## Yevamot Daf 78a

###### Yevamot 78a:1
[Yevamot 78a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:1)

מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי בְּמַאי יִטְהַר? דִּלְמָא דְּאִי עֲבַר וּנְסֵיב. ״דְּאִי״ לָא כְּתִיב קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**how could a second-**generation **Egyptian** convert ever **achieve purity,** so that it is permitted for his offspring, the third generation, to enter into the congregation? He may marry neither a Jew nor a female Egyptian convert. The Gemara answers: **Perhaps** it means **that if he transgressed and married** a convert or a Jewish woman, his seed will be purified. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: A case of: **That if, is not written** in the **verse.** In other words, the Bible does not speak of situations that can arise only through the commission of a transgression.


###### Yevamot 78a:2
[Yevamot 78a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:2)

הֲרֵי מַמְזֵר ״דְּאִי״, וְכַתְבֵיהּ קְרָא! ״דְּאִי״ לְאִיסּוּרָא — כְּתַב, ״דְּאִי״ לְהֶיתֵּרָא — לָא כְּתַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **isn’t** there the *halakha* of **a *mamzer*,** which is a case of **that if,** as a *mamzer* is the child of a forbidden union, **and** yet **the verse writes it?** The Gemara answers: A case of **that if** that results in **a prohibition,** the Torah **writes,** but a case of **that if** that leads **to an allowance,** the Torah **does not write.** The Torah teaches the *halakha* of a *mamzer*, whose very existence is the result of his parents having engaged in forbidden relations, in order to render it prohibited for him to enter into the congregation. However, it would not teach the *halakha* of a second-generation Egyptian convert who transgressed and married a woman who was forbidden to him, in order to permit his offspring to enter into the congregation.


###### Yevamot 78a:3
[Yevamot 78a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:3)

הֲרֵי מַחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ, ״דְּאִי״ לְהֶיתֵּרָא וְכַתְבֵיהּ? הָתָם מִשּׁוּם עִיקַּר אִיסּוּרָא הוּא דְּכַתְבֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: But **isn’t** there the *halakha* governing **one who remarries his divorcée** after she had been married to another man? This is a case of **that if** that leads **to an allowance, and** yet the Torah **writes it.** The words “It is an abomination before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 24:4) stated with regard to this case teach that although the woman herself is forbidden to her first husband, if she nevertheless remarried him, their children are fit to enter into the congregation. The Gemara answers: **There,** the Torah **writes** that case **due to the basic prohibition,** i.e., that a man may not remarry his divorced wife after she has been married to another man, and the allowance with regard to their children is learned incidentally.


###### Yevamot 78a:4
[Yevamot 78a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִם נֶאֱמַר ״בָּנִים״, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״דּוֹרוֹת״? וְאִם נֶאֱמַר ״דּוֹרוֹת״, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״בָּנִים״? אִם נֶאֱמַר ״בָּנִים״ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״דּוֹרוֹת״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: בֵּן רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי — אָסוּר, שְׁלִישִׁי — מוּתָּר, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״דּוֹרוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with respect to Egyptian and Edomite converts that “the sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter to them, the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:9). **If it is stated “sons” why is it** also **stated “generation,” and if it is stated “generation” why is it** also **stated “sons”?** One of these terms seems superfluous. The *baraita* explains: **If it** had **stated** only **“sons” and not stated “generation,” I would say** that the prohibition depends on the number of the son, meaning that the **first and second sons** of an Egyptian convert are **forbidden,** whereas the **third** is **permitted. Therefore, it is stated “generation”** to indicate that the prohibition depends not on the number of the son but on his generation.


###### Yevamot 78a:5
[Yevamot 78a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:5)

וְאִם נֶאֱמַר ״דּוֹרוֹת״ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״בָּנִים״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר לְאוֹתָן הָעוֹמְדִים עַל הַר סִינַי, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״בָּנִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if** it had **stated** only **“generation” and not stated “sons,” I would say** that the generations are counted from **those standing on Mount Sinai,** so that any Egyptian born after three generations have passed from the time of the giving of the Torah would be permitted. **Therefore, it is stated “sons”** to indicate that certain sons are prohibited in later generations as well.


