1)

(a)The Beraisa discusses the Pasuk in Ki Setzei (in connection with the Mitzri'im) "Banim Asher Yivaldu Lahem Dor Shelishi". Had the Torah written only ...

1. ... "Banim" and not "Dor" - we would have thought that the Torah is permitting the third son born to any Egyptian convert.

2. ... "Dor" and not "Banim" - that the third generation means the third generation from Sinai, and that, from then on, all Egyptian converts became acceptable.

(b)The Torah needs to write both "Asher Yivaldu" and "Lahem", because, had it written only ...

1. ... "Asher Yivaldu" (and not "Lahem") - we would have thought that one starts counting the three generations from their children (i.e. their children and grandchildren are forbidden, and it is only their great-grandchildren who are permitted).

2. ... "Lahem" (and not "Asher Yivaldu") - we would have thought that if an Egyptian woman who is pregnant converts, then she and her child are considered to be one generation (and that it is only her grandchild who will become permitted). But now that we have both words, we reckon the pregnant Mitzris as the first generation, her child as the second, and her grandchild as the third generation, which is permitted.

(c)From "Yavo Lahem bi'Kehal Hash-m" - we learn that if a Mitzri marries a Yisraelis or vice-versa, we always go after the Mitzri (and the child has the Din of a Mitzri Sheni).

(d)We make the same Derashah from "Lo Yavo Lo by Mamzer. We cannot learn ...

1. ... Mamzer from Mitzri - because Mitzri descends from a Pasul source (a Nochri).

2. ... Mitzri from Mamzer - because a Mamzer is forbidden forever.

2)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan says - that the son of a Mitzri Sheni and a Mitzris Rishonah is a Mitzri Shelishi (proving that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, it is the male who determines the baby's status).

(b)If a Mamzer wishes to rid his lineage of his Pasul status - Rebbi Tarfon advises him to 'marry' a Shifchah, and when his son (who will be an Eved) is born, to set him free. This implies that, according to Rebbi Tarfon, it is the mother, and not the father, who determines the Yichus of the child (another of saying 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hi'), a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan.

(c)We resolve the problem however - by restricting Rebbi Tarfon's Din to the son of a Shifchah, by whom the Torah writes in Mishpatim "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tiheyeh la'Adonehah" (but in other areas of Pesul, it is the father who determines the Yichus of the child).

(d)And to reconcile his opinion with the Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah quotes his Chaver Menimin as having said that he was a Mitzri Rishon, and that he would marry his son to 'a Mitzris Sheniyah', to permit his grandson to enter the Kahal, Rebbi Yochanan emends the Beraisa - to 'a Mitzris Rishonah'.

3)

(a)Rav Dimi quotes Rebbi Yochanan as saying - that if a Mitzri Sheni married a Mitzris Rishonah, his son is a Sheni (because, in his opinion, it is the mother who determines the Yichus of the child - due to the principle 'Ubar Yerech Imo').

(b)Rebbi Yochanan rules that if someone designates a pregnant animal as a Chatas and it gives birth - he may use whichever of the two animals he wishes as his Chatas

(c)Rav Oshaya says that someone who designates two Chata'os - may choose whichever one he wishes, and the second one goes into the meadow until it becomes blemished ... .

(d)This latter ruling of Rebbi Yochanan clash with Rav Dimi's earlier statement in his name - since it is only possible to allow bringing either of the animals if we assume that 'Ubar Lav Yerech Imo', because then it is like designating two animals for one's Chatas (like the ruling of Rav Oshaya). But if we hold 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hi' like Rav Dimi maintains - then the baby is a Vlad Chatas, and a Vlad Chatas has to die!?

4)

(a)When Rav Dimi remained silent, Abaye, who posed the Kashya, suggested - that maybe 'Ubar Yerech Imo' applies exclusively to a Mitzris, because the Torah writes there "Asher Yivaldu".

(b)Rav Dimi retorted - that Abaye must have stuck his head between the pillars and overheard Rebbi Yochanan, who said exactly that.

5)

(a)Even though we just concluded, 'Ubar Lav Yerech Imo Hu', Rava nevertheless ruled that if a pregnant Nochris Toveled in order to convert, the child will not require Tevilah - because of Rebbi Yitzchak, who said that min ha'Torah, it is only when Rubo u'Makpid (meaning that a. there is a majority dividing between the person or the object that is being Toveled, and the water, and b. the owner is particular), that that division is considered a Chatzitzah, but not Rubo v'Eino Makpid (or Miuto u'Makpid).

(b)We initially object to this explanation - on the grounds that Rebbi Yitzchak spoke of 'Rubo', but not 'Kulo' (as in our case, where the baby is completely separated from the water).

(c)We overcome this objection however - by pointing out that an Ubar is different, inasmuch as that is the way it grows. Consequently, it is not considered a Chatzitzah even though its mother separates it completely from the water.

6)

(a)When Ravina Amar Rebbi Yochanan says 'b'Umos Halach Achar ha'Zachar' - he means that the Mitzvah of "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah" (pertaining to the seven nations), applies to someone whose father is from the seven nations, and not necessarily his mother.

