(טו) כִּי֩ יי אֱלֹקֶ֜יךָ מִתְהַלֵּ֣ךְ ׀ בְּקֶ֣רֶב מַחֲנֶ֗ךָ לְהַצִּֽילְךָ֙ וְלָתֵ֤ת אֹיְבֶ֙יךָ֙ לְפָנֶ֔יךָ וְהָיָ֥ה מַחֲנֶ֖יךָ קָד֑וֹשׁ וְלֹֽא־יִרְאֶ֤ה בְךָ֙ עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר וְשָׁ֖ב מֵאַחֲרֶֽיךָ׃ (ס)
(15) Since the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you, let your camp be holy; let Him not find anything unseemly among you and turn away from you.
(ו) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהוֹנָתָ֜ן אֶל־הַנַּ֣עַר ׀ נֹשֵׂ֣א כֵלָ֗יו לְכָה֙ וְנַעְבְּרָ֗ה אֶל־מַצַּב֙ הָעֲרֵלִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה אוּלַ֛י יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה יי לָ֑נוּ כִּ֣י אֵ֤ין לַֽיי מַעְצ֔וֹר לְהוֹשִׁ֥יעַ בְּרַ֖ב א֥וֹ בִמְעָֽט׃
(6) Jonathan said to the attendant who carried his arms, “Come, let us cross over to the outpost of those uncircumcised fellows. Perhaps the LORD will act in our behalf, for nothing prevents the LORD from winning a victory by many or by few.”
(טו) וַיִּתְפָּֽקְדוּ֩ בְנֵ֨י בִנְיָמִ֜ן בַּיּ֤וֹם הַהוּא֙ מֵהֶ֣עָרִ֔ים עֶשְׂרִ֨ים וְשִׁשָּׁ֥ה אֶ֛לֶף אִ֖ישׁ שֹׁ֣לֵֽף חָ֑רֶב לְ֠בַד מִיֹּשְׁבֵ֤י הַגִּבְעָה֙ הִתְפָּ֣קְד֔וּ שְׁבַ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת אִ֥ישׁ בָּחֽוּר׃ (טז) מִכֹּ֣ל ׀ הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה שְׁבַ֤ע מֵאוֹת֙ אִ֣ישׁ בָּח֔וּר אִטֵּ֖ר יַד־יְמִינ֑וֹ כָּל־זֶ֗ה קֹלֵ֧עַ בָּאֶ֛בֶן אֶל־הַֽשַּׂעֲרָ֖ה וְלֹ֥א יַחֲטִֽא׃ (פ)
(15) On that day the Benjaminites mustered from the towns 26,000 fighting men, mustered apart from the inhabitants of Gibeah; 700 picked men (16) of all this force—700 picked men—were left-handed. Every one of them could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.
(טז) וְנֹקֵ֤ב שֵׁם־יי מ֣וֹת יוּמָ֔ת רָג֥וֹם יִרְגְּמוּ־ב֖וֹ כָּל־הָעֵדָ֑ה כַּגֵּר֙ כָּֽאֶזְרָ֔ח בְּנָקְבוֹ־שֵׁ֖ם יוּמָֽת׃
(16) if he also pronounces the name LORD, he shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him; stranger or citizen, if he has thus pronounced the Name, he shall be put to death.
(כז) וְאָֽנֹכִי֙ לֹֽא־חָטָ֣אתִי לָ֔ךְ וְאַתָּ֞ה עֹשֶׂ֥ה אִתִּ֛י רָעָ֖ה לְהִלָּ֣חֶם בִּ֑י יִשְׁפֹּ֨ט יי הַשֹּׁפֵט֙ הַיּ֔וֹם בֵּ֚ין בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וּבֵ֖ין בְּנֵ֥י עַמּֽוֹן׃
(27) I have done you no wrong; yet you are doing me harm and making war on me. May the LORD, who judges, decide today between the Israelites and the Ammonites!”
(ג) יי אִ֣ישׁ מִלְחָמָ֑ה יי שְׁמֽוֹ׃
(3) The LORD, the Warrior— LORD is His name!
(כו) בָּר֣וּךְ הַ֭בָּא בְּשֵׁ֣ם יי בֵּ֝רַֽכְנוּכֶ֗ם מִבֵּ֥ית יי׃
(26) May he who enters be blessed in the name of the LORD; we bless you from the House of the LORD.
(ח) כְּ֭מוֹהֶם יִהְי֣וּ עֹשֵׂיהֶ֑ם כֹּ֭ל אֲשֶׁר־בֹּטֵ֣חַ בָּהֶֽם׃
(8) Those who fashion them, all who trust in them, shall become like them.
