Question: According to R. Akiva why was it forbidden to marry Kusim?

Answer: They did Yibum only for a widow from Erusin. If she was widowed from Nisu'in, they exempted her from Yibum and Chalitzah.

Question: Why did they do so?

Answer: They expounded "the widow Chutzah (outside) will not be (married) to a stranger", but a widow who was inside, i.e. had Nisu'in, may marry a stranger.

R. Akiva holds that Mamzerim result from Bi'ah of Chayavei Lavin (such as "the widow will not be (married) to a stranger").

Continuation of Answer #3 (Ravin): Some say that Chachamim decreed not to marry Kusim because they are not proficient in the fine points of Mitzvos.

Question: Like whom is this opinion?

Answer (Rav Idi bar Avin): It is like R. Eliezer.

(Beraisa): The Matzah of Kusim is permitted. One who eats it on the first night of Pesach fulfils the Mitzvah;

R. Eliezer forbids it, because they are not fluent in the fine points of Mitzvos;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, the Mitzvos Kusim are established to keep, they are more meticulous in them than Yisrael.

Question: Why can we not marry Kusim, just because they are not fluent in the fine points of Mitzvos?

Answer: They err about Kidushin and divorce.

Answer #4 (Rav Nachman): A Mamzer who resulting from siblings, and a Mamzer who resulted from a man who married his brother's wife, intermarried with the Kusim (so there are Mamzerim among them).

Question: Why did Rav Nachman need to say how they became Mamzerim?

Answer: He teaches that Chayavei Kerisus produce Mamzerim.

Question: Why did he need to give two examples?

Answer: The case was, two such Mamzerim intermarried with them.

Answer #5 (Rava): A male slave and a female slave intermarried with the Kusim.

Question: The lineage problem is solely due to the female slave. Why did he mention the male slave?

Answer: He described the case like it was.

(Mishnah): If one wants to marry a Bas Kohen, he must check the lineage of four of her maternal ancestors, and also their mothers, making eight in all:

Her mother; the mother of the father of her mother; her father's mother; the mother of her father's father; and the mothers of these four women.

If one wants to marry a Bas Levi or Bas Yisrael, he must check all these and an additional mother.

One need not check ancestors of one (a Kohen) who offered Kodshim on the Mizbe'ach, or one (a Levi) who sang on the Duchan in the Mikdash, or a one who was on the Sanhedrin;

If a woman's ancestors were judges or collectors of Tzedakah, a Kohen may marry her without checking them;

Rebbi Yosi says, even one who was listed among potential judges of Tzipori need not be checked.

R. Chanina ben Antigonus says, even one who was listed among the king's soldiers.

(Gemara) Question: Why do we check only mothers, and not fathers?

Answer: When women quarrel, they insult each other about immorality. Lineage problems are not exposed. When men quarrel, they insult each other with lineage problems. Any problems would be common knowledge.

Question: Why does a woman not need to check the ancestors of the man she marries?

Answer: This supports Rav, who said that women (Kohanos) are not forbidden to marry (Kohanim) Pesulim. (Rashi - therefore, Chachamim were lenient not to make them check for Mamzerus; Tosfos - the whole checking was due to (Isurei) Kehunah. Chachamim extended the enactment to all men. Since Kohanos need not worry about disqualified Kohanim, no woman need check.)

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Checking the four mothers entails checking 12 women;

(Beraisa): Checking the four mothers entails checking 16 women.

Question: Granted, Rav Ada discusses a Bas Levi or Bas Yisrael. One mother is added to each of the four (that mother's grandmother);

How does the Beraisa find 16?

Answer: The Mishnah says 'we add an additional mother', i.e. an additional pair of mothers (that mother's grandmother and great grandmother).

(Rav Yehudah citing Rav): Our Mishnah is like R. Meir, but Chachamim say that all families are assumed to be of proper lineage.

Version #1 - Question: Rav Chama bar Gurya cited Rav to say that the Mishnah is only when someone claimed that there is a problem!

