Question: What does the Gemara mean when it states that they learned it from Almanah le'Kohen Gadol? - bearing in mind that in Yevamos (Daf 68a), the Gemara basically learns it from the Pasuk "Ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar" (Vayikra 22) - that when she had relations with a man who is Passul, he renders her Pasul?

Answer: The Gemara means that one should not ask from 'Kohen Gadol be'Almanah', because we can learn from there ... , each one according to his opinion, as the Gemara goes on to explain.

Precedent: And that is also how we have to explain the Gemara at the beginning of Nidah (Daf 3a) when it says that 'Both of them only learned it from Sotah'.

Question: What does 've'Chulan' mean?

Answer #1: Rashi explains that all those who are forbidden, are permitted to one another.

Question: The Ri queries that however, in that does the Mishnah says 'Kol ha'Asurin'?

Answer #2: The Ri therefore explains that each P'sul is permitted to marry its own 'species' (See Rashash) - as opposed to Rebbi Elazar, who maintains that 'S'feikan bi'S'feikan, Asur'.

Answer #3: One can also answer that they are permitted to marry one another - as the Mishnah explains.

Halachah: And it seems that the Halachah is like Rebbi Elazar ...

Reason #1: ... since Rav Paskens like him, and the Halachah is like Rav against Shmuel (Bechoros, Daf 49b).

Reason #2: Moreover, Rav too, holds like Rebbi Elazar, in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos, Daf 37a) in the Sugya of 'Safek ben Tishah le'Rishon, u'Ben Shiv'ah le'Acharon' - and the Halachah is like Rava.

Question: How can the Gemara ask 'Why?' when Rebbi Elazar himself says in our Mishnah 'S'feikan bi'Sefeikan, Asur', and 'Kuti' is one of the S'feikos stated in the Mishnah?

Answer: The Ram explains that - if they are both Mamzerim, then it is completely Mutar ...

Answer (cont.): ... and even if one of them is a Mamzer and the other, not, he/she is nevertheless a Ger, and a Ger may marry a Mamzeres ...

Answer (concl.): Consequently, this is not comparable to the other S'feikos in the Mishnah - a Sh'tuki and an Asufi.

Problem: Rashi deals at length with this Sugya, but his explanation requires further explanation; What exactly is the Isur?

Explanation #1: We must say that it is based on the suspicion that perhaps a Mamzer from a Yisrael will marry a Kutis who is a complete Nochris ...

Reason: ... since she was born to a Kuti and a Kutis, rendering her a proper Nochris, seeing as the Kutim are Geirei Arayos ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): It therefore transpires that a Mamzer is marrying a Nochris.

Question: But why does the Gemara need to say that he holds 'Oved-Kochavim ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael ha'Velad Mamzer? - Why not say that the V'lad is Kasher, in which case there is even more reason for her not to marry a Nochri? (See Maharsha).

Answer #1: Perhaps one can say that if the child would be Kasher, he would go after the Nochri, as the Gemara said at the end of the previous Perek (on Daf 68b), and we would therefore not be so concerned that she may marry a Nochri ...

Answer #1 (cont.): ... but now that he holds that he is a Mamzer, it means that we go after the mother, and we need to be more concerned that she should not marry a Nochri.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Rebbi Elazar must hold that the child is a Mamzer. seeing as he reckons a Kuti in our Mishnah together with the other S'feikos, which means that she is a Safek Mamzeres.

Question: There is a Kashya however, on Rashi - who implies that under no circumstances, may a Kuti marry a Kutis ...

Question (cont.): ... whereas according to his explanation, in the event that they become full-fledged Geirim, there is no reason for any concern, seeing as a Ger may marry a Mamzeres?

Explanation #2: Therefore the Ri explains that, not only did B'nos Yisrael intermarry with them, but so did B'nei Yisrael ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and since he holds 'Oved-Kochavim ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael ha'Velad Mamzer', one can suspect that one of them is a proper Yisrael, who was born to a Yisrael and a Yisre'elis, whereas the other one is a Mamzer, born to a Nochri she had relations with a bas Yisrael.