###### Yevamot 78a:6
[Yevamot 78a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:6)

״לָהֶם״ — מֵהֶם מְנֵה. ״לָהֶם״ — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר פְּסוּלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse states: “The sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter to them, the congregation of the Lord.” The Sages expounded each of the two instances of the words “to them”: The first mention of **“to them”** teaches that **from them** you should **count.** The count of generations begins with the converts themselves, as they are considered the first generation, and therefore their grandchildren are permitted. The second mention of **“to them”** teaches that you should **follow their disqualification.** If a male Egyptian convert married a Jewish woman, or if a female Egyptian convert married a Jewish man, the *halakha* with regard to the offspring born to them is that although one of the parents is not disqualified from entering into marriage, the status of the child follows the unfit parent, who disqualifies his or her offspring until the third generation.


###### Yevamot 78a:7
[Yevamot 78a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:7)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״לָהֶם״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ״. דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מִבְּנֵיהֶם מְנֵה, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לָהֶם״. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לָהֶם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מִצְרִית מְעוּבֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירָה — הִיא וּבְנָהּ חַד, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And it is necessary to write “to them,” and it is** also **necessary to write “that are born.” As, if the Merciful One had written** only **“that are born,” I would say** that one should **count** the generations **from** the converts’ **sons.** Therefore, **the Merciful One writes “to them”** to teach that the converts themselves are counted as the first generation. **And if the Merciful One had written** only **“to them,” I would say** that in the case of **a pregnant Egyptian** woman **who converted, she and her child,** i.e., the fetus, are considered **one** generation, as the fetus is deemed to be a part of its mother. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes “that are born,”** to indicate that each birth marks a new generation, and accordingly the fetus is regarded as a second-generation Egyptian convert.


###### Yevamot 78a:8
[Yevamot 78a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:8)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״לָהֶם״ הָכָא, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״לוֹ״ גַּבֵּי מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse concerning a *mamzer* states: “A *mamzer* shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation shall none of his [*lo*] enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3). **And it is necessary to write “to them” here,** with regard to an Egyptian convert, to teach that the child’s status follows the disqualified parent in his case, **and it is** also **necessary to write “to him [*lo*]” with regard to a *mamzer*,** to teach that a similar *halakha* applies to a *mamzer*. In the translation of the verse, *lo* is translated as: Of his, i.e., of his ilk. However, *lo* can also be translated as: To him.


###### Yevamot 78a:9
[Yevamot 78a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:9)

דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּבָא מִטִּיפָּה פְּסוּלָה, אֲבָל מַמְזֵר דְּבָא מִטִּיפָּה כְּשֵׁרָה — אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
*Lo* is written with regard to both the Egyptian and the *mamzer*, **as, if the Merciful One had written** it only **here,** with regard to an Egyptian, one might have said that only in this case does the child’s status follow the disqualified parent, **because** the Egyptian **comes from an unfit drop** of semen, that of a gentile. **But** as for **a *mamzer*, who comes from a fit drop** of semen, as his parents were proper Jews despite their grave sin, one might say that there is **no** room for such stringency. Therefore, the Torah teaches that the same *halakha* applies to a *mamzer*.


###### Yevamot 78a:10
[Yevamot 78a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:10)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מַמְזֵר, מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל לְעוֹלָם, אֲבָל הָכָא — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if the Merciful One had written** this stringent *halakha* only **with regard to a *mamzer*,** one might have said that this is because **he is forever unfit to enter into the congregation, but here,** with regard to an Egyptian convert, I might **say** that this is **not** the case. Therefore, both verses are **necessary.**


###### Yevamot 78a:11
[Yevamot 78a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:11)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה — בְּנָהּ שְׁלִישִׁי הָאוֵי. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר בָּתַר דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If **a second-**generation male **Egyptian** convert **married a first-**generation female **Egyptian** convert, **her child is** considered **a third-**generation convert for whom it is permitted to enter the congregation. The Gemara comments: **Apparently** Rabbi Yoḥanan **maintains** that **we assign** the child **to him,** the father, and not to the mother.


