Explanation: They are Kosher even according to Beis Shamai.

Question: Shmuel (below 92b) was unsure whether or not Kidushin takes effect on Yevamah l'Shuk. If so, it should be obvious that [her child] is Kosher, for once he was Mekadesh her, the Zikah was uprooted!

We say that if one was Mekadesh the sister of his Shomeres Yavam, the Kidushin uproots [Zikah of] Yibum!

Answer #1: These are different. There, there is no solution to enable her to do Yibum. We cannot kill her sister!

However, if a Yevamah became Mekudeshes to a stranger, through divorce she can do Yibum. Therefore, the Zikah is not uprooted.

Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak): "Lo Sihyeh Eshes ha'Mes [Chutzah] l'Ish Zar" connotes even through Havayah, i.e. Kidushin, she may not marry a stranger. This is why the Torah wrote [Sihyeh,] an expression of Havayah.

Explanation #1: This was in order that he would not confound them with Halachos, and they would have to fix the Halachah like him.

Explanation #2: They left through three openings in order to [increase the chance that one of them will] find him and hear his answer.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [This pertains to] Yisre'elim living in the land of Amon and Mo'av that Moshe conquered from Sichon. It received Kedushas Eretz Yisrael. Now, in Bayis Sheni , the Kedushah was Batel.

Question (R. Tam): We say in Pesachim (52b) that there are three lands for Bi'ur (getting rid of Peros Shemitah when they are no longer available for Chayos in the field) - Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and Galil;

Ever ha'Yarden is Eretz Sichon and Og. This shows that Olei Bavel were Mekadesh it!

Answer (R. Tam): There we refer to Eretz Sichon and Og that was not from Amon and Mo'av;

However, Olei Bavel were not Mekadesh Eretz Sichon that he conquered from Amon and Mo'av, like it connotes here.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Here we discuss Eretz Amon and Mo'av that Sichon never conquered. Even Olei Mitzrayim were not Mekadesh it.

Support: A Mishnah (Yadayim 4:3) compares it to Mitzrayim and Bavel.

Explanation: Our Gemara means that Olei Mitzrayim were Mekadesh many cities, and Olei Bavel were not Mekadesh them. They left them [without Kedushah] in order that Aniyim would be able to rely on them [in Shemitah].

Inference: They were concerned for helping Aniyim. Even though they were part of Eretz Yisrael, they refrained from being Mekadesh them. All the more so, Amon and Mo'av, which were never Mekudash, it is proper to enact Ma'aser Oni in Shevi'is, and not Ma'aser Sheni;

[We need this reason,] for in Maseches Yadayim there is an opinion that they separate Ma'aser Sheni in Shevi'is.

Explanation: We can explain similarly Chagigah 3a. Also there, R. Eliezer said that Amon and Mo'av separate Ma'aser Oni in Shevi'is, and explains that this is because many cities...

He did not mean to say that Amon and Mo'av are among the cities that Olei Mitzrayim conquered.

Support: [The Gemara] was unsure in Megilah (10a) and Shevu'os (16a) whether or not R. Eliezer holds that Kedushah Rishonah was permanent. In Megilah and Shevu'os, R. Yehoshua holds that it was permanent;

Even so, in Yadayim he holds like R. Eliezer regarding Amon and Mo'av.

Conclusion: You must say that "what is the reason? ..." are not the words of R. Eliezer. R. Eliezer's words are in Yadayim, and it is not taught there;

Rather, the Gemara explains that according to the opinion that Lo Kidshah (permanently), they refrained from being Mekadesh even from Eretz Yisrael, for the sake of Aniyim. Therefore, it is not astounding if they decreed Ma'aser Oni on Amon and Mo'av, and not Ma'aser Sheni.

Implied question: Why did the Gemara here and in Chagigah abandon the reason that R. Tarfon explicitly said in Yadayim, that Mitzrayim is Chutz la'Aretz, and Amon and Mo'av are Chutz la'Aretz?

Just like [for] Mitzrayim, which is close [to Eretz Yisrael] they enacted Ma'aser Oni, so Aniyim can rely on it, also Amon and Mo'av! ...

Answer: This is because the Gemara prefers to find a reason why even in Eretz Yisrael they refrained from being Mekadesh for the sake of Aniyim, and all the more so Amon and Mo'av, which are Chutz la'Aretz.

Implied question: There were also Yisre'elim in Rekem, like it says in Gitin (2a) "even one who brings a Get from Rekem or Cheger..."! (We should be Metamei, lest the stain is from a Yisraelis!)

Answer: Even so, stains from Rekem are Tehorim, for they are not of Yisre'elim. Yisre'elim hide away their stains;

The Nochrim who live there are total Nochrim, and not Yisre'elim Mamzerim.

