Question: What is Rebbi Yosi's reason?

Answer: The Torah says "Kahal (the congregation of Hash-m, i.e. Yisrael)" five times. Three correspond to Kohanim, Leviyim, and Yisre'elim. One permits a Mamzer to marry a Shetuki (who is a doubtful Mamzer), and one permits a Shetuki to marry a Yisrael.

We have no source to say that converts are part of Kehal Hash-m (who may not marry Mamzerim).

Rebbi Yehudah holds that one "Kahal" corresponds to Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisre'elim. He uses extra occurrences of the word to teach that converts are part of Kehal Hash-m.

Alternatively, also Rebbi Yehudah uses three occurrences of Kahal for Kohanim, Leviyim, and Yisre'elim. He holds that the fourth permits a Mamzer to marry a Shetuki, and a Shetuki to marry a Yisrael (so one is free to teach that converts are part of Kehal Hash-m);

"A Mamzer will not enter (marry someone from) Kehal Hash-m" - a Vadai (definite) Mamzer may not enter the Kahal, but a Safek Mamzer may;

A Mamzer may not marry a Vadai member of the Kahal, but he may marry a Safek member.

Alternatively, Rebbi Yehudah expounds the five occurrences of Kahal like Rebbi Yosi does;

He learns from "ha'Kahal, there will be one law for you and converts."

Rebbi Yosi argues, because "one law" separates between "Kahal" and "for you and converts".

(Beraisa): Converts, freed slaves and Chalalim may marry a Bas Kohen.

This supports Rav.

(Rav): A Bas Kohen may marry lineages (whose daughters are) disqualified from Kehunah.

Rav Zeira taught in Mechuza that a convert may marry a Mamzeres. He was pelted with Esrogim.

Rava: It is improper to teach this law in a city full of converts!

Rava taught in Mechuza that a convert may marry a Bas Kohen. They covered him with silk.

He added that a convert may marry a Mamzeres. He lost the favor he had found in their eyes.

Rava: I help you. I give you more options whom to marry!

The Halachah is, a convert is permitted to a Bas Kohen, like Rav. He is permitted to a Mamzeres, like Rebbi Yosi.

(Mishnah): A Shetuki is one who recognizes (his mother, but not his father).

(Rava): Mid'Oraisa, a Shetuki is Kosher.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The majority of men (possible fathers) are permitted to her (a single woman). If the father came to her (to have Bi'ah) we assume that he came from the majority;

Even if she went to him, so the Isur (of men forbidden to her) is considered Kavu'a (fixed), and we view it as an even Safek, the Torah says "a Mamzer will not enter Kehal Hash-m." A Vadai Mamzer may not enter the Kahal, but a Safek Mamzer may;

A Mamzer may not marry a Vadai member of the Kahal, but he may marry a Safek member.

Question: Why does the Mishnah forbid a Shetuki to marry Kosher lineages?

Answer #1: This is a decree, lest he marry a paternal sister.

Objection: If so, he should be forbidden to marry a Shetukis, lest she is his paternal sister!

Answer #1: We are not concerned lest every Shetuki came from the same man.

Objection: He should not be allowed to marry a Bas Shetukis, lest she is his paternal sister!

Answer #2: Rather, we are not concerned for this, it is unlikely.

Objection: If so, we should also not be concerned that a girl of good lineage is his sister!

Answer #2: This is a stringency of lineage (we are stringent only about people of good lineage).

(Rava): Mid'Oraisa, an Asufi (a deserted baby) is Kosher.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: (In most cases,) a married woman would not cast out her baby (even if he is a Mamzer). She would claim it is from her husband;

Granted, a minority of married women cannot do so, i.e. if she is only Mekudeshes, or if her husband was surely abroad when the baby was conceived (and they would abandon a Mamzer);

However, sometimes women abandon a Kosher baby, i.e. a single woman (who is ashamed that she conceived out of wedlock) or a married woman (who conceived from her husband) who cannot feed the baby!

