הָא לָא צְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.

But this one, Pharaoh’s daughter, did not require such things, as she herself was the daughter of royalty, and therefore there would have been no reason to doubt the sincerity of her conversion.

[וְתֵיפּוֹק לֵיהּ] דְּהָא מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה הִיא! וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנָךְ אָזְלֵי לְעָלְמָא וְהָנֵי אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ –

The Gemara asks: But let him derive that Pharaoh’s daughter was forbidden to Solomon for a different reason, as she was a first- generation Egyptian convert. Even if she converted, she would still have been an Egyptian convert of the first generation, and as such neither she nor her children would have been permitted to marry a Jew by birth (Deuteronomy 23:8–9). And if you would say that those whom the Torah rendered forbidden have already left Egypt and are now living elsewhere in the world, and those currently living in Egypt are others, there is a difficulty.

וְהָא תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִנְיָמִין גֵּר מִצְרִי הָיָה לִי חָבֵר מִתַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמַר: אֲנִי מִצְרִי רִאשׁוֹן, וְנָשָׂאתִי מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה. אַשִּׂיא לִבְנִי מִצְרִית שְׁנִיָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בֶּן בְּנִי רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל.

As, isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: Minyamin, an Egyptian convert, was a friend of mine from among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and he said: After I converted I was a first- generation Egyptian convert, and so I married another first- generation Egyptian convert. I will marry off my son, who is a second-generation Egyptian convert, to another second- generation Egyptian convert, so that my grandson will be fit to enter into the congregation. This indicates that first- and second-generation converts of Egyptian extraction were prohibited from entering into the congregation even during the period of the Mishna.

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: אֲנַן מִשְּׁלֹמֹה לֵיקוּ וְנֵתִיב? שְׁלֹמֹה לָא נָסֵיב מִידֵי דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״מִן הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר ה׳ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תָבוֹאוּ בָּהֶם וְהֵם לֹא יָבוֹאוּ בָּכֶם אָכֵן יַטּוּ אֶת לְבַבְכֶם אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם בָּהֶם דָּבַק שְׁלֹמֹה לְאַהֲבָה״. אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא ״וַיִּתְחַתֵּן״!

Rav Pappa said: Shall we stand up and raise an objection from Solomon? Solomon did not marry anyone, as it is written in his regard: “Of the nations concerning which the Lord said to the children of Israel, You shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods; Solomon cleaved to these in love” (I Kings 11:2). Solomon cleaved to these women in love, but was not legally married to them. As Solomon had other forbidden wives, the case of Pharaoh’s daughter presents no special difficulty. In fact, none of these marriages were valid at all. But the phrase “and Solomon married” (I Kings 3:1) that appears in connection with Pharaoh’s daughter is difficult, as it indicates that this marriage was in fact valid.

מִתּוֹךְ אַהֲבָה יְתֵירָה שֶׁאֲהֵבָהּ מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ נִתְחַתֵּן בָּהּ.

The Gemara answers: Due to the extraordinary love that he had for her, the verse relates to him as if he had married her through a legally valid marriage, even though this was not the case.

אָמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אַשִׁי: וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה – מוּתָּרִים בְּגִיּוֹרֶת וּמְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת, הָא בִּנְתִינָה אֲסִירֵי!

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that a man with crushed testicles and one whose penis has been severed are permitted to marry a female convert and an emancipated maidservant? That indicates that it is only these women whom they are permitted to marry, but they are prohibited from marrying a Gibeonite woman. This appears to contradict the baraita that permits a man with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite.

אָמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעֲמִיךְ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְאֵינָן אֲסוּרִין אֶלָּא מִלָּבֹא בַּקָּהָל הָא בִּנְתִינָה – שָׁרוּ. אֶלָּא, מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: And according to your line of reasoning, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: And they are prohibited only from entering into the congregation, and infer just the opposite, that it is only a woman who was born Jewish whom they are prohibited from marrying, but they are permitted to marry a Gibeonite woman, as she is not part of the congregation of the Lord. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna, as the possible inferences are contradictory, and one must therefore rely on the halakha that was expressly taught.

מתני׳ עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי אֲסוּרִים, וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֲבָל נְקֵבוֹתֵיהֶם מוּתָּרוֹת מִיָּד.

