Pisqa’ 249239H:253; JN2:174-175. 1. “Neither an Ammonite nor a Moabite shall enter the Community of HASHEM” (Dt.23:4). The verse is discussing males, not females. “An Ammonite” (Dt.23:4)— but an Ammonite woman is not excluded. “A Moabite” (Dt.23:4)— and a Moabite woman is not excluded: Words of R. Judah.240//M. Yev. 8:3. But sages say: “In the matter of their failure to extend hospitality to you, with bread and water” (Dt.23:5)— Now, who normally extends hospitality? Isn’t it the men rather than the women? [Thus, the Ammonite and Moabite women, who are blameless for the sin of the males, should not share their punishment]!
2. Well, I could have reasoned otherwise: Just as a man carrying impaired lineage is not said to be excluded from the community “forever” (Dt.23:4), yet, the women among them are treated like the men— [both subject to the same ten-year period of exclusion,] shouldn’t it follow that [in the case of male] Ammonites and Moabites— who are excluded from the community “forever”— the women among them are treated like the men— [both subject to the same permanent period of exclusion?]241Cf. M. Yev. 8:3. Or, perhaps, reverse the argument! Just as Ammonites and Moabites, who are said to be excluded from the community “forever” (Dt.23:4), and, the women among them are treated like the men— both being subject to an endless period of exclusion, shouldn’t it follow that [in the case of males] carrying impaired lineage, yet, who are not said to be excluded from the community “forever,” the women should not be subject to the same [ten years of exclusion] as the men? The Teaching states: “No one of impaired lineage shall enter the Community of HASHEM” (Dt.23:3)— whether a man or a woman.
3. Now, when the verse expands the range of the rule (i.e., Dt.23:4), [by permitting female Ammonites and Moabites to enter the community immediately,] it constricts [the range of a second rule (i.e. Dt.23:3), by excluding impaired females for ten years]! Look— you only need reason in accord with the conclusions of the former argument!242At section 2, paralleled in M. Yev.8:3. Just as a man carrying impaired lineage is not excluded from the community “forever” (Dt.23:4), and the women among them are subject to the same [ten-year period of exclusion], shouldn’t it follow that [in the case of male] Ammonites and Moabites, who are said to be excluded from the community “forever,” the women among them should be subject to the same [permanent] exclusion? The Teaching states: “An Ammonite” (Dt.23:4)— but not an Ammonite woman: Words of R. Judah.
4. If the verse states: “The tenth generation” (Dt.23:4), why does it add: “Forever?” (Dt.23:4) Forever is open-ended, leaving it free for comparative exegesis on the basis of analogical reasoning. Here, the tenth generation is mentioned (Dt.23:4), and elsewhere, the tenth generation is mentioned (Dt.23:3). Just as the tenth generation, mentioned elsewhere (Dt.23:3) implies forever, So, too, the “tenth generation” mentioned here implies forever.
(דברים כג ד) לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה׳ – בִּזְכָרִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר וְלֹא בִנְקֵבוֹת, עַמּוֹנִי וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית מוֹאָבִי וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: ״עַל דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם״, מִי דַרְכּוֹ לְקַדֵּם? אֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא נָשִׁים.
Pisqa’ 249239H:253; JN2:174-175.
1. “Neither an Ammonite nor a Moabite shall enter the Community of HASHEM” (Dt.23:4).
The verse is discussing males, not females.
“An Ammonite” (Dt.23:4)—
but an Ammonite woman is not excluded.
“A Moabite” (Dt.23:4)—
and a Moabite woman is not excluded:
Words of R. Judah.240//M. Yev. 8:3.
But sages say:
“In the matter of their failure to extend hospitality to you, with bread and water” (Dt.23:5)—
Now, who normally extends hospitality?
Isn’t it the men rather than the women?
[Thus, the Ammonite and Moabite women,
who are blameless for the sin of the males,
should not share their punishment]!
שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: וּמַה מַּמְזֵר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״עַד עוֹלָם״ עָשָה בוֹ נָשִׁים כַּאֲנָשִׁים, עַמּוֹנִים וּמוֹאָבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶם ״עַד עוֹלָם״, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בָהֶם נָשִׁים כַּאֲנָשִׁים? אוֹ חִלּוּף: מַה עַמּוֹנִים וּמוֹאָבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶם ״עַד עוֹלָם״ לֹא עָשָה בָהֶם נָשִׁים כַּאֲנָשִׁים, מַּמְזֵר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״עַד עוֹלָם״ אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ נָשִׁים כַּאֲנָשִׁים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר״, בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה.
2. Well, I could have reasoned otherwise:
Just as a man carrying impaired lineage
is not said to be excluded from the community “forever” (Dt.23:4),
yet, the women among them are treated like the men—
[both subject to the same ten-year period of exclusion,]
shouldn’t it follow that
[in the case of male] Ammonites and Moabites—
who are excluded from the community “forever”—
the women among them are treated like the men—
[both subject to the same permanent period of exclusion?] 241Cf. M. Yev. 8:3.
Or, perhaps, reverse the argument!
Just as Ammonites and Moabites,
who are said to be excluded from the community “forever” (Dt.23:4),
and, the women among them are treated like the men—
both being subject to an endless period of exclusion,
shouldn’t it follow that
[in the case of males] carrying impaired lineage,
yet, who are not said to be excluded from the community “forever,”
the women should not be subject to the same
[ten years of exclusion] as the men?
The Teaching states:
“No one of impaired lineage shall enter the Community of HASHEM” (Dt.23:3)—
whether a man or a woman.
אַחַר שֶׁרִבָּה הַכָּתוּב מִיעֵט, הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לָדוּן אֶלָּא כְּדִין הָרִאשׁוֹן: וּמַה מַּמְזֵר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״עַד עוֹלָם״ עָשָׂה בּוֹ נָשִׁים כַּאֲנָשִׁים, עַמּוֹנִים וּמוֹאָבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶם ״עַד עוֹלָם״ אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בָּהֶם נָשִׁים כַּאֲנָשִׁים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַמּוֹנִי״ וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
3. Now, when the verse expands the range of the rule (i.e., Dt.23:4),
[by permitting female Ammonites and Moabites
to enter the community immediately,]
it constricts [the range of a second rule (i.e. Dt.23:3),
by excluding impaired females for ten years]!
Look—
you only need reason in accord with
the conclusions of the former argument!242At section 2, paralleled in M. Yev.8:3.
Just as a man carrying impaired lineage
is not excluded from the community “forever” (Dt.23:4),
and the women among them are subject to the same
[ten-year period of exclusion],
shouldn’t it follow that
[in the case of male] Ammonites and Moabites,
who are said to be excluded from the community “forever,”
the women among them should be subject to
the same [permanent] exclusion?
The Teaching states:
“An Ammonite” (Dt.23:4)—
but not an Ammonite woman:
Words of R. Judah.
אִם נֶאֱמַר דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר עַד עוֹלָם? מוּפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ וְלָדוּן גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְמַעְלָה ״דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי״, מַה דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי הָאָמוּר כָּאן עַד עוֹלָם, אַף דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה עַד עוֹלָם.
4. If the verse states:
“The tenth generation” (Dt.23:4),
why does it add: “Forever?” (Dt.23:4)
Forever is open-ended,
leaving it free for comparative exegesis
on the basis of analogical reasoning.
Here, the tenth generation is mentioned (Dt.23:4),
and elsewhere, the tenth generation is mentioned (Dt.23:3).
Just as the tenth generation, mentioned elsewhere (Dt.23:3) implies forever,
So, too, the “tenth generation” mentioned here implies forever.