1)

(a)The basic Machlokes between ...

1. ... the Tana Kama of the Beraisa ('Ger Amoni u'Mo'avi, Mitzri ... she'Ba'u Al bas Yisrael, Pasluhah'), and Rebbi Yosi ('Kol she'Zar'o Posel, Pasul, v'Chol she'Ein Zar'o Pasul ... ') is - the Almanah of a Mitzri Sheni, who may not marry a Kohen, but whose children may?

2. ... Rebbi Yosi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ('Kol sha'Atah Nosei Es Bito, Atah Nosei Almenaso; v'Chol she'Ein Ata Nosei Bito ... ') is - the Almanah of a Ger Amoni u'Mo'avi, whose son is Pasul, but whose daughter is not.

(b)All three Tana'im derive their respective opinions from Kohe Gadol b'Almanah - the Tana Kama learns from an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol, whose Bi'ah, which is forbidden, renders her a Chalalah; Rebbi Yosi adds that her children become Chalalim too, precluding the wife of a Mitzri Sheni, whose children are Kosher; Raban Shimon ben Gamliel adds that all her children become Chalalim too, precluding the wife of an Amoni or Mo'avi, whose daughter at least, is Kosher.

(c)We learn that a Kohen Gadol renders an Almanah a Chalalah with his Bi'ah (even though the Pasuk "v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o" is referring to their children) - from the extra 'Lamed' in "Lo Yechalel" (since the Torah could have written "v'Lo Yachel Zar'o").

2)

(a)All the above Tana'im agree, says Rav Chisda, that an Almanas Iysah - (the widow of a Safek Chalal who threw her a Get that was a Safek to whom it was closer, to him or to her) does become a Chalalah through the Bi'ah of one of the Pesulim. 'An Almanas Iysah'.

(b)Rav Chisda says this - because, when all's said and done, her daughter is forbidden to marry a Kohen (in case his father is a Chalal), in which case, she does not possess the requirements that permit her to marry a Kohen, even according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (the most lenient of all the opinions).

(c)This opinion is not however, unanimous, seeing as Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira in a Mishnah in Eduyos - declare an Almanas Iysah Kosher ...

(d)... because it is (not just a Safek, but) a S'fek S'feika (which overrides the fact that her daughter is forbidden to marry a Kohen anyway).

3)

(a)'Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Halachah k'Rebbi Eliezer' (who differentiates between Vada'an b'Vada'an and Vada'an bi'S'feikan). Shmuel expressed surprise when Rav Yehudah told him that Rav ruled like Rebbi Eliezer - because it clashes with the opinion of Hillel (the author of our Mishnah), who specifically permits both.

(b)Elsewhere, Rav rules that if an Arusah became pregnant, Rav declares the child a Mamzer; Shmuel says - that he is a Shesuki.

(c)

1. Their respective reasons are - that Rav goes after the majority of people, who are forbidden to her, turning the Safek (Mamzer) into a Vadai; whereas according to Shmuel, the likelihood is that the child is from the Arus, in which case it is a Safek.

2. According to Rav - the child will be permitted to marry a Mamzeres, whereas according to Shmuel - he will not.

(d)This Machlokes appears to clash with the previous one - inasmuch as Rav now follows our Mishnah (which considers a Safek Mamzer like a Vadai, whereas Shmuel does not.

4)

(a)We initially amend the second Machlokes to conform with the previous one - by switching their opinions so that Rav considers the Vlad a Shesuki, whereas Sh'muel holds that he is a Mamzer'.

(b)Having presented their Machlokes in the case of a Shesuki who is born to ...

1. ... an unmarried woman, they nevertheless see fit to repeat it in the case of an Arusah who became pregnant - to teach us that even there, where most people are forbidden to her, Rav considers the child a Shesuki and not a Mamzer.

2. ... an Arusah who became pregnant, they see fit to repeat it in the case of an unmarried woman - to teach us that even there, where there is no Arus whose child it probably is, Rav still considers it a Shesuki and not a Mamzer.

(c)Alternatively, we reconcile their second Machokes with the first, even without amending their opinions, but by reinterpreting what they say. In the case of Arusah she'Ibrah, when Rav says 'ha'Vlad Mamzer', he means (not that he is permitted to marry a Mamzeres, but) - that he is Asur to marry a bas Yisrael.

(d)We cannot reinterpret Shmuel ('ha'Vlad Shesuki') to mean ...

1. ... that he is forbidden to marry a bas Yisrael' - because that is what Rav says.

2. ... that (assuming the Arus to be a Kohen) we 'silence him' from the Din of Kehunah - because if he is Asur to marry a Yire'elis, he is obviously Pasul li'Kehunah.

3. ... that we 'silence him' from the property of his father - because, seeing as we do not know who his father is, that too, is obvious.