Question: How can R. Yochanan argue with Chagai ha'Navi?!

Answer: Perhaps R. Yochanan holds that Chagai never said it.

Question: Perhaps it means that except for Tarmud, like it says in Gitin (6a) "no. 'Chutz la'Aretz' excludes Bavel."

Explanation #1: The one who holds that we do not accept converts from Tarmud holds that R. Yochanan does not hold that the Halachah [always] follows a Stam Mishnah.

Explanation #2: He holds that [stains] from Nochrim are Tehorim, except for Tarmud.

Qualification (of Explanation #2): However, in any case we must say that R. Yochanan does not hold that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah, for he holds that if a Nochri or slave has Bi'ah with a Yisraelis, the child is a Mamzer;

The Stam Mishnah in Kidushin (66b) holds that the child is Kosher;

Only R. Akiva, who holds that Kidushin does not take effect with Chayavei Lavin, holds that the child is a Mamzer from a Nochri or slave. This is clear from Kidushin 75b.

The Mishnah (66b) holds Kidushin takes effect with Chayavei Lavin, for it says "whenever there is Kidushin, and an Aveirah, e.g. a Mamzeres or Nesinah to a Yisrael [the child is like the tainted parent]. If so, there is no [source to say that there is a] Mamzer from a Nochri or slave.

Implied question - Citation (66b - Mishnah): If David cannot be Mekadesh Leah, but other men can be Mekadesh her, children of Leah from David are Mamzerim! (This applies if David is a Nochri or slave.)

Answer: The Gemara explains that this is any of the forbidden Arayos. It does not include from a Nochri or slave, even though they cannot be Mekadesh her, and other men can be. The Gemara says like this.

Implied question: There is another Stam Mishnah later in that Perek (69b) that holds that there is a Mamzer from a Nochri or slave!

Answer: Why is that Stam preferable to the other Stam?! (Aruch l'Ner - If R. Yochanan holds that the Halachah follows a Stam, it should be a Safek which we follow, he should not have ruled explicitly like one of them.)

Support: We ask like this in Shevu'os (4a) and Bava Kama (69b) and several places.

Implied question: Why did the Gemara ask "did R. Yochanan really say this?" We could have asked from the Stam Mishnah (Kidushin 66b)!

Answer #1: We prefer to ask from the Mishnah in Nidah, for R. Yochanan explicitly said that we accept converts from Tarmud, and above he said that we do not accept.

Answer #2: It is better to ask from the Mishnah in Nidah, for there it is clear that a Nochri or slave did not have Bi'ah with them;

If a Nochri or slave had Bi'ah with them, why would their stains be Tehorim?!

Suggestion: Perhaps the Tana holds that the child [from a Nochri or slave] is Kosher, for we attribute him to the Nochri or slave. (I.e. he is not a Yisrael, therefore he cannot be a Mamzer. Other Meforshim, and Tosfos elsewhere, say that all agree that the child is a Yisrael.)

Rejection: The Gemara connotes that this is also like R. Yehudah, who [argues] in the Reisha,

You must say that R. Yehudah holds that if a Nochri or slave has Bi'ah with a Yisraelis, the child is a Mamzer, like I explained above regarding "you cannot learn from a widow, for she herself becomes profaned."

Question: Why must he attribute the reason due to Mamzerus? He should have said that it is due to Avdei Shlomo, for slaves may not marry a Yisraelis!

Answer: Presumably, the owners despaired from them;

There is an opinion (Gitin 39b) that if one despaired from his slave, he does not need a document of freedom. (He is totally free, and may marry into Yisrael.)

Observation: Also below (45a), the Gemara holds that R. Yochanan holds that if a Nochri or slave has Bi'ah with a Yisraelis, the child is a Mamzer.

However, it seems that R. Yochanan really holds that the child is Kosher, for everywhere we hold that R. Yochanan holds like a Stam Mishnah, and the Stam Mishnah in Kidushin 66b holds that the child is Kosher.

Implied question: The Mishnah below (69b) holds that the child from a Nochri or slave is a Mamzer!

Answer: In any case, it seems that we should rely more on the Stam Mishnah in Kidushin, for it was taught regarding clearcut Halachah of Kidushin;

We call such a case "clearcut Halachah" in Bava Kama (102a).

Assertion: All those who hold that the child is a Mamzer hold like R. Akiva, like we say (Kidushin 75b) "they hold like R. Akiva, who says that if Nochri or slave has Bi'ah with a Yisraelis, the child is a Mamzer."

Support: Also there, it connotes that R. Yochanan in the name of R. Yishmael holds that the child is Kosher.

Question: Why is it obvious there that according to R. Akiva, there is a Mamzer from a Nochri or slave?