(b)When the Pasuk writes ...

1. ... "v'Gam mi'Bnei ha'Toshavim ha'Garim Imachem, Mehem Tiknu" - it permits children who were born from men who came from other countries to live in Eretz Yisrael and who married Kena'ani women (because it is usually the men who travel, and the women who remain in their country of origin).

2. ... "Asher Holidu b'Artzechem" - it is to imply 'v'Lo ha'Garim b'Artzechem', to forbid a child of a mother who is from another nation, but whose father is a Kena'ani who bore him in the land of his mother, and then returned with him to live in Kena'an.

(c)Ravina's statement continues 'Nisgayru, Halach Achar Pagum she'bi'Sheneihem'. This cannot refer to a case of a Mitzri who married an Amonis - because 'Pagum she'bi'Sheneihem' implies that both of them are forbidden (and in this case, an Amonis is permitted).

(d)It refers therefore, to an Amoni who married a Mitzris. If they gave birth to ...

1. ... a boy - he is Asur forever like his father.

2. ... a girl - she will be considered a second generation Mitzri, after her mother.

7)

(a)According to Resh Lakish, a Mamzeres is permitted after ten generations. He learns this from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Asiri" "Asiri" - from Amoni and Moavi - because, just like the "Asiri" written by them extends forever, so too, does the "Asiri" mentioned by Mamzer extend forever. And just like by Amoni and Moavi, the females are not included in the Isur, so too are they not included in the generations that we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (i.e. from the eleventh generation and onwards).

(b)Resh Lakish resolves his statement with our Mishnah, which rules that she is forbidden forever - by establishing it like the opinion which holds 'Don Minah v'Uki b'Asra', whereas he holds like those who hold 'Don Minah u'Minah'.

(c)'Don Minah u'Minah' - means that once we make a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', we make it completely, like we just learned by "Asiri" "Asiri", where we use it to learn both the Isur by the men ('Don Minah') and the Heter by the women ('u'Minah' - Zecharim v'Lo Nekevos).

(d)Whereas 'Don Minah v'Ukei b'Asra' means - that we learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' only for what it is needed, in our case to extend "ad Dor Asiri" to "ad Olam" ('Don Minah') but not to exclude the women ('v'Ukei b'Asra'), seeing as for the first ten generations, the women are certainly Asur like the men (as is inherent in the word 'Mamzer' - 'Mum Zar'.

8)

(a)When they asked Rebbi Eliezer whether one may marry a Mamzeres after ten generations - he replied how he wished that they could just give him a third generation Mamzer (because, in his opinion, they cannot survive until ten generations) for him permit.

(b)In order to resolve Rebbi Eliezer with our Mishnah, which forbids Mamzerim forever (implying even more than ten generations) - Rebbi Zeira quoting Rav Yehudah establishes our Mishnah by a Mamzer who is well-known, and Rebbi Eliezer by one who is not.

(c)A Mamzer whose Yichus is well-known can even survive ten generations - whereas one whose Yichus is doubtful can survive a maximum of three generations, but no more.

(d)The lineage of a Mamzer whose Yichus is unknown will not survive - because of the fear that people will inadvertently marry his children.

9)

(a)When an agitated Safek Mamzer complained about Rav Ami's publicizing the fact that he was a Mamzer - Rav Ami calmed him down by pointing out that it was very much to his advantage, because the publicity would give his descendents a lease of life.

10)

(a)There was a famine in Eretz Yisrael for three years. During the first year, David ha'Melech ascribed it to Avodah-Zarah, during the second year, to the sin of immorality. During the third year - he ascribed it the sin of people undertaking to give Tzedakah and not keeping their word.

(b)When all these suggestions drew a blank - David ha'Melech ascribed the sin to himself and turned to Divine Assistance via the Urim v'Tumim.

(c)"Pnei Hash-m" (in the Pasuk "Vayevakesh David es Pnei Hash-m") implies the Urim v'Tumim - because of a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Pnei" "Pnei" (in Pinchas) "v'Sha'al Lo b'Mishpat ha'Urim Lifnei Hash-m".

11)

(a)The Urim v'Tumim ascribed the famine to two sins - to David's failure to eulogize King Shaul properly, and to Shaul's killing of the Givonim.

(b)Shaul did not really kill the Givonim - but because he killed the city of Kohanim, Nov, who provided them with water and food, it was as if he had.

12)

(a)What is strange about the two reasons given about the Urim v'Tumim is the fact - that, the fact that the famine came because Shaul was not mourned properly highlights his righteousness, whereas the fact that it came on account of his treatment of the Givonim highlights his shame.

(b)In answer to the question, we cite Resh Lakish who quotes a Pasuk in Tzefanyah " ... Asher Mishpato Pa'alo", which teaches us - that even as a person is judged for his bad deeds, he is sometimes judged for his good ones.

(c)King David's reaction ...

1. ... to the former reason - was to do nothing, because, since more than twelve months had elapsed since King Shaul's death (in fact, it was almost thirty years), it would have been pointless to have eulogized him then.

2. ... to the latter one - was to gather the Givonim (alias the Nesinim), and to offer them any compensation that they chose.