Answer: The Amora'im argue about Rav's opinion.

Version #2 (Rav Chama bar Gurya citing Rav): If someone claims that there is a problem, we must check her ancestors (even according to Chachamim).

(Mishnah): One need not check ancestors of one who offered Kodshim on the Mizbe'ach.

This is because no Kohen can serve before he is checked.

(Mishnah): Or one who sang on the Duchan in the Mikdash.

The Sanhedrin would also check Leviyim before letting them on the Duchan.

(Mishnah): Or one who was on the Sanhedrin.

(Rav Yosef): Just like one must be clean of sin to sit on the Sanhedrin, he must be clean of any blemish (in lineage).

(Mereimar): We learn from "my beloved, you are totally beautiful, there is no blemish in you."

Suggestion: Perhaps that refers to physical blemishes!

Answer (R. Acha bar Yakov): "(the Sanhedrin) will stand with you (Moshe)" - they must be like you, i.e. of good lineage.

Question: Perhaps that was only in Moshe's day, so they would be fitting for the Divine Presence to rest on them!

Answer (Rav Nachman): "(The judges of tens, fifties...) will bear with you" - they must be (of good lineage) like Moshe.

(Mishnah): If a woman's ancestors were judges (a Kohen need not check).

Inference: This implies that (all) judges must have proper lineage.

Contradiction (Mishnah): Everyone is fit to judge monetary cases; not everyone is fit to judge capital cases.

Question: Whom does 'everyone' come to include?

Answer (Rav Yehudah): It includes a Mamzer.

Answer (Abaye): The Mishnah discusses in Yerushalayim, where they would only appoint judges of good lineage.

(Mishnah): Or collectors of Tzedakah.

This is because they quarrel with people. We may take securities for money that people must give to Tzedakah, even on Erev Shabbos;

If there were any lineage problems, they would be known.

Rav Ada bar Ahavah's innkeeper was a convert. He was fighting with Rav Bivi, for each wanted to be head of the city.

(Rav Yosef): "You will put on yourselves a king from amidst your brothers" - all appointments must be from your close brothers (this excludes converts).

Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Does that even exclude a son of a convert and a Bas Yisrael?

Rav Yosef: No. Such a convert is considered your close brother. Therefore, Rav Bivi, a great Chacham, will govern spiritual affairs; and the innkeeper will direct municipal affairs.

Abaye: One who hosts Chachamim in his inn should host someone like Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who knows how to argue for his host.

Rav Zeira and Rabah bar Avuha would give authority to such converts.

In Eretz Yisrael, they would not be appointed even over the measures. In Neharda'a, they would not be appointed even over division of usage of wells.

(Mishnah - Rebbi Yosi): Even one who was listed among potential judges of Tzipori need not be checked.

This is because they would check someone before putting him on the list.

(Mishnah - R. Chanina ben Antigonus): Even one who was listed among the king's soldiers.

(Rav Yehudah): This refers to David's soldiers.

(Rav Yosef): We learn from "of known lineage in the army".

Question: Why was David insistent that his soldiers have good lineage?

Answer: It is so that their merit and their ancestors' merit will aid them.

Question: Tzelek ha'Amoni was in David's army!

Suggestion: He was a convert from Amon!

Answer: No, he (was a Ben Yisrael, and) merely lived in Amon.

Question: Uriyah ha'Chiti was in David's army!

Suggestion: He was a convert from Ches!

Answer: No, he (originally) lived in Ches.

Question #1: Iti ha'Giti was in David's army!

Suggestion: Perhaps he merely lived in Gas.

Rejection: Rav Nachman taught that Iti ha'Giti was Mevatel (nullified) the idol of Amon (only a Nochri can Mevatel idolatry).

Question #2: Rav Yehudah taught that David's army had 400 children from Yefos To'ar (beautiful Nochriyos taken in war). They would grow ponytails (like Nochrim) and ride in gold wagons at the head of the troops. They were the muscle of David's house.

Answer to both questions: They were merely to scare the enemy (but they did not fight).