###### Yevamot 78a:12
[Yevamot 78a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:12)

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: יְכוֹלִין מַמְזֵרִים לִיטָּהֵר. כֵּיצַד? מַמְזֵר נָשָׂא שִׁפְחָה — הַוָּלָד עֶבֶד. שִׁחְרְרוֹ — נִמְצָא בֶּן חוֹרִין. אַלְמָא בָּתַר דִּידַהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדוֹנֶיהָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raised an objection** from the following mishna (*Kiddushin* 69a): **Rabbi Tarfon says: *Mamzerim* can purify themselves** over the course of the generations. **How so?** If **a *mamzer* married** his non-Jewish **maidservant, the child** born to them is **a slave.** If the slave’s master, the *mamzer* who owns the maidservant, subsequently **freed** the child, **he becomes a free man** and is fit to enter into the congregation. **Apparently we assign** the child **to her,** the mother, and not to the father, as the child is deemed a slave rather than a *mamzer*. The Gemara answers: **It is different there,** in the case of the slave, **as the verse states: “The wife and her children shall be her master’s”** (Exodus 21:4). The words “her children” indicate that the children born to a non-Jewish maidservant are assigned to her.


###### Yevamot 78a:13
[Yevamot 78a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:13)

מֵתִיב רָבָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִנְיָמִין גֵּר מִצְרִי הָיָה לִי חָבֵר מִתַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְאָמַר: אֲנִי מִצְרִי רִאשׁוֹן, וְנָשָׂאתִי מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה, אַשִּׂיא לִבְנֵי מִצְרִית שְׁנִיָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בֶּן בְּנִי רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ — אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹנָה נָמֵי! הָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְתַנָּא: תְּנִי רִאשׁוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection** from a previously mentioned *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda said: Minyamin, an Egyptian convert, was a friend of mine from among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and he said:** Following my conversion **I** was **a first-**generation **Egyptian** convert, **and** so **I married** another **first-**generation **Egyptian** convert. **I will marry off my son,** who is a second-generation Egyptian convert, **to** another **second-**generation **Egyptian** convert, **so that my grandson will be fit to enter into the congregation. Now, if it enters your mind** to say that **we assign** the child **to** the father, **even** if he marries off his son to a **first-**generation Egyptian convert his grandson should be permitted. The Gemara answers: **Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan** already **say to the *tanna*** reciting the *baraita*: You should **teach** that Minyamin sought to marry off his son to **a first-**generation Egyptian convert.


###### Yevamot 78a:14
[Yevamot 78a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:14)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה — בְּנָהּ שֵׁנִי הָוֵי. אַלְמָא בָּתַר אִימֵּיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** just the opposite: If **a second-**generation male **Egyptian** convert **married a first-**generation female **Egyptian** convert, **her son is** considered **a second-**generation convert who is prohibited from entering the congregation. **Apparently,** Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that **we assign** the child **to the mother** and not to the father.


###### Yevamot 78a:15
[Yevamot 78a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְיָלְדָה — רָצָה מִתְכַּפֵּר בָּהּ, רָצָה מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּוְלָדָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: But** what, then, will you say about **that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If **one set aside a pregnant** animal as a **sin-offering, and** the animal later **gave birth** to a female, if **he wishes he may gain atonement with** the mother **itself,** in which case the young is left to graze until it develops a blemish that renders it unfit for sacrifice, whereupon it is sold and the proceeds are used for a gift offering; and if **he wishes he may gain atonement with** the animal’s **young,** and the mother is left to graze until it develops a blemish.


