Question: Why, asks R. Ya'akov from Coucy, does the Gemara not also ask from a Ger Mitzri who marreid a Mamzeres, where there is Kidushin and no Aveirah, as the Gemara will say later (on Daf 74b) ...

Question (cont.): And he agrees that Pesulei Kahal, such as a Ger Mitzri, are permitted to marry a Mamzeres, yet he says that the child goes after the Pagum and is therefore a Mamzer?

Answer: The Riva answers that, currently the Gemara wants to ask only from cases where one of them is Kasher - such as a Ger who is eligible to enter the Kahal who is married to a Mamzeres, since that is how it currently interprets 'Yesh Kidushin ve'Ein Aveirah' ...

Answer (cont.): And since, where a Ger Mitzri who is married to a Mamzeres they are both Pasul, it declines to ask from there.

Answer Extention: However, it will shortly ask from a Mitzri who is marries to a Mitzris, even though they are not permitted to enter the Kahal ...

Implied Question: It could then just as well asked from a Mitzri who is married to a Mamzeres ...

Answer: But the Gemara's Kashya is good.

Clarification: This refers to the Seifa and the Gemara asnwers 'It says "Kol Makom" to include it'.

Implied Question: It does not however, ask 'Why not mention it specifically?', as it will ask shortly ...

Answer: Because, since he holds that a Ger (who is called Kahal( is Asur to marry a Mamzeres, it mis slightly included in the case of 'Mamzeres u'Nesinah le'Yisrael, which is already mentioned in the Mishnah - and it is not so necessary to mention it as well.

Implied Question: Nevertheless it is necessary to incorporate it in 'Kol Makom' ...

Answer: Since otherwise, it could not have learned it from 'Mamzeres u'Nesinah le'Yisrael' only.

Clarification: Meaning that he is a Chalal like his father.

Question: hat is the Kashya? Perhaps the son is Pasul, not just because we go after the father, but because the woman, his mother is also Pagum ...

Reason: Since the man rendered her Pasul with his Bi'ah, and she is a Chalalah?

Answer: The P'sul of the son cannot be on account of that of his mother - because the case of a Yisrael who is married to a Chalalah, whose daughter is Kasher to marry a Kohen even though her mother is Pasul, will prove otherwise ...

Answer (cont.): As it indicates that we go specifically after the father; Hence the Gemara's Kashya is justified.

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that the Mishnah says 'Kol Makom' to incorporate it', as it does in the case of a Yisrael who is married to a Chalalah?

Answer: Because it could then have asked 'Why not mention it specifically?' ...

Refuted Question: And it could not have answered 'Because it could not fit it in, because what should it have said?' like the Gemara answers shortly ...

Refutation: Since there is no reason why the Mishnah could not have stated 'A Kohenes who is married to a Kohen, Levi, Yisrael or to a Chalal' ...

Reason: Seeing as K'sheiros are not prohibited from marrying P'sulim.

Clarification: Rashi explains that he is permitted to marry a Yisre'elis, as the Torah writes (in Devarim 23) "The third generation shall come to them", because since there is Kidushin and no Aveirah, we apply to them 'to thgeri father's house', like a Yisrael.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Yevamos (Daf 78a) 'la'hem', 'Go after their P'sul' ...

Answer: It refers to a Yisrael who marries a Mitzris or a Mitzi who marries a Yisrael, where there is Kidushin and there is an Aveirah - that is where the child goes after the Egyptian up to three generations

Reason: Since the Torah writes "asher Yivaldu lahem" - the chioldren go after them ...

Answer (cont.): But regarding a Mitzri and a Mitzris, "lahem" does not teach us anything ...

Reason: Because then both of them fall under the category of "lahem".

Refuted Explanation: The Ram however, explains that it is not specifically where a Yisrael is married to a Mitzris that 'Go after the P'sul' is applicable ...

Reason: Because not both of them are Pasul - but whenever they are, 'Go after the P'sul' is not applicable ...

Refutation: Seeing as in the case of an AMoni who marries a Mitzris they are both Pasul, yet we go after the Pagum.

Correct Explanation: The matter therefore depends on the fact that they come from two different nations - that is where it ('Go after the P'sul) is applicable ...

Authentic Explanation: Because the Pasuk is talking in a case where there are two nations, and the Torah is saying 'Go after the one that is the more Pasul of the two ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): But when they are both from the same nation, one cannot say this.

Clarification: This means either one or the other ...

Clarification (cont.): In other words - If 'Kol Makom' in the Reisha comes to include the case of Rabah bar bar Chanah, then 'Eizo Zu' comes to preclude that of Ravin, but not that of Rav Dimi ...

Reason: Because then, Rav Dimi's ruling is not correct, seeing as Rabah bar bar Chanah's ruling is accepted, and the two rulings are contradictory ...

Reason (cont.): Since Rabah bar bar Chanah rules that the son of a Mitzri Sheini who marries a Mitzris Rishonah is a Shelisho, whereas according to Rav Dimi, he is a Sheini ...

Clarification (cont.): Whereas if 'Kol Makom' in the Reisha does not come to include the case of Rabah bar bar Chanah - because the Halachah is not like him, then we can say that 'Eizo Zu' in the Reisha comes to preclude the case of Rav Dimi.

Refuted Explanation: The Gemara is not asking from where we know that the child is a Mamzer ...

Refutation: Since the Gemara in Yevamos (Daf 49a) learns it from "Lo Yegaleh K'naf Aviv" to which it juxtaposes "Lo Yavo Mamzer"

Refutation (cont.): And the Gemara there establishes it by the Shomeres Yavam of his father, who is the wife of his father's brother - which is subject to Kareis.

Authentic Explanation: The question is from where we know that Kidushin is not effective on them.

Question: What is the She'eilah? In the entire Gemara it is taken for granted that Kidushin is not effective, since the two Dinim are interdependent - Since Chayvei Kerisus are subject to Kareis, Kidushin are not effective either? ...

Proof #1: Because according to Rebbi Akiva the Gemara says there that Kidushin are not effective by Chayvei La'avin, which we only know from the fact that he holds 'Yesh Mamzer me'Chayvei La'avin' ...

Proof #1: And since 'Yesh Mamzer', it follows that Kidushin are not effective?

Proof #2: And we also say in our Sugya (Daf 68a) 'Everyone agrees that if someone has relations with a Nidah, since Kidushin is effective, the child is not a Mamzer ...

Proof #2 (cont.): So we see that the two Dinim are interdependent?

Answer: This principle is correct, answers the Ri, but only according to Rebbi Akiva ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas the She'eilah here is according to Rebbi Yehoshua, who says there 'Ein Mamzer me'Chayvei La'avin u'Kerisus, Ela me'Chayvei Miysos Beis-Din', yet he concedes that Kidushin is not effective by Chayvei K'risus ...

Proof: As the Gemara said (on Daf 46b) 'Everybody knows that Kidushin is not effective by his sister' - indication that this is unanimously agreed upon (even by Rebbi Yehoshua) ...

Answer (concl.): And it is according to Rebbi Yehoshua that the Gemara asks from where we know that Kidushin are not effective by Chayvei La'avin.