Question: Where does Rebbi Akiva say 'Oved-Kochavim ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael, ha'Velad Mamzer'? ...

Question (cont.): ... We will not find it anywhere - only because he says in Yevamos (Daf 49a) 'Yesh Mamzer me'Chayvei La'avin' ...

Question (cont.): 'bi'Shelama' by Eved there is the La'av of "Lo Sih'yeh Kedeishah" (Devarim, 23), but where do we find a La'av by the Bi'ah of a Nochri ...

Question (concl.): On the contrary, it is the beis-Din of Shem who decreed on him, as the Pasuk writes (in Bereishis, 38) "Take her (Tamar) out and she shall be burned!"?

Refuted Answer #1: Nor is it a S'vara to say that at least there is an Asei - from the Pasuk "Take her out and she shall be burned!" (See Avodah Zarah 36b) ...

Refuted Answer #1 (cont.): ... like Rebbi Yesheivav (above, Daf 65a) - 'Rebbi Akiva declared a Mamzer from all cases - even from Chayvei Asei' ...

Refutation: ... since it is not logical to say that it goes (exclusively) according to Rebbi Yeshavav, since the Gemara does not say that it does.

Refuted Answer #2: Nor can we learn it from the Pasuk (in Devarim 7) "Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son" ...

Refutation: Since that is a warning against Kidushin taking effect, not against forbidden relations.

Answer: We are therefore forced to say that, since Kidushin does not take effect, the child is a Mamzer, because the two Dinim are interdependent, as Tosfos explained at the end of Perek ha'Omer (above, on Daf 67b).

Question: The Gemara ought to have said according to Rebbi Akiva that it must be similar to Anusas Aviv - inasmuch as Kidushin is not effective with regard to him, but it is regarding others ...

Source: Seeing as Rebbi Akiva learns 'Yesh Mamzer me'Chayvei La'avin' from Anusas Aviv - at the end of Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos Daf 49a), where he establishes the Pasuk "Lo Yegaleh K'naf Aviv" (Devarim 23) by Anusas Aviv ...

Question (cont.): ... in which case, he should have said that the child is only a Mamzer if it is similar o Anusas Aviv? ...

Precedent: Like we say according to the other Tana'im, who establish the Pasuk by Eishes Av - that it must be similar to Eishes Av, on whom Kidushin is not effective, but it is on somebody else.

Answer: Rebbi Akiva cannot require similar to Anusas Aviv, since he holds that there is a Mamzer from Chayvei La'avin, even if it is not one of She'er (connected with family relationships) - such as an Amoni and a Mo'avi (Yevamos 45b) ...

Answer (cont.): ... which are not similar to Anusas Aviv, which is a La'av of She'er ...

Answer (concl.): ... whereas the Rabbanan require it to be similar to Anusas Aviv in all regards (See Tosfos Yevamos, 16b DH 'Kasavar').

Question: There is a Kashya Rebbi Yochanan on Rebbi Yochanan, who says in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos, Daf 44a) that 'Oved-Kochavim ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael, ha'V'lad Mamzer; so why do we need "Almanah u'Gerushah"? If the child is a Mamzer, he (the Kohen Gadol) certainly renders Pasul with his Bi'ah?

Explanation #1: The Ri answers that Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Yishmael requires "Almanah u'Gerushah" that is according to his Rebbe, but he himself does not hold like him.

Explanation #2: Whereas Rebbi Shimshon from Coucy explains that the two Dinim are not interdependent; the child can be a Mamzer, yet he does not render Pasul with his Bi'ah ...

Proof: ... because otherwise in Perek Almanah le'Kohen Gadol (Ibid., Daf 69a) when the Gemara queries Rebbi Akiva who says that 'Kidushin is not effective on Chayvei La'avin, and when the Pasuk says "Ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar", it means 'when he has relations ... ', why do we then need "Almanah u'Gerushah"? ...