###### Yevamot 78a:16
[Yevamot 78a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:16)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא עוּבָּר לָאו יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא — הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּמַפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת, וְאָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת — מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say** that **a fetus is not** considered **the thigh,** i.e., a part, **of its mother** but rather a separate creature, despite the fact that it is still attached to her, then an individual in this situation **is like one who sets aside two sin-offerings as a guarantee,** i.e., one who, owing to his concern that his sin-offering might become lost, sets aside two animals from the outset with the intention of using whichever one he chooses. **And Rav Oshaya said** with regard to such a case: If **one set aside two sin-offerings as a guarantee,** so that if one is lost he may gain atonement with the other, **he gains atonement with one of them, and the second is left to graze** until it develops a blemish and can be redeemed.


###### Yevamot 78a:17
[Yevamot 78a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:17)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ עוּבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא, הָוֵה לֵיהּ וְלַד חַטָּאת, וּוְלַד חַטָּאת לְמִיתָה אָזֵיל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that **a fetus is** considered **the thigh of its mother** and is regarded as part of her, **it is the young of a sin-offering, and the young of a sin-offering goes to** its **death.** Such an animal is not left to graze. Rather, it is put into isolation and caused to die, as it has been sanctified as a sin-offering through its mother but cannot be sacrificed on the altar and used to gain atonement. In summary, it would appear that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself maintains that a fetus is not considered a part of its mother. Why, then, in the case of the Egyptian convert is the child assigned to the mother and not to the father?


###### Yevamot 78a:18
[Yevamot 78a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:18)

אִישְׁתִּיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ״, הַכָּתוּב תְּלָאוֹ בְּלֵידָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קַרְקַפְנָא, חֲזֵיתֵיהּ לְרֵישָׁךְ בֵּינֵי עַמּוּדֵי כִּי אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Dimi **was silent,** momentarily unable to find an answer. Abaye **said to him: Perhaps it is different there,** with regard to Egyptian converts, **as it is written** with regard to them: “The sons of the third generation **that are born to them** may enter to them, the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:9), indicating that **the verse made** their prohibition **dependent on birth,** and therefore the child of Egyptian converts is assigned to the mother. Rav Dimi **said to him:** Man of great **skull,** i.e., man of distinction, **I saw your head between the pillars** of the study hall **when Rabbi Yoḥanan taught this *halakha*.** In other words, you grasped the meaning as though you were actually present in the study hall and heard the statement from Rabbi Yoḥanan himself.


###### Yevamot 78a:19
[Yevamot 78a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:19)

טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ״, הָא בְּעָלְמָא — בָּתַר אֲבוּהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: גּוֹיָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירָה — בְּנָהּ אֵין צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה, אַמַּאי אֵין צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara draws an inference: **The reason** that the child is assigned to its Egyptian mother is **that it is written: “That are born** to them.” **But generally,** with regard to others for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation, **we assign** the child **to the father.** The Gemara asks: **But** what about **that which Rava said:** If **a pregnant gentile** woman **converted,** then **her son,** who was a fetus at the time of the conversion, **does not require immersion** after he is born. But if the child is not assigned to its mother, **why should he not require immersion?**


###### Yevamot 78a:20
[Yevamot 78a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/78a:20)

וְכִי תֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, רוּבּוֹ וּמַקְפִּיד עָלָיו — חוֹצֵץ, רוּבּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד עָלָיו — אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that this is **because of** a statement of **Rabbi Yitzḥak,** there is still a difficulty. **As Rabbi Yitzḥak said: By Torah law,** if some substance is found on a person’s body during immersion, and it covers **the majority** of **his** body, **and he is particular** and wants the substance removed, only then **is it** considered **an interposition** that invalidates immersion in a ritual bath. If, however, the substance covers **the majority** of **his** body, but **he is not particular about** that substance, **it is not** considered **an interposition.** Accordingly, it may be argued that although the fetus is covered by its mother, since it is not particular about this necessary covering, the fetus itself is regarded as having undergone valid immersion.