Ammonite and Moabite converts are prohibited from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish, and their prohibition is eternal, for all generations. However, their female counterparts, even the convert herself, are permitted immediately.

מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי אֵינָם אֲסוּרִים אֶלָּא עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת, אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: קַל וָחוֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים: וּמָה אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאָסַר אֶת הַזְּכָרִים אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם – הִתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד, מָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא אָסַר אֶת הַזְּכָרִים אֶלָּא עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁנַּתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד?

Egyptian and Edomite converts are prohibited from entering into the congregation only for three generations, both males and females. Rabbi Shimon renders permitted Egyptian and Edomite females immediately. Rabbi Shimon said: The matter may be derived by way of an a fortiori inference: If in a place where the Torah rendered prohibited the males with an eternal prohibition, i.e., Ammonites and Moabites, it rendered permitted the females immediately, then in a place where it rendered prohibited the males for only three generations, i.e., Egyptians and Edomites, is it not right that we should render permitted the females immediately?

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם הֲלָכָה – נְקַבֵּל, וְאִם לְדִין – יֵשׁ תְּשׁוּבָה, אָמַר לָהֶם: לֹא כִּי, הֲלָכָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר.

Rabbi Shimon’s colleagues said to him: If you are reporting a halakha that you received from your teachers, we will accept it from you. But if you merely wish to prove your case with an a fortiori inference based on your own reasoning, there is a refutation of your argument. Rabbi Shimon said to them: That is not so. I disagree with your claim that the a fortiori inference can be refuted, but in any case I am stating a halakha handed down to me by my teachers.

גמ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְכִרְאוֹת שָׁאוּל אֶת דָּוִד יוֹצֵא לִקְרַאת הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי אָמַר אֶל אַבְנֵר שַׂר הַצָּבָא בֶּן מִי זֶה הַנַּעַר, אַבְנֵר, וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְנֵר חֵי נַפְשְׁךָ הַמֶּלֶךְ אִם יָדַעְתִּי״. וְלָא יָדַע לֵיהּ? וְהָכְתִיב ״וַיֶּאֱהָבֵהוּ מְאֹד וַיְהִי לוֹ נוֹשֵׂא כֵלִים״! אֶלָּא: אַאֲבוּהּ קָא מַשְׁאִיל.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived that female Ammonites and Moabites are permitted immediately? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: As the verse states: “And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the captain of the host: Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said: As your soul lives, O king, I cannot tell” (I Samuel 17:55). This verse is puzzling: Did Saul really not recognize him? But isn’t it previously written: “And David came to Saul, and stood before him; and he loved him greatly; and he became his armor-bearer” (I Samuel 16:21)? Rather, it must be that he was asking about David’s father.

וְאָבִיו לָא יָדַע לֵיהּ? וְהָכְתִיב ״וְהָאִישׁ בִּימֵי שָׁאוּל זָקֵן בָּא בַאֲנָשִׁים״. וְאָמַר רַב וְאִיתֵימָא רַבִּי אַבָּא: זֶה יִשַּׁי אֲבִי דָּוִד שֶׁנִּכְנַס בְּאוּכְלוּסָא וְיָצָא בְּאוּכְלוּסָא!

The Gemara is still puzzled by this verse: And did Saul not recognize David’s father? But isn’t it written with regard to Jesse, David’s father: “And the man in the days of Saul was old, and came among men” (I Samuel 17:12), and Rav, and some say Rabbi Abba, said: This is referring to Jesse, father of David, who always entered with multitudes [ ukhlusa ] and left with multitudes. As he was clearly a man of importance, everyone must have known who he was.

הָכִי קָאָמַר שָׁאוּל: אִי מִפֶּרֶץ אָתֵי, אִי מִזֶּרַח אָתֵי? אִי מִפֶּרֶץ אָתֵי – מַלְכָּא הָוֵי, שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ פּוֹרֵץ לַעֲשׂוֹת דֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין מְמַחִין בְּיָדוֹ, אִי מִזֶּרַח אָתֵי – חֲשִׁיבָא בְּעָלְמָא הָוֵי.

Rather, this is what Saul was saying, in his attempt to clarify David’s lineage: Does he come from the descendants of Perez, or does he come from the descendants of Zerah? What is the significance of this question? If he comes from Perez he will be king, as a king may breach [ poretz ] a way for himself and no one can stop him. And if he comes from Zerah he will be merely a man of importance, but not a king.