הא לא צריכא ליה [ותיפוק ליה] דהא מצרית ראשונה היא וכי תימא הנך אזלי לעלמא והני אחריני נינהו והא תניא א"ר יהודה מנימין גר מצרי היה לי חבר מתלמידי ר"ע אמר אני מצרי ראשון ונשאתי מצרית ראשונה אשיא לבני מצרית שניה כדי שיהא בן בני ראוי לבא בקהל אמר רב פפא אנן משלמה ליקו ונתיב שלמה לא נסיב מידי דכתיב ביה (מלכים א יא, ב) מן הגוים אשר אמר יי אל בני ישראל לא תבואו בהם והם לא יבואו בכם אכן יטו את לבבכם אחרי אלהיהם בהם דבק שלמה לאהבה אלא קשיא ויתחתן מתוך אהבה יתירה שאהבה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו נתחתן בה א"ל רבינא לרב אשי והא אנן תנן פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה מותרים בגיורת ומשוחררת הא בנתינה אסירי א"ל וליטעמיך אימא סיפא ואינן אסורין אלא מלבא בקהל הא בנתינה שרו אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה: מתני׳ עמוני ומואבי אסורים ואיסורן איסור עולם אבל נקבותיהם מותרות מיד מצרי ואדומי אינם אסורים אלא עד שלשה דורות אחד זכרים ואחד נקבות ר"ש מתיר את הנקבות מיד א"ר שמעון ק"ו הדברים ומה אם במקום שאסר את הזכרים איסור עולם התיר את הנקבות מיד מקום שלא אסר את הזכרים אלא עד שלשה דורות אינו דין שנתיר את הנקבות מיד אמרו לו אם הלכה נקבל ואם לדין יש תשובה אמר להם לא כי הלכה אני אומר: גמ' מנא ה"מ א"ר יוחנן דאמר קרא (שמואל א יז, נה) וכראות שאול את דוד יוצא לקראת הפלשתי אמר אל אבנר שר הצבא בן מי זה הנער אבנר ויאמר אבנר חי נפשך המלך אם ידעתי ולא ידע ליה והכתיב (שמואל א טז, כא) ויאהבהו מאד ויהי לו נושא כלים אלא אאבוה קא משאיל ואביו לא ידע ליה והכתיב (שמואל א יז, יב) והאיש בימי שאול זקן בא באנשים ואמר רב ואיתימא רבי אבא זה ישי אבי דוד שנכנס באוכלוסא ויצא באוכלוסא ה"ק שאול אי מפרץ אתי אי מזרח אתי אי מפרץ אתי מלכא הוי שהמלך פורץ לעשות דרך ואין ממחין בידו אי מזרח אתי חשיבא בעלמא הוי מ"ט אמר ליה שאל עליה דכתיב (שמואל א יז, לח) וילבש שאול את דוד מדיו כמדתו וכתיב ביה בשאול (שמואל א ט, ב) משכמו ומעלה גבוה מכל העם א"ל דואג האדומי עד שאתה משאיל עליו אם הגון הוא למלכות אם לאו שאל עליו אם ראוי לבא בקהל אם לאו מ"ט דקאתי מרות המואביה א"ל אבנר תנינא עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית אלא מעתה ממזר ולא ממזרת ממזר כתיב מום זר מצרי ולא מצרית שאני הכא דמפרש טעמא דקרא (דברים כג, ה) על אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים דרכו של איש לקדם ולא דרכה של אשה לקדם היה להם לקדם אנשים לקראת אנשים ונשים לקראת נשים אישתיק מיד ויאמר המלך שאל אתה בן מי זה העלם התם קרי ליה נער הכא קרי ליה עלם הכי קא אמר ליה הלכה נתעלמה ממך צא ושאל בבית המדרש שאל אמרו ליה עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית אקשי להו דואג כל הני קושייתא אישתיקו בעי לאכרוזי עליה מיד (שמואל ב יז, כה) ועמשא בן איש ושמו יתרא הישראלי אשר בא אל אביגיל בת נחש וכתיב (דברי הימים א ב, יז) יתר הישמעאלי אמר רבא מלמד שחגר חרבו כישמעאל ואמר כל מי שאינו שומע הלכה זו ידקר בחרב כך מקובלני מבית דינו של שמואל הרמתי עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית ומי מהימן והאמר רבי אבא אמר רב כל תלמיד חכם שמורה הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו אין שומעין לו שאני הכא דהא שמואל ובית דינו קיים מכל מקום קשיא הכא תרגמו (תהלים מה, יד) כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה במערבא אמרי ואיתימא ר' יצחק אמר קרא (בראשית יח, ט) ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך וגו' כתנאי עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר (דברים כג, ה) על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים דרכו של איש לקדם וכו' דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים קטז, טז) פתחת למוסרי אמר דוד לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולם שני מוסרות שהיו עלי פתחתם רות המואביה ונעמה העמונית דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים מ, ו) רבות עשית אתה יי אלקי נפלאותיך ומחשבותיך אלינו אלי לא נאמר אלא אלינו מלמד שהיה רחבעם יושב בחיקו של דוד אמר לו עלי ועליך נאמרו שתי מקראות הללו דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים מ, ח) אז אמרתי הנה באתי במגילת ספר כתוב עלי אמר דוד אני אמרתי עתה באתי ולא ידעתי שבמגילת ספר כתוב עלי התם כתיב (בראשית יט, טו) הנמצאות הכא כתיב (תהלים פט, כא) מצאתי דוד עבדי בשמן קדשי משחתיו אמר עולא א"ר יוחנן בת גר עמוני כשרה לכהונה א"ל רבא בר עולא לעולא כמאן אי כר' יהודה הא אמר בת גר זכר כבת חלל זכר ואי כרבי יוסי פשיטא הא אמר אף גר שנשא גיורת בתו כשרה לכהונה וכ"ת בהנך דראוין לבא בקהל אבל האי דאין ראוי לבא בקהל לא מנא ליה דיליף מכ"ג באלמנה מה לכ"ג באלמנה שכן ביאתו בעבירה חלל יוכיח מה לחלל שכן יצירתו בעבירה כ"ג יוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שאינו ברוב קהל ובתו פסולה אף כאן שאינו ברוב קהל ובתו פסולה מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד עבירה דלמא ודאי בעמוני שנשא בת ישראל קאמרת אע"ג דביאתו בעבירה בתו כשרה א"ל אין דכי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן בת גר עמוני ובת מצרי שני רבי יוחנן אמר כשרה ור"ל אמר פסולה ר"ל אמר פסולה דיליף לה מכ"ג באלמנה ר' יוחנן אמר כשרה
