. Behold the case of the bastard which is one of 'when' and yet Scripture did write it! — It wrote of a 'when' [leading] to a prohibition; it would not have written of a 'when' [if it led] to permissibility. Behold the case of the man who remarried his divorced wife, which involves a 'when' [leading] to a permitted act and yet did Scripture write of it! — In that case it was written mainly for the purpose of the original prohibition. Our Rabbis taught: If the expression of sons was used, why was also that of generations used; and if that of generations was used, why also that of sons? If the expression of 'sons' had been used and not that of 'generations' it might have been assumed that only the first and second son is forbidden but that the third is permitted, the expression of 'generations' was, therefore, used. And had the expression of 'generations' only been used and not that of sons, it might have been assumed that the precept was given only to those who stood at Mount Sinai, the expression of sons' was therefore used. Unto them, Count from them. Unto them. Be guided by the status of the ineligible among them. It was necessary [for Scripture] to write Unto them, and it was also necessary for it to write, That are born. For had the All Merciful written only. 'That are born', it might have been presumed that the counting must begin from their children, hence did the All Merciful write 'Unto them'. And had the All Merciful written only 'Unto them', it might have been presumed that, where a pregnant Egyptian woman became a proselyte, she and her child are regarded as one generation. hence did the All Merciful write. 'That are born'. It was, furthermore, necessary to write Unto them in this case, and Unto him in respect of the bastard. For had the All Merciful used the expression here only, [the restriction might have been assumed to apply to this case only], because the child descended from a tainted origin. but not to a bastard, since he is descended from an untainted origin. And had the All Merciful written the expression in respect of the bastard, [the restriction might have been presumed to apply to him only]. because he is for all time unfit to enter into the assembly, but not in this case. [Both texts were, therefore,] required. Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in the name of R. Johanan: If an Egyptian of the second generation married an Egyptian woman of the first generation, her son is [regarded as belonging to the] third generation. From this it is obvious that he is of the opinion that the child is ascribed to him. R. Joseph raised an objection: R. Tarfon said, 'Bastards may attain to purity. How? If a bastard married a female slave, their child is a slave. When, however, he is emancipated he becomes a free man'. This clearly proves that the child is ascribed to her! — There it is different, because Scripture said, The wife and her children shall be her master's. Raba raised an objection: R. Judah related, 'Menjamin, an Egyptian proselyte. was one of my colleagues among the disciples of R. Akiba, and he once told me: I am an Egyptian of the first generation and married an Egyptian wife of the first generation; and I shall arrange for my son to marry an Egyptian wife of the second generation in order that my grandson shall be eligible to enter the congregation'. Now, if it could be assumed that the child is ascribed to his father, [he could have married a wife] even of the first generation! — The fact is that R. Johanan said to the Tanna: Read, '[a woman of the] first generation'. When R. Dimi came he stated in the name of R. Johanan: If an Egyptian of the second generation married an Egyptian wife of the first generation. her son is [regarded as belonging to the] second generation. From this it is obvious that a child is ascribed to his mother. Said Abaye to him: What then of the following statement of R. Johanan. 'If a man set aside a pregnant beast as a sin-offering and it then gave birth, his atonement may be made, if he desires, with the beast itself, and, if he prefers, his atonement may be made with her young'. This law would be intelligible if you admit that an embryo is not regarded as a part of its mother, since this case would be similar to that of one who set aside as a security two sin-offerings, in respect of which R. Oshaia had stated that a man who set aside two sin-offerings as a security is to be atoned for with either of them, while the other goes to the pasture. If you maintain, however, that an embryo is a part of its mother, the former is like the young of a sin-offering, and the young of a sin-offering is sent to die! The other remained silent. 'Is it not possible', the first said to him, 'that there it is different. since it is written That are born, Scripture made it dependent on birth'? — 'Clever man', the other replied, 'I saw your chief between the pillars when R. Johanan gave the following traditional ruling: The reason here is because it was written, That are born; elsewhere, however, the child is ascribed to the father'. What, however, of the following statement of Raba. 'If a pregnant gentile woman was converted, there is no need for her son to perform ritual immersion'. Why is there no need for him to perform immersion? Should you reply that it is due to a ruling of R. Isaac; for R. Isaac stated: Pentateuchally [a covering of] the greater part, if one objects to it, constitutes legally an interposition, and if one does not object to, no legal interposition is constituted;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ

^ᵃnote:If Egyptian women were not included in the prohibition to enter the assembly.
^ᵇnote:Entry into the assembly. Egyptian women proselytes being regarded, like Israelites, as an assembly (v. supra n. 12), no Egyptian male proselyte of the first or second generations would ever be permitted to marry them. How then, since he can marry neither a woman of Israel nor a proselyte of his own people, would he ever produce a third generation (v. Deut. XXIII, 9) that would be fit to enter the assembly?
^ᶜnote:A woman in Israel or an Egyptian woman proselyte.
^ᵈnote:In permitting the third generation (v. Deut. XXIII, 9).
^ᵉnote:I.e., of a possibility that a person might transgress and thus produce a generation that will be fit.
^ᶠnote:The assumption of a bastard's birth is dependent on the possibility that someone will commit an offence.
^ᵍnote:Ibid. 3.
^ʰnote:The case of the bastard was stated in order to forbid his entry into the assembly.