מַאי טַעֲמָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁאַל עֲלֵיהּ? דִּכְתִיב ״וַיַּלְבֵּשׁ שָׁאוּל אֶת דָּוִד מַדָּיו״ – כְּמִדָּתוֹ, וּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ בְּשָׁאוּל ״מִשִּׁכְמוֹ וָמַעְלָה גָּבוֹהַּ מִכָּל הָעָם״. אָמַר לֵיהּ דּוֹאֵג הָאֲדוֹמִי: עַד שֶׁאַתָּה מַשְׁאִיל עָלָיו אִם הָגוּן הוּא לְמַלְכוּת אִם לָאו, שְׁאַל עָלָיו אִם רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל אִם לָאו. מַאי טַעֲמָא – דְּקָאָתֵי מֵרוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה.

The Gemara continues with its explanation: For what reason did Saul say to Abner that he should inquire about David? As it is written: “And Saul clad David with his apparel [ maddav ]” (I Samuel 17:38), which indicates that the clothes were of David’s size [ kemiddato ]. And it is written with regard to Saul: “From his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people” (I Samuel 9:2). Upon seeing that his clothes fit David, Saul began to fear that it might be David who was destined for the throne, and he therefore inquired into his background. At that point, Doeg the Edomite said to Saul: Before you inquire as to whether or not he is fit for kingship, inquire as to whether or not he is even fit to enter into the congregation. What is the reason for such doubts? It is that he descends from Ruth the Moabite, and Moabites are permanently barred from entering the congregation.

אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבְנֵר: תָּנֵינָא, ״עַמּוֹנִי״ וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית ״מוֹאָבִי״ וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה ״מַמְזֵר״ וְלֹא מַמְזֶרֶת! ״מַמְזֵר״ כְּתִיב, מוּם זָר.

Abner said to him: We already learned that there is no room for such concern. As the verse states: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4), teaching that an Ammonite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman; and similarly, a Moabite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not a Moabite woman. Doeg said to him: However, if that is so, say that the verse that renders it prohibited for a mamzer to enter the congregation renders prohibited only a male mamzer , but not a female mamzer . Abner replied: It is written: “A mamzer ,” which should be understood not as a noun but as an adjective, denoting a strange blemish [ mum zar ], one who is defective due to a forbidden relationship, and this applies to males and females alike.

״מִצְרִי״ וְלֹא מִצְרִית! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דִּמְפָרַשׁ טַעֲמָא דִּקְרָא: ״עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם״ – דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ לְקַדֵּם, וְלֹא דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה לְקַדֵּם. הָיָה לָהֶם לְקַדֵּם אֲנָשִׁים לִקְרַאת אֲנָשִׁים וְנָשִׁים לִקְרַאת נָשִׁים! אִישְׁתִּיק.

Doeg retorted: If so, say that it is prohibited for only an Egyptian man to enter into the congregation, but not an Egyptian woman. Abner answered: Here it is different, as the reason for the prohibition recorded in this verse with regard to Ammonites is explicit: “Because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came forth out of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 23:5). Since it is the way of a man to go forth to meet guests but it is not the way of a woman to go forth, females were not included in this prohibition. Doeg countered: Still, the men should have gone forth to meet the men, and the women to meet the women. Abner was silent, as he did not know how to respond to this objection.

מִיָּד: ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁאַל אַתָּה בֶּן מִי זֶה הָעָלֶם״. הָתָם קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״נַעַר״, הָכָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״עֶלֶם״, הָכִי קָא אָמַר לֵיהּ: הֲלָכָה נִתְעַלְּמָה מִמְּךָ, צֵא וּשְׁאַל בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, שָׁאַל, אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: ״עַמּוֹנִי״ וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית, ״מוֹאָבִי״ וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית.

Immediately: “And the king said, inquire you whose son is this lad” (I Samuel 17:56). The Gemara comments: There, in the previous verse, Saul calls him youth [ na’ar ], and here he calls him lad [ elem ]. This change in the wording hints at the following discussion. Saul said to Doeg as follows: The halakha is hidden [ nitalma ] from you, and you are ignorant of the law. Go and inquire about the matter in the study hall. He went to the study hall and asked. They said to him: The halakha is: An Ammonite man is forbidden, but not an Ammonite woman; a Moabite man is forbidden, but not a Moabite woman.