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. mishna 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. 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? 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. gemara 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Doeg raised before them all those objections from the others who are disqualified from entering into the congregation, and they were silent, not knowing how to respond. Doeg then wanted to proclaim that David was disqualified from entering into the congregation. He was immediately answered. Here it says: “Now Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Jithra the Israelite, that went into Abigal the daughter of Nahash” (II Samuel 17:25), and yet elsewhere it is written that Amasa’s father was named “Jether the Ishmaelite” (I Chronicles 2:17). Rava said: This teaches that he girded his sword like Ishmael, i.e., like an Arab, and said: Whoever does not accept this halakha and act accordingly shall be stabbed with the sword. This is the tradition that I received from the court of Samuel from Rama: An Ammonite man is prohibited from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman; a Moabite man is prohibited from entering into the congregation, but not a Moabite woman. The Gemara asks about this incident: And is he trusted to offer such testimony? But didn’t Rabbi Abba say that Rav said: With regard to every Torah scholar who issues a halakhic ruling based on a tradition he claims to have received from his teacher, and that ruling has practical ramifications for himself as well, if he stated the ruling already before the incident, i.e., before it had a bearing on his own case, one listens to him; but if not, if he reported the tradition only after it was personally relevant to him, one does not listen to him, as he is an interested party. Since Amasa was the son of Jesse’s daughter Abigail, as stated in the aforementioned verse in Chronicles, the matter certainly affected his own status. The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as Samuel and the other members of his court were still living, and the truth of Amasa’s report could be easily verified. The Gemara asks: In any case, the unanswered question raised by Doeg is difficult. The Gemara answers: Here, in Babylonia, they explained the matter based on the verse: “The king’s daughter is all glorious within” (Psalms 45:14), which indicates that it is unbefitting for a woman to venture outside at all, and therefore the Ammonite women would not have been expected to go forth to meet the Jewish women. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzḥak who said: The verse states: “And they said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he said: Behold, in the tent” (Genesis 18:9), which teaches that it is praiseworthy for a woman to remain inside her home. The Gemara comments that this disagreement with regard to the source of the halakha that it is permitted for an Ammonite or Moabite woman to enter into the congregation is like the following dispute between tanna’im: The verse states: “An Ammonite or a Moabite” (Deuteronomy 23:4); 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. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who derives the halakha from the masculine form of these two terms. Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states: “Because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way” (Deuteronomy 23:5). Since it is the way of a man, but not the way of a woman, to go forth to meet guests, females were not included in the prohibition. With regard to the same issue, Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You have loosened my bands” (Psalms 116:16)? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You have loosened the two bands that were on me, on account of which I and my entire family might have been disqualified, i.e., Ruth the Moabite woman and Na’ama the Ammonite woman. Owing to the allowance granted to Moabite and Ammonite women, we are permitted to enter the congregation. Rava further taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Many things have You done, O Lord my God, Your wonders and Your thoughts are upon us” (Psalms 40:6)? Upon me is not stated, but rather “upon us,” which teaches that Rehoboam, son of Solomon and grandson of David, was sitting on the lap of David, who said to him: These two verses were stated about me and about you, as Rehoboam’s mother was Na’ama the Ammonite. With regard to the same issue, Rava also taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then I said: Behold, I have come; in the scroll of a book it is written about me” (Psalms 40:8)? David said: I had said that I have come only now; my life was created only recently, at the time of my birth. But I did not know that it was already written about me in the scroll of a book, that an ancient text already hints at my existence. There, with regard to the daughters of Lot, it is written: “And your two daughters that are found here” (Genesis 19:15), and here, with regard to David, it is written: “I have found David, My servant; I have anointed him with My holy oil” (Psalms 89:21). The lost article that was found among the daughters of Lot, the mothers of Ammon and Moab, is David and his royal house. Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The daughter of an Ammonite convert is fit not only to marry an ordinary Israelite, but even to marry into the priesthood. Rava bar Ulla said to Ulla: In accordance with whose opinion did you state this halakha? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that the daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male ḥalal, one rendered unfit for the priesthood, which means that the daughter of any convert should be disqualified from the priesthood? And if you spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it is obvious that this is the case, as he said that even if a male convert marries a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood. And if you would say that Rabbi Yosei spoke only of those converts who are fit to enter into the congregation, but with regard to this one, an Ammonite convert, who is not fit to enter into the congregation, his daughter is not fit to marry a priest, there is a difficulty: From where does he derive this distinction? The Gemara answers: He derives this from the case of a High Priest who married a widow, a woman whom he is prohibited from marrying. Just as his daughter is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, so too is the daughter of an Ammonite convert disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. However, an objection may be raised: What comparison can be made to a High Priest who married a widow, which is a stringent prohibition, as his intercourse involves a transgression? Can one say the same with regard to the daughter of an Ammonite convert, who could be born from a permitted relationship, e.g., from a male Ammonite convert who married a female Ammonite convert? The Gemara answers: Let the case of a ḥalal prove that this is not relevant, as his intercourse does not involve a transgression and yet his children are also ḥalalim, who are prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. However, another objection may be raised: What comparison can be made to a ḥalal, seeing that his essential formation involved a transgression, and therefore it is understandable that his disqualification extends to his offspring. Can one say the same with regard to the daughter of an Ammonite convert who was not the product of a forbidden union? The Gemara answers: Let the case of a High Priest who marries a widow prove that this is not relevant, as he was not the product of a forbidden union but nevertheless his daughter is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point, and the discussion can go back and forth. At this point, however, the halakha can be derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this case, that of a High Priest, is not like the aspect of that case, that of a ḥalal, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common denominator is that he is not included in the majority of the congregation, i.e., the man is governed by a halakha that differs from that of most Jews. The High Priest’s intercourse with a widow involves a transgression, and the ḥalal is the product of a forbidden union. And in each case, the man’s daughter is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. So too, an Ammonite convert is not included in the majority of the congregation, as it is prohibited for him to enter the congregation of Israel, and so his daughter is also disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. The Gemara objects: What is the common denominator between the case of the High Priest and that of the ḥalal that prevents one from utilizing it as a paradigm for other cases? Both of those cases include an aspect of transgression; the High Priest engaged in a forbidden act of intercourse, and the ḥalal is the product of a forbidden union. Perhaps that is the reason that the daughter in each of these cases is prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. In the case of the Ammonite convert, however, there is no transgression. The Gemara answers: Perhaps you spoke of an Ammonite convert who married the daughter of a Jew, and Rabbi Yoḥanan wished to teach that although his intercourse involves a transgression, as it is prohibited for him to enter into the congregation, his daughter is nevertheless fit to marry into the priesthood. Ulla said to him: Yes, this was Rabbi Yoḥanan’s teaching. As, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to the daughter of an Ammonite convert who is the offspring of his forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, and similarly, with regard to the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert from his forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, Rabbi Yoḥanan said that she is fit to marry into the priesthood, whereas Reish Lakish said that she is disqualified from marrying a priest. Reish Lakish said she is disqualified, as he derives from the halakha governing a High Priest who married a widow that the daughter of any forbidden union is disqualified from the priesthood. Rabbi Yoḥanan said she is fit,