Proof (cont.): ... It is no problem according to the other Tana'aim who say that Kidushin are effective on Chayvei La'avin, and who Darshen "Ki Sih'yeh ... " to mean that - if a woman has relations with someone who is Pasul to her on whom Kidushin is Tofeis, that he renders her Pasul to the Kehunah ...

Proof (cont.): ... but that a Nochri and an Eved, on whom Kidushin is not effective, we do not learn from this Pasuk.

Proof (cont.): According to them, we need "Almanah u'Gerushah" to teach us 'Oved-Kochavim ve'Eved ... ' as the Gemara explains here according to Rebbi Yishmael ...

Proof (concl.): ... but according to Rebbi Akiva, who says that Kidushin does not take effect on Chayvei La'avin, and he Darshens "Ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar" to mean that he has relations with an Ish Zar', and that Oved-Kochavim and Eved are the same as any other Pasul - in that case, why do we need "Almanah u'Gerushah"?

Explanation #2 (cont): Now the Kashya Rebbi Yochanan on Rebbi Yochanan falls away ...

Explanation #2 (cont): ... because even though he holds like Rebbi Akiva by Oved-Kochavim and Eved that the child is a Mamzer, he does not hold like him by other Chayvei La'avin, and he Darshens "Ki Sih'yeh" - that Kidushin is effective like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... in which case he needs "Al manah u'Gerushah" for Oved-Kochavim and Eved.

Question: The Lashon however, is a little difficult - since it says 'Hashta Mamzer havi', when it ought to have said 'Almanah u'Gerushah Lamah li?' - like it says in Perek Almanah (Ibid. Daf 69a).

Answer: This is how one must explain it: 'Hashta Mamzer havi' - by Oved-Kochavim and Eved just like by other Pesulim, 'she'Yifsol be'Bi'aso Miba'i?' - just like other Pesulim, which are all included in 'Ki Siba'el' ...

Answer (cont.): ... in which case why do we need "Almanah u'Gerushah", since we already know it from 'Ki Siba'el'?

Explanation #3: Whereas Rebbi Shlomoh from Troyes explains like this: 'Now that he is a Mamzer' - by Akum - his Bi'ah is a Bi'ah, not like the Bi'ah of an animal, where the child is not a Mamzer ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): ... 'does it need to mention that he renders Pasul with his Bi'ah' - like other Pesulin?

Clarification: In that case, Rebbi Elazar cannot hold like Rebbi Akiva.

Implied Question: Even though there is a Tana there (Daf 44b) who holds 'Oved-Kochavim ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael ha'Velad Mamzer', he does not hold like Rebbi Akiva who says 'Ein Kidushin Tofsin be'Chayvei La'avin' ...

Answer: Neverheless, the Lashon used here 'she'Ein Mamzer Ela me'Isur Ervah' implies specifically from them, and that Oved-Kochavim ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael, Ein ha'Velad Mamzer.

Introduction to Implied Question: Earlier, when the Gemara asked 'Does he (Rebbi Yishmael) really hold like Rebbi Akiva? But did Rebbi Yochanan not say in the name of Rebbi Yishmael ... '?

Implied Question: ... it could have answered that, even though Rebbi Yishmael does not hold like Rebbi Akiva concerning 'Yesh Mamzer me'Chayvei La'avin', he may still well hold that 'Oved-Kochavim ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael, ha'Velad Mamzer'.

Answer: ... and the reason that it doesn't is - because , since Rebbi Elazar doesn't hold 'Oved-Kochavim ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael, ha'Velad Mamzer', it doesn't bother to answer Rebbi Yishmael in this way ...

Reason: ... bearing in mind that it only cited Rebbi Yishmael in support of the opinion of Rebbi Elazar.