Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DISPUTE ON THE CAUSE OF NON-VIRGINITY

(a) If we do not say thusly, we are left with a contradiction.

1. The law is as Rav Nachman in monetary matters.
2. The law is as R. Gamliel in our Mishnah!
3. We must say as above, Rav Nachman holds as R. Gamliel.

(b) (Mishnah): The Kalah says that she is a Mukas Etz. The Chasan says, (perhaps) she had relations with a man.
(c) R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer: She is believed; R. Yehoshua says she is not believed unless she can bring proof.
(d) Question: What are the claims of the Chasan and Kalah?
(e) Answer#1 (R. Yochanan): She claims that her Kesuvah is 200; he claims that it is only 100.

1. The Tana holds as R. Meir, that the Kesuvah of a Mukas Etz is 200, even if he did not know that she is a Mukas Etz.

(f) Answer#2 (R. Elazar): She claims that her Kesuvah is 100; he claims, she has no Kesuvah.

1. He holds as Chachamim, the Kesuvah of a Mukas Etz is 100, whether or not he knew that she was a Mukas Etz.

(g) R. Elazar learns his way, because it is better to say that the Mishnah is as Chachamim.
(h) R. Yochanan learned as he did, because he holds that if a man finds that his Kalah is not a virgin, her Kesuvah is 100.

1. If the Mishnah was as Chachamim - she would be agreeing to his claim that her Kesuvah is 100!

(i) According to R. Elazar, it was needed to teach both our Mishnah and the previous one.

1. The previous one teaches (according to Chachamim) that if she is found to be Mukas Etz, her Kesuvah is 100.
2. Our Mishnah teaches that if she is found to have had relations, she has no Kesuvah.

(j) According to R. Yochanan, the 1st Mishnah teaches how extreme is the opinion of R. Yehoshua - even when there is a Migo, she is not believed.

1. Our Mishnah teaches how extreme is R. Gamliel's opinion - she is believed even without a Migo.

(a) (Mishnah): A woman is seen speaking with a man. She says that he has proper lineage.
(b) R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer: She is believed; R. Yehoshua says that we suspect that he is of improper lineage, and disqualified her from marrying a Kohen by having relations with her unless she can bring proof.
(c) A single girl is pregnant; she claims that the father has proper lineage.
(d) R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer: She is believed; R. Yehoshua says she is not believed unless she can bring proof.
(e) (Gemara - Question): What does it mean, 'she was speaking'?
(f) Answer#1 (Ze'iri): She was in seclusion.
(g) Answer#2 (Rav Asi): She had relations. The Mishnah uses a clean, euphemistic language, as in the verse "She ate ... and said, I did not sin"
(h) According to Ze'iri, the 2 clauses of the Mishnah are very different cases.
(i) Question: According to Rav Asi, why must we teach both clauses of the Mishnah?
(j) Answer: In the first clause, the dