R. Yochanan: Had R. Yehudah not said that the verse ascribes to birth (so females are forbidden) he would not have been able to defend himself!

R. Yehudah holds that converts are part of Kehal Hash-m. If a Mitzris is permitted, whom may a Mitzri Sheni marry to permit his children?!

Suggestion #1: Perhaps the Torah teaches that b'Di'eved, if he married, his children are permitted!

Rejection: The Torah does not discuss a b'Di'eved case.

Question: Mamzerim are b'Di'eved, and the Torah discusses them!

Answer: The Torah teaches Isurim that come b'Di'eved, but not leniencies.

Question: The Torah teaches that a child of Machazir Gerushaso (after she was married in between) is Kosher!

Answer: Primarily, the Torah wrote her Isur. We infer from it that her children are Kosher.

(Beraisa) Question: Why did the Torah need to mention both "children" and "generations"?

Answer: Had it said only "Banim", one might have thought that the first two children of a Mitzri are forbidden, and the third is permitted;

Had the Torah said only "Dor Shelishi", one might have thought that the Torah permits the third generation of Yisraelim born after Matan Torah to marry (any generation of converted) Mitzriyim.

"Lahem" - we count generations from them. "Lahem" - we follow whichever [parent] is disqualified. (It says "Lahem" twice.)

The Torah needed to write both "Lahem" and "Who will be born":

Had it said only "Who will be born", we would think to count three generations starting with their children;

Had it said only "Lahem", we would think that if a pregnant Mitzris converted, her son is also a Mitzri Rishon. Therefore, it says "that will be born" to teach that he is a Sheni.

The Torah needed to write "Lahem" regarding Mitzriyim and also "Lo" regarding Mamzerim:

Had it said only "Lahem" regarding Mitzriyim (to forbid a child if either parent is a Mitzri), we would think that this is because Mitzriyim come from improper seed (i.e. of Nochrim, but this does not apply to Mamzerim);

Had it said only "Lo" by Mamzerim (to forbid a child if either parent is a Mamzer), we would think that this is because all generations are forbidden (but we are not so stringent about Mitzriyim).

(Rabah bar bar Chanah, citing R. Yochanan): If a Mitzri Sheni married a Mitzris Rishonah, the child is a Shelishi.

This shows that we follow the father.

Question (Rav Yosef - Mishnah - R. Tarfon): Mamzerim can purify their seed: If a Mamzer marries a slave, the child is a slave. If he frees the child, the child is permitted.

This shows that we follow the mother!

Answer: There is different, for it says "the woman (slave) and her children will be to her master."

Question (Rava - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Minyamin was a Mitzri Rishon. He married a Mitzris Rishonah, and planned to marry his son to a Mitzris Sheniyah, in order to permit grandchildren.

If we follow the father, he could even marry his son to a Mitzris Rishonah!

Answer: Indeed, R. Yochanan said the correct text says that he will marry him to a Rishonah.

(Rav Dimi, citing R. Yochanan): If a Mitzri Sheni married a Mitzris Rishonah, the child is a Sheni.

This shows that we follow the mother.

Question (Abaye): R. Yochanan taught that if a man designated a pregnant animal for his Chatas, and it gave birth, he may atone with the mother or the child.

Granted, if a fetus is not considered a limb of the mother, it is as if he set aside two animals for Acharayos (in case one cannot be offered, he will offer the other);

R. Oshaya said that in such a case he may atone with either one, and the other grazes (is permitted).

However, if a fetus is like a limb of the mother, when it is born we apply to it the law of a child of a Chatas, and it must die (it cannot be offered)!

Rav Dimi was silent (presumably, we follow the mother only if the fetus is like a limb of her).

Answer (Abaye): (Really, R. Yochanan holds that a fetus is not a limb of the mother.) Perhaps the law of Mitzriyim is different - "That will be born" teaches that it depends on birth.

Rav Dimi: I saw your Rebbi (Rabah) there when R. Yochanan gave this explanation (surely, you heard from him)! Had the Torah not ascribed the Isur to birth, we would follow the father, like the norm.

Question: Rava said that if a (pregnant) Nochris converted, her child need not immerse. Why not (if we normally follow the father)?

Suggestion: It is due to R. Yitzchak's law.

(R. Yitzchak): Mid'Oraisa, a Chatzitzah (interruption) invalidates Tevilah only if it covers most of the body, and it the person is particular about it. (The fetus does not mind that his mother surrounds him, so her Tevilah is also Tevilah of the fetus.)

Rejection: Rav Kahana taught that this is when the Chatzitzah covers a majority, but if the entire body is covered, the Tevilah is invalid!

Answer: A fetus is different. Since he grows in his mother, she is not a Chatzitzah.

(Ravina citing R. Yochanan): For Nochrim (to decide which nation they are), we follow the father. After conversion, we follow Pesulim in either parent.

For Nochrim we follow the father, like a Beraisa teaches:

(Beraisa) - Question: What is the source that if a Nochri fathered a child from a Kena'anis (of the seven nations), that the child may be bought for a slave (he need not be killed)?

Answer: "Also from the children of the residents that live with you, from them you may buy slaves."

Suggestion: Perhaps this even applies to a Kena'ani who had a child from a Nochris?

Rejection: "Asher Holidu b'Artzechem" - those born (to mothers) in your land, not from those (fathered by Kena'anim from Nochriyos) who came to live in your land.

Question: Ravina taught that after conversion, we follow Pesulim in either parent. What is the case?

If a Mitzri married an Amonis, there is no problem with her. An Amoni is Asur, but not an Amonis!

Answer: Rather, an Amoni married a Mitzris;

If the child is a boy, we consider him an Amoni. If the child is a girl we consider her a Mitzris.

(Mishnah): Mamzerim and Nesinim are forbidden forever, both males and females.

(Gemara - Reish Lakish): A Mamzeres is permitted after 10 generations.

He learns from a Gezeirah Shavah "Asiri-Asiri" from Amoni and Mo'avi. Just like there, females are permitted, also here.

Objection: There, females are permitted immediately. He should learn the same to Mamzerim!

Answer: (The verse explicitly forbids Mamzerim (of both genders) until 10 generations.) The Gezeirah Shavah teaches that the Isur is permanent. We do not forbid more than the source, i.e. males.

Question (Mishnah): Mamzerim and Nesinim are forbidden forever, both males and females.

Answer: Reish Lakish holds like the Tana who says Dun Minah u'Minah (we learn all laws of the case being learned from the source. Amoni teaches that Mamzerim are forever forbidden, and also that females are permitted);

The Tana of the Mishnah says Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra (we only learn one law from the source. Other laws are according to the law of the matter being learned. Amoni teaches only that the Isur is permanent.)

Question: What is the law of a Mamzeres after 10 generations?

R. Eliezer: If you show me a third generation Mamzer, I will declare him to be Kosher!

He holds that Mamzerim do not live (to have generations).

(Rav Huna): Mamzerim do not live.

Question (Mishnah): They are forbidden forever.

Answer (R. Zeira citing Rav Yehudah): Known Mamzerim live; unknown Mamzerim do not. Those that are not known well do not live past three generations.

R. Ami announced that a certain man was a Mamzer; the man cried.

R. Ami: I have given you life!

(Rav Chana bar Ada): David decreed against (marrying) Nesinim - "The king ... said that the Giv'onim are not from Bnei Yisrael." (They are called Nesinim because they were given to be slaves to cut wood and draw water.)

Question: Why did he decree?

Answer: "There was a famine for three straight years in the days of David".

The first year he suspected that it is due to idolatry amidst Yisrael - "And you will serve foreign gods ... and there will not be rain". He checked and did not find idolatry.

The second year he suspected that it is due to immorality - "The early and late rains were withheld, and you had the countenance of a harlot". He checked, and did not find.

The third year he suspected that it is due to people who publicly pledge Tzedakah and do not give it - "Clouds and wind, but no rain; a man glorifies himself in false gifts." He checked, and did not find. He concluded that it is due to himself.

Question: "And David sought Hash-m's countenance" - how did he do so?

Answer (Reish Lakish): He asked through the Urim v'Tumim.

Question: How is this learned from the verse?

Answer (R. Elazar): It says "PNEI Hash-m", and by the Urim v'Tumim it says "li'FNEI Hash-m".

"Hash-m said that it is due to Sha'ul and the house of blood, that he killed the Giv'onim."

It is due to Sha'ul, i.e. that he was not eulogized properly;

Question: We do not find that Sha'ul killed the Giv'onim!

Answer: Since he killed the Kohanim of Nov, who used to supply food and water to the Giv'onim, the verse considers it as if he killed them (Rashi. Maharsha - the Giv'onim used to supply food and water to the Kohanim. Sha'ul deprived them of this great merit.)

Question: Would Hash-m punish for not properly eulogizing Sha'ul, and also for Sha'ul's sin?!

Answer: Yes!

(Reish Lakish): "Seek Hash-m ... His judgment they carried out" - when Hash-m judges a person, He recounts his achievements.