It is an even Safek. We learned that a Safek Mamzer may enter Kehal Hash-m, and a Mamzer may marry a Safek member of the Kahal.

Question: Why does the Mishnah forbid an Asufi to marry Kesheirim?

Answer #1: This is a decree, lest he will marry a paternal sister. (We are not concerned for a maternal sister. We do not suspect lest his potential mother-in-law deserted a baby.)

Objection: If so, he should not be allowed to marry an Asufis, lest she is his paternal or maternal sister!

Answer #1: We are not concerned lest all deserted babies come from the same parents.

Objection: He should not be allowed to marry a Bas Asufi, perhaps she is his sister!

Answer #2: Rather, we are not concerned for this, for it is unlikely.

Objection: If so, we should also not be concerned lest a girl of good lineage is his sister!

Answer #2: This is a stringency of lineage.

(Rabah bar Rav Huna): If a baby was found circumcised, he is not considered an Asufi. (We assume that he has proper lineage.)

In all these cases, a baby is not considered an Asufi:

His limbs are straightened, he was rubbed with oil, around his eyes was painted, ribbons are tied on him (to ward off illness), or a Kami'a, with writing or herbs inside (to ward off illness) hangs from him.

If he is suspended from a date tree, he is an Asufi only if animals can reach him.

If he is suspended from a sorb tree, he is an Asufi only if it is close to the city (for such trees host damaging Sheidim).

If he is found near a Beis ha'Keneses, if it is close to the city and many people go there, he is not an Asufi. If not, he is.

(Ameimar): If a baby was found in a ditch (outside the city) in which pits are thrown, he is an Asufi (Sheidim are frequent there).

If a baby was found on a raft floating in the middle of the river, he is not an Asufi (for ships will find him). If he was near the banks of the river, he is an Asufi.

If he is found on the shoulder of Reshus ha'Rabim (the public thoroughfare), he is not an Asufi. If he was found in Reshus ha'Rabim, he is.

(Rava): In times of famine, he is not is considered an Asufi.

Question: Which case does Rava discuss?

Suggestion: He was found in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Rejection: Just because his parents cannot feed him, they would want their baby to die!

Suggestion: He was found on the shoulder of Reshus ha'Rabim.

Rejection: If so, even when food is plentiful, he is not an Asufi!

Answer: Rather, Rava discusses Rav Yehudah's teaching:

(Rav Yehudah): Before the baby is picked up, a couple is believed to say that they are his parents. Once the baby was picked up, they are not believed to say that they are his parents.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer (Rava): Once he was picked up, he is called an Asufi, so they cannot permit him.

(Rava): In times of famine, even after he was picked up, they are believed to say that they are his parents.

(Rav Chisda): Three are believed right away: parents, regarding an Asufi; a midwife; and a woman who (found that she is Nidah and) exempts other women. (We discussed the case of parents above.)

A midwife - (Beraisa): A midwife is believed to say which of two twins was born first.

She is believed only if she never left. If she left and returned, she is not believed.

R. Eliezer says, if she kept her vigil, she is believed. If not, she is not believed.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: They argue about one who turned her face away. (She is believed only according to the first Tana.)

Question: What is the case of a woman who exempts other women?

Answer (Mishnah): If three women slept in a bed, and blood was found under one of them, each is Teme'ah (Safek Nidah).

If one of them checked and found that she is Nidah, the others are Tehoros.

(Rav Chisda): This is only if she checked herself immediately after the blood was found.

(Beraisa): A midwife is believed to say 'this baby is the Kohen, this is the Levi, this is the Nasin, this is the Mamzer' (e.g. they were born in the same house).

This is only if no one protests. If someone protests, she is not believed.

Question: What is the nature of the protest?

We cannot say that one person protests, for R. Yochanan taught that protest must be from two!

Answer #1: Rather, two protested.

Answer #2: Really, one person protested. R. Yochanan said that protest must be from two only when there is a previous Chazakah. Here, there is not.

A storekeeper is believed to say to which person he sold.

This is only when the storekeeper is holding the merchandise. If not, he is not believed.