5)

(a)We nevertheless do adopt the final suggestion ('she'Meshaskin Oso mi'Nichsei Aviv'). And we eliminate the problem (that since we do not know who is father is it is obvious) - by establishing the case when he actually seized the money of the Arus, claiming that the Arus was his father. Shmuel now teaches us that we take it away from him.

(b)We might also interpret 'Shesuki' to mean - that we examine the woman, believing her when she says that the Ubar is from a Kosher person (like Aba Shaul).

(c)This is indeed the opinion of Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah is Kesuvos ('Hayesah Me'uberes ... Ish Ploni v'Kohen Hu'), like whom Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel has already ruled - but that was in a case when most people were permitted to her, whereas here, Shmuel follows their ruling even by Arus, where most people are forbidden to her (like Aba Shaul, as we established above).

6)

(a)Rebbi Elazar in a Beraisa rules - that a Kuti may not marry a Kutis.

(b)Another Beraisa - forbids a Ger after ten generations to marry a Mamzeres, because the Ger's Yichus is likely to have been forgotten, and people will think that a Yisrael is permited to marry a Mamzeres.

(c)Yesh Omrim says - that the determining factor is not the time period of ten years, but from the time that the Ger stops mentioning the names of idols.

(d)Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's suggestion that the Chachamim gave a Kuti and a Kutis the same Din as a Ger after ten generations - because whereas the passing of time is good reason to assume that the latter's Yichus has been forgotten, there is no reason to assume this to be the case in the case of a Kuti and a Kutis.

7)

(a)Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Elazar (ben Pedas) established Rebbi Elazar (ben Shamua)'s Din ('Kuti Lo Yisa Kutis') - like Rebbi Yishmael - who categorizes the Kusim as 'Gerei Arayos' (insincere Gerim who converted only out of fear of a plague of lions. This occurred when, after Sancheriv King of Ashur moved them from Kuta to Eretz Yisrael, they continued to worship idols).

(b)And Rebbi Yishmael in turn, holds like Rebbi Akiva, who defines the status of the child of an Akum or Eved who had relations with a bas Yisrael as - a Mamzer.

(c)The problem with this is - Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Yishmael's ruling that an Akum or Eved who had relations with a Kohenes, a Leviyah or a bas Yisrael invalidates her. Now if the child was a Mamzer, as Rebbi Akiva maintains, why would Rebbi Yishmael then need to inform us that the woman is Pasul? Would that not be obvious?

(d)So we suggest - that it is Rebbi Elazar (ben Pedas) who holds both like Rebbi Yishmael and like Rebbi Akiva.

8)

(a)We query this however, from another statement of his in connection with a Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in Yevamos.Beis Shamai permit a Tzaras Ervah to perform Yibum - Beis Hillel permit her to marry l'Shuk, without even requiring Chalitzah.

(b)According to Rebbi Elazar (ben Pedas), the children of those who practice like ...

1. ... Beis Shamai - are Mamzerim according to Beis Hillel (because they have transgressed the Lav of Eshes Ach she'Lo b'Makom Mitzvah (for which one is Chayav Ka'res).

2. ... Beis Hillel are not Mamzerim according to Beis Shamai - because a Yevamah l'Shuk is only a Lav, and not Chayav Kares.

(c)What Rebbi Elazar actually said was - ' ... Modim she'Ein Mamzer Ela mi'Mi she'Isuro Isur Ervah v'Chayav Kares'.

(d)This statement refutes our previous contention, equating Rebbi Elazar with Rebbi Akiva - who considers the child of Chayavei Lavin (including 'Akum v'Eved ha'Ba Al bas Yisrael') a Mamzer.

9)

(a)So we quote Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Chanina or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who lists three different opinions regarding the Kusim. Rebbi Yishmael considers them Geirei Arayos, as we explained earlier, and the Kohanim who mixed with them - Pesulim.

(b)Rebbi Yishmael explains "Vaya'as la'Hem Miktzosam Kohanei Bamos" - to mean 'min ha'Kotzim' (the thorns) or 'min ha'Muktzin' (those who were disqualified - either way, a derogatory term).

(c)Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael's interpretation. He ...

1. ... categorizes the Kusim as - Geirei Arayos (as we explained above).

2. ... defines the Kohanei Bamos who mixed with them - as the elite 'min ha'Bechirim she'be'Am (or, reinterpreting the word "mi'Ketzosam", 'min ha'Ketzinim she'be'Am' [the captains]).

(d)The Chachamim declared the Kusim Mamzerim, according to Rebbi Akiva - because they performed Yibum only with women whom their brothers had betrothed, but permitted those whom they had married, to marry l'Shuk without Yibum or Chalitzah. And Rebbi Akiva follows his reasoning elsewhere, where he declares children of all Chayavei Lavin, Mamzerim.