1)

(a)Rebbi Yosi rules in a Beraisa that the child of a Ger who marries a Mamzeres is a Mamzer. In his opinion the Torah nevertheless permits such a union l'Chatchilah.

(b)When Reish Lakish queried this Beraisa from the principle in our Mishnah 'Kol Makom she'Yesh Kidushin v'Ein Aveirah, ha'Vlad Holech Achar ha'Zachar' (in which case the child ought to have the status of a Ger), Rebbi Yochanan replied that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that a Ger is forbidden to marry a Mamzeres.

(c)The Tana of our Mishnah does not find it necessary to include it in the list of 'Kol Makom she'Yesh Kidushin v'Yesh Aveirah, ha'Vlad Holech Achar ha'Pagum' because it is included it in the words 'Kol Makom'.

(d)In an alternative answer, Rebbi Yochanan even reconciles Rebbi Yosi with our Mishnah by pointing out that it is precluded via the Klal 've'Eizo Zu' (implying that there are exceptions).

2)

(a)'ve'Eizo Zu' in our Mishnah precludes all other cases not mentioned in our Mishnah (or so we currently think), yet the Tana omits the case of a Chalal who married a bas Yisrael (about whom the Tana will later rule 'bas Chalal Zachar Pesulah li'Kehunah') because the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Dustai ben Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'Benos Yisrael Mikvah Taharah la'Chalalin' (in disagreement with the Tana later).

(b)The child of a Yisrael who married a Chalalah (whose union the Torah permits) goes after his father (and is Kosher li'Kehunah).

(c)The Tana does not insert it because it is included in 'Kol Makom'.

(d)The Tana does not insert it explicitly because it would not fit smoothly into the Lashon, seeing as 'Kohenes, Leviyah Yisre'elis v'Chalalah she'Nises l'Kohen, Leviyah v'Yisrael' would imply that the Chalalah is permitted to the Kohen too. Note; see Tosfos DH 've'Nisnayah'.

3)

(a)According to Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, the child of a Mitzri Sheni who marries a Mitzris Rishonah goes after the father. The Derashah "Asher Yavo la'Hem" ('la'Hem Halach Achar Pesulan') pertains specifically to where a Mitzri was married to a Yisre'elis or vice-versa.

(b)Rav Dimi says that the child of a Mitzri Sheni who marries a Mitzris Rishonah goes after the mother (because the Torah writes "Asher Yivaldu la'Hem").

(c)According to Rabah bar bar Chanah, the Tana does not insert this case in the Mishnah because it is included in 'Kol Makom ... '.

(d)We reconcile Rav Dimi with the Klal in our Mishnah 'Kol Makom she'Yesh Kidushin v'Ein Aveirah, ha'Vlad Holech Achar ha'Zachar' by pointing to the Klal 've'Eizo Zu' (which allows for exceptions).

4)

(a)Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan says regarding a Nochri couple where the man and the woman have different nationalities that the children that they bore ...

1. ... before they converted go after the father.

2. ... after they converted go after the Pagum.

(b)To reconcile this latter statement with the principle 'Kol she'Yesh Kidushin v'Ein Aveirah, Halach Achar ha'Zachar' we exclude it from 've'Eizo Zu'.

(c)We cannot ask why Ravin's first statement is not inserted in the Reisha because our Mishnah speaks when the Kidushin is valid, whereas by Nochrim, they is not.

5)

(a)Both according to Rebbi Yehudah (who holds that a Ger is forbidden to marry a Mamzeres) and Rebbi Yosi (who permits it), 'Kol Makom' in the Reishah comes to include Yisrael she'Nasa Chalalah and perhaps Mitzri Sheni she'Nasa Mitzris Rishonah (like Rabah bar bar Chanah); and 've'Eizo Zu' comes to preclude 'Nisgayru, Halach Achar ha'Pagum' (Ravin) and possibly Mitzri Sheni she'Nasa Mitzris Rishonah (like Rav Dimi). We ask 'Kol Makom d'Seifa la'Asuyei Mai' on Rebbi Yosi, because (seeing as according to him, Ger she'Nasa Mamzeres is a case of Yesh Kidushin v'Ein Aveirah, which belongs in the Reisha), it does not come to include anything.

(b)We counter this from the Seifa d'Seifa 've'Eizo Zu', which, according to Rebbi Yehudah, does not come to peclude anything either (seeing as Ger she'Nasa Mamzeres is included in 'Kol Makom' in the Reisha).

