Question: He can marry a Shtukis (one who does not know who his father is. He is a Safek Mamzer), for R. Yehudah holds (Kidushin 73a) that a Mamzer may not enter Vadai Kahal, but he may enter Safek Kahal (marry a Safek Mamzer. Likewise, a Mitzri may marry a Safek Mamzer!)

Also the son would be permitted to Kahal, for a Vadai Mamzer may not enter the Kahal, but a Safek Mamzer may enter!

Answer #1: Shtukim are not common. (Surely, the Torah did not teach a Heter for a rare case.)

Answer #2: A [Safek] Mamzeres, which occurs only through Isur, is considered b'Di'eved. The Torah did not teach about b'Di'eved.

Question: He can marry a Nesinah, and the child is Kosher according to R. Yochanan, who says below that if a Mitzri Sheni marries a Mitzris Rishonah, her son is a Shelishi, for it (the count of generations) depends on him (the father)!

Answer: R. Yochanan here holds like the other opinion according to R. Yochanan, i.e. Rav Dimi, who said in the name of R. Yochanan that her son is a Sheni, for it depends on her.

Question: According to R. Yochanan, the Torah teaches about b'Di'eved! He expounded above (77b) "me'Amav" [to be Machshir] the daughter of a Ger Amoni who had Bi'ah with a Bas Yisrael!

Answer: It is fine if something extra in a verse teaches something b'Di'eved, but the simple meaning may not.

Question: If he holds like R. Yehudah, we should say that he needs Asher Yivaldu to teach that the Torah makes it dependent on birth;

If he holds like R. Shimon, how is there a Hava Amina to say that she and her son are one, since he holds [that the Torah forbids] "Mitzri", but not a Mitzris?!

Answer: (He holds like R. Shimon.) One might have thought since conception was in a Nochris, he is considered a first generation [convert, just like she is. However, even in this Hava Amina, their laws are different. He is forbidden, and she is permitted!]

Explanation: [I saw] your Rebbi. We find that Rabah (Abaye's Rebbi) went to learn in front of R. Yochanan in Kesuvos (111a).

Explanation: This is because Ubar Lav Yerech Imo.

Implied question: In Gitin (23b), it connotes that R. Yochanan holds that Ubar Yerech Imo regarding "it seems that a slave can receive a Get Shichrur from another slave's master." (If one told his pregnant slave 'you remain a slave, and your child is free', she acquires freedom on behalf of the fetus.)

Answer: That was according to Rebbi. The text says there at the end "what is Rebbi's reason? (He holds that Ubar Yerech Imo. The Gemara was discussing R. Yochanan's teaching, but he need not hold like Rebbi.)

Question: What is the question from Rava? He explicitly holds that Ubar Yerech Imo in Temurah (30b) and Bava Kama (47a)!

He said that [if a man had bestiality with a pregnant animal, also the child is Pasul for a Korban, for] he had relations also with the fetus!

Answer (Ri): The Gemara wants to resolve Rava's words here even like R. Yochanan.

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Sukah 6b): This is only regarding the hair, but on the body, even a minority that he is not particular about it, is a Chatzitzah.

Objection #1: If so, why is there a verse to teach about hair? We expound "Es Besaro" - what is secondary to his flesh (i.e. hair);

Since a tradition from Moshe from Sinai explicitly teaches that a Chatzitzah on hair disqualifies if it is on the majority and he is particular about it [there is no need for the verse]!

Objection #2 (R. Tam): If the tradition is only for hair, the Gemara should have said "R. Yitzchak taught only regarding hair. He did not discuss the flesh!"

Answer (to Objection #2): Without this, the Gemara asked well [to show that R. Yitzchak's law does not apply here].

Explanation: They asked him Stam, and he answered them this way. If the Mamzer was known, he would have answered that she is permitted, for R. Eliezer holds Dun Minah u'Minah (we learn all laws of the case being learned from the source) in Chulin (120b).

He did not want to clarify his answer to them. He was wont to do so, like we find in Sukah 28a. (He never said something he did not receive from his Rebbeyim.)