Perhaps he learns [what makes a Mamzer] from Eshes Av or Anusas Aviv, in which his Kidushin does not take effect on her, but his Kidushin takes effect on others;

This excludes these (Nochri and slave), for their Kidushin does not take effect on her or on others! There is such an opinion below (45b).

Answer: A Mishnah (below 69b) explicitly says that if a Nochri or slave has Bi'ah with a Yisraelis, the child is a Mamzer. We are forced to say that it is R. Akiva.

Question: Granted, a slave makes a Mamzer, for there is a Lav. However, why is there a Mamzer from a Nochri? Shem's Beis Din decreed against it. Mid'Oraisa it is Bi'as Heter!

Note: Tosfos holds that "Lo Sihyeh Kedeshah... Lo Yihyeh Kadesh" forbids slaves to Yisrael. The Rambam holds that the Torah does not forbid slaves, but "Lo Sischaten Bam" forbids Nochrim. Rashi (Gitin 85a DH Eved) connotes that the Torah forbids both of them.

Answer #1: Even though mid'Oraisa it is Bi'as Heter in private, since Kidushin does not take effect in her, it makes a Mamzer. (If they have Bi'ah in public, the Torah permits a Kanai to kill them)

Even R. Shimon ha'Temani would agree, if not that Kidushin does not take effect, not in her and not in others.

Since R. Akiva holds that there is a Mamzer from a slave, even though his Kidushin does not take effect in her and not in others, the same applies to a Nochri.

Answer #2: From a Nochri there is a Mamzer only mid'Rabanan.

In every place, we mention Nochri Agav (along with) a slave, just like we mention Chalutzah along with a divorcee, and in the Mishnah (Makos 13a) that discusses lashes [mid'Oraisa, even though a Chalutzah is forbidden to a Kohen only mid'Rabanan].

Conclusion: Answer #1 is primary.

Question (R. Tam): A Piyut (a Yotzer for Simchas Torah) says "the serving minister is called a Na'ar. This is the esteemed Metatron." This implies that Metatron is the world minister, who is called a youth;

Another Piyut says "the mighty Metatron is the minister who was transformed to fire from flesh." This implies that Chanoch is Metatron;

Chanoch cannot be the world minister, for in Chulin (60a) we say that in the six days or creation, the world minister began and said "Yismach Hash-m b'Ma'asav." Chanoch was not in Ma'aseh Bereishis!

Answer: Metatron is not the world minister. He is called "Na'ar" not because it says "Na'ar Hayisi v'Gam Zakanti." Rather, his name is Na'ar.

In the Midrash Pesikta, regarding the eight names of Metatron, it lists also Na'ar.

Answer #2: The Agados argue with each other, for in Bereishis Rabah, some say Chanoch died, for the Targum of "Ki Lakach Oso" is "Hemis Yasei" ([Hash-m] killed him);

In the beginning of Maseches Derech Eretz, it says that he entered Gan Eden in his lifetime.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If a Nochris conceived a child from a Yisrael, he is a Mamzer, and we are concerned for Kidushin of a Mamzer.

Question: It is proven from several Mishnayos that the child gets the mother's lineage!

Source #1 (22a - Mishnah): One who has a child from any place exempts his father's wife from Yibum, except for a child from a Shifchah or Nochris.

Source #2 (Kidushin 66b - Mishnah): The child of a Shifchah or Nochris is like her. He is not a Mamzer.

Answer: This is not so difficult. These Mishnayos hold that the child of a Nochri or slave who has Bi'ah with a Yisraelis is Kosher, and the same applies oppositely (a Nochris or Shifchah who has Bi'ah with a Yisrael).

Rav Asi holds like R. Akiva, who says that Kidushin does not take effect with Chayavei Lavin, and the child of a Nochri or slave is a Mamzer, and the same applies to a Yisrael who had Bi'ah with a Shifchah or Nochris.

Explanation #2: It seems that the reason for Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav Asi is due to the daughters. He holds that the girls of that generation did not become sterile.

Support: You are forced to say that R. Yochanan, who says that all of them are Pasul, did not say so because they had Bi'ah with Nochriyos, for below (23a) he explicitly holds like Shmuel, that your son from a Nochris is not called your son, rather, her son (a Nochri);

Rather, he disqualifies due to daughters. He holds that they did not become sterile.

Implied question: Below (45), Rav Yehudah holds that if a Nochri or slave has Bi'ah with a Yisraelis, the child is Kosher!

Answer: Here he cited Rav Asi. (He himself disagrees.)

Explanation #1: In their places, the majority are from the 10 tribes.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): Whenever the Isur is Kavu'a (fixed in its place), it is considered an even Safek.

Rejection: If he (the Bo'el, left his home and) went to her, [we apply the rule that] whenever something separated from a mixture, [we assume that] one of the majority separated.