Be'Amav as Singular?
A quick thought on today’s daf, Kiddushin 7a:
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִקְוֵה טׇהֳרָה לַחֲלָלוֹת, כָּךְ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִקְוֵה טׇהֳרָה לַחֲלָלִים. מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״ – בְּעִם אֶחָד הוּא דְּמֵיחֵל, בִּשְׁנֵי עֲמָמִים אֵינוֹ מֵיחֵל.
The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says: Just as the sons of Israel are a ritual bath of purity for ḥalalot, i.e., the daughter of a ḥalala who marries an Israelite does not transmit her status of a ḥalala, and their daughters may marry priests, so the daughters of Israel are a ritual bath of purity for ḥalalim, and their daughters may marry priests. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains that the verse states: “He shall not profane his offspring among his people” (Leviticus 21:15), which teaches: It is among one people that he profanes, i.e., the offspring is a ḥalal only when he and his wife are both profaned, i.e., ḥalalim, but among two peoples he does not profane. If the mother is of a different people, i.e., not a ḥalala, the offspring is of unflawed lineage.
I think there was a nikkud generation error and it should be be’am, rather than be’im.
Anyway, what is this business with one people as opposed to two? Rashi explains something that is hard to wrap our minds around:
בעמיו - מדלא כתיב בעממיו משמע שאין זרעו מחלל את בתו אלא כשהוא ואשתו מעם אחד ששניהם חללים:
Since it does not write be’amemav (with two mems, it implies that he doesn’t profane his daughter unless both he and his wife are from a single nation, that is, that both of them are chalalim.
Presumably, influencing Rashi’s explanation is how the gemara explains it, as shnei amamim, which has two mems.
However, Rashash points out an obvious objection — at least obvious to those hung up onm dikduk as I am — the silent yud in ama(y)v indicates a plural form. So, if I want to say “his horse”, I could say סוסו. But his horses, סוסים שלו, would preserve the yud even though it isn’t pronounced, and it would be סוסיו. Since עמו would be singular, עמיו would be plural. How can we darshen it to mean specifically one nation, instead of two.
Rashash discusses this:
שם בעמיו בעם אחד כו' בשני עממין אינו מיחל. עפרש"י. וקשה דהא עמיו הוא ל"ר דבל"י אומר עמו. ואולי הואיל דמצינו דגם על עם אחד אומר עמיו כמו לא יטמא בעמיו ודומיו אם הי' המכוון כאן על רבים הל"ל בעממיו כמו בעממיך (שופטים ה) ועממים (נחמי' ט). ולע"ד יל"פ דכוונת הגמרא מהכינוי דבעמיו דמשמע דעם דומה לו דומה למה שפרש"י בד"ה זרעו האב והזרע הוזכרו בתיבה זו כו':
He suggests that since we find even one nation referred to as amav, like lo yitama ba’amav, if we want to designate the plural, it should have said be’amemav — and gives an example in Shofetim 5, about amemim. And in his humble opinion, the intent of the gemara differs from what Rashi says. Rather, be’amav is like the proximate derasha as explained by Rashi, that the nation is similar to him - so the woman is similar to him.
Perhaps. It is sometimes difficult to match up with Chazal’s system of derashot. And also, note that this is actually the Stammaitic, the Talmudic Narrator explaining Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda’s position, and coming up with a derasha. Such late, post-Talmudic derashot, might be a kvetch or operate via very different rules. So we should take care before lumping it in with derashot appearing in Tannaitic or Amoraic sources, when coming up with a mechanical system of derash. What might be an alternative? Consider that Rabbi Dostai is basically saying that both male and female chalal and chalala are only in that generation, and that status does not perpetuate to subsequent generations, unless there is a double-pegam. Maybe we can derive something from zar’o, that it is limited to that immediate generation. Or it is a general principle, just as we see for Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov II about perpetuating the status of geir.
We see about the word חלל that Rabbi Akiva darshened the double lamed to refer to two. And in קודש הילולים לה, that one should make two chilulim / berachot (taking the heh as a chet). So, we could / should take the single mem in be’amav in the opposite direction, even if is ungrammatical.
Or, we could say that the doubled lamed in lo yechalel is only if there are shnei chalalim.
I mentioned Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov II. There were two Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakovs, one much earlier and one much later. Here, I’m positing that it is #2, the student of Rabbi Akiva. See my earlier post about this, and the rule that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov always wins. I claim it refers to #1, but others (e.g. Rav Aharon Hyman in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim) argue.
We assume that are Mishnah is ordered chronologically. So, we have Rabbi Yehuda, then Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and finally Rabbi Yossi (who often wins because nimuko imo). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yossi are fifth generation, so it stands to reason that so is this fifth-generation Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.
The Rif often shortens the gemara and brings it into focus. Here is the Mishnah and just the part of the gemara that shows how we pasken:
מתני' (דף עז.) רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר ישראל שנשא גיורת בתו כשרה לכהונה וגר שנשא בת ישראל בתו כשרה לכהונה אבל גר שנשא גיורת בתו פסולה לכהונה אחד גרים וא' עבדים משוחררים אפילו עד עשרה דורות עד שתהא אמן מישראל רבי יוסי אומר אף גר שנשא גיורת בתו כשרה לכהונה:
גמ' (דף עח:) אמר רב המנונא משמיה דעולא הלכה כר' יוסי וכן אמר רבה בר בר חנה הלכה כרבי יוסי ומיום שחרב בית המקדש נהגו כהנים סילסול בעצמן כר' אליעזר בן יעקב אמר רב נחמן בא לימלך מורין לו כר' אליעזר בן יעקב נשא אין מוציאין ממנו כרבי יוסי:
So both Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov prevail, in their own way.