^ⁱnote:The third generation may enter (ibid.).
^ʲnote:After she had been married to another man (v. Deut. XXIV, 1ff).
^ᵏnote:The children of such a marriage, as deduced from Deut. XXIV, 4, are eligible. (Kid. 77a and supra 11b).
^ˡnote:The ineligibility of the woman herself. The eligibility of her children is only indirectly arrived at by a deduction.
^ᵐnote:Cf. Deut. XXIII, 9: The sons (E.V., children) that are born … the third generation.
^ⁿnote:Either the one expression or the other should have been used throughout the context.
^ᵒnote:The text reading the 'third son' instead of third generation.
^ᵖnote:Though the son of a proselyte of the first generation.
^ᵠnote:Indicating all the sons of the same generation.
^ʳnote:Reading 'generations that are born'.
^ˢnote:And that Egyptians born three generations later than the date of the promulgation of the Law shall no more be subject to its restrictions.
^ᵗnote:Indicating respectively individual sons in all subsequent generations.
^ᵘnote:ovk Deut. XXIII, 9.
^ᵛnote:From the generation of the proselyte. He represents the first generation; his son, the second; and his grandson, being of the third, is permitted to enter the congregation.
^ʷnote:A second ovk (v. p. 527. n. 18) not translated in E.V.
^ˣnote:Whether the father is an Egyptian proselyte and the mother is of Israel, or whether the mother is an Egyptian and the father is an Israelite. the children are in either case ineligible until the third generation.
^ʸnote:Deut. XXIII. 9.
^ᶻnote:The proselytes themselves not being counted at all in the generations.
^ᵃᵃnote:To indicate that the proselytes themselves are regarded as the first generation.
^ᵃᵇnote:Deut. XXIII, 9.
^ᵃᶜnote:That birth constitutes a new generation:
^ᵃᵈnote:In respect of the Egyptian.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ibid. 3.
^ᵃᶠnote:That the ineligibility of any one of the parents causes the ineligibility of the child. Cf. supra note 2.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lit., 'drop'. One of his parents at least was ineligible.
^ᵃʰnote:His father and mother may have been proper Israelites.
^ᵃⁱnote:Since an Egyptian is permitted after the third generation.
^ᵃʲnote:R. Johanan.
^ᵃᵏnote:Had he been ascribed to her he should have been regarded as belonging to the second generation.
^ᵃˡnote:The child.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. Kid. 69a.
^ᵃⁿnote:Since the child, prior to emancipation, is regarded as a slave.
^ᵃᵒnote:Ex. XXI, 4, indicating that in this particular case, (that of the children of a female slave), the children are ascribed to their mother. This is no proof, however, that in other cases also children are to be ascribed to their mother.
^ᵃᵖnote:Tosef. Kid. V; Sotah 9a; supra 76b.
^ᵃᵠnote:And the child would have been eligible by virtue of his father.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., 'surely'.
^ᵃˢnote:Who recited the Baraitha mentioned.
^ᵃᵗnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᵃᵘnote:Tem. 25a.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit., 'thigh'.
^ᵃʷnote:In case one should be lost, the other would take its place.
^ᵃˣnote:Until it contracts a blemish, when it is redeemed. As the young and its mother spoken of in R. Johanan's statement are regarded as separate beasts, they also would be subject to the same law, and atonement may be made by either.
^ᵃʸnote:Lit., 'thigh'.
^ᵃᶻnote:Which was without child at the time of its dedication.
^ᵇᵃnote:How', then, could R. Johanan state that atonement may be made with either?
^ᵇᵇnote:The ruling about the ascription of the Egyptian child to its mother, reported in the name of R. Johanan.
^ᵇᶜnote:From other cases. While elsewhere the child may be ascribed to its father, in the case spoken of by R. Johanan it is ascribed to the mother.
^ᵇᵈnote:Deut. XXIII, 9.
^ᵇᵉnote:I.e., on its mother.
^ᵇᶠnote:[H] (adj. of [H] or [H] 'head') 'mann von Kopf'. 'Geistreicher' v. Levy.
^ᵇᵍnote:Rabbah who was Abaye's teacher (v. Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l., and cf. Tosaf. 'Er. 22b, s.v. [H]).
^ᵇʰnote:Of the college.
^ᵇⁱnote:Why the children are ascribed to the mother.
^ᵇʲnote:The suggestion was consequently not the result of Abaye's own ingenuity but a mere repetition of what he heard from his Master, Rabbah.
^ᵇᵏnote:Which forms a part of the conversion ceremonial. The immersion that had been performed by his mother exempts him also.
^ᵇˡnote:If the child is elsewhere not regarded as part of its mother.
^ᵇᵐnote:The exemption of the child from the immersion.
^ᵇⁿnote:Of a hair (v. Rashi, Suk. 6b); that prevents it from coming in direct contact with the water.
^ᵇᵒnote:To the object or substance that causes the interposition.
^ᵇᵖnote:And invalidates the immersion.
^ᵇᵠnote:The presence of the interposition, when, e.g., it is necessary for it to remain there.
^ᵇʳnote:'Er. 4b, Nid. 67b. As the embryo must necessarily remain within its mother's body during the period of conception, it cannot possibly object, so to speak, to its mother's interposition.