(c)We answer the Seifa d'Seifa, and subsequently the Reisha d'Seifa by explaining that the Tana mentions each one to balance the equivalent Klal in the Reisha (so it does not matter if they don't come to teach us anything).

6)

(a)Regarding the Klal of Rabah bar bar Chanah that we cited earlier 'be'Umos Halach Achar ha'Zachar', the Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "v'Gam mi'Bnei ha'Toshavim ha'Garim Imachem Meihem Tiknu" (despite the Pasuk in Shoftim [Devarim] written in connection with the Kena'anim in general "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah")- that even children that are born to Kena'ani women from men from other nationalities are not subject to "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah".

2. ... Asher Holidu b'Artzechem" that this concession does not extend to Kena'ani men who bore children from Shefachos of other nationalities.

(b)'Kena'anim' in this context incorporates any members of the seven nations who live in Eretz Kena'an.

(c)"Asher Holidu b'Artzechem" 've'Lo min ha'Garim Artzechem' refers to the children of Kena'ani men who bore children in other countries and who come to visit their fathers in Eretz Kena'an.

(d)'Nisgayru, Halach Achar ha'Pagum she'bi'Sheneihem'. Until now, we have been talking about the Din of retaining the children of Kena'anim as Avadim. Now we are talking about Yuchsin, not of Kena'anim, but when one of the parents is an Amoni or a Mo'avi, and the other, a Mitzri or an Edomi.

7)

(a)The latter Halachah cannot be referring to the children of a Mitzri who married an Amonis because 'Pagum she'bi'Sheneihem' implies that each parent has a stringency that the other one does not have, whereas in this case, the Amonis does not have any such stringency.

(b)It therefore refers to an Amoni who married a Mitzris.

(c)The stringency of ...

1. ... the Amoni over the Mitzris is that he is forbidden forever.

2. ... the Mitzris have over the Amoni is that a female is forbidden too.

8)

(a)We learn ...

1. ... initially from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "v'Yatz'ah mi'Beiso v'Halchah v'Hayesah l'Ish Acher" "Acher" 've'Lo li'Kerovim' (that Kidushin does not take effect on close relations).

2. ... from the Pasuk there "Lo Yikach Ish ... v'Lo Yigaleh Kenaf Aviv ... Lo Yavo Mamzer" that a child born from a union for which one is Chayav Kares, is a Mamzer.

(b)We suggest that perhaps "l'Ish Acher" comes to preclude her husband's son (but nobody else) refuting the counter-argument that we already have the Pasuk "Lo Yikach Ish Es Eshes Aviv", by establishing the latter by l'Chatchilah (prohibiting the marriage, but not invalidating it should it take place).

(c)We reject this suggestion on the basis of the Pasuk "v'Ishah El Achosah Lo Sikach" which teaches us that the Kidushin is not valid by Achos Ishah (for which one is Chayav Kares), 'Kal va'Chomer' Eshes Aviv (which is Chayav Miysas Beis-Din).

(d)So we establish the two Pesukim (" ... Lo Sikach" and " ... l'Ish Acher") by Achos Ishah, the former, forbidding the Kidushin l'Chatchilah, the latter, rendering it invalid b'Di'eved.

9)

(a)The problem in learning from Achos Ishah that Kidushin is not effective ...

1. ... by Eshes Ach is that the latter has a leniency, inasmuch as there is a Heter to marry her by the Mitzvah of Yibum.

2. ... by Eshes Ish is that the latter has a leniency inasmuch as there is a Heter to marry her in the lifetime of the one who forbade her (by means of a Get).

(b)Rebbi Yonah (or Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua) ultimately learns that Kidushin are not effective by all the Arayos from Achos Ishto by means of a Hekesh ("Kol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'Tei'avos ha'Eil v'Nichresah").

10)

(a)Abaye rules that a baby that is born from a man who had relations with a Nidah and a Sotah is not a Mamzer.

(b)Chizkiyah learns it from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "va'T'hi Nidasah Alav" which suggests that even whilst the woman is a Nidah, the child is not a Mamzer.

(c)R. Yonah now establishes the source for all Chayavei Kerisus as Achos Ishto (by whom Kidushin do not take effect and whose union produces Mamzerim), and not from Nidah (by whom Kidushin does take effect and whose union does not produce Mamzerim) by virtue of the princple 'Kula v'Chumra, l'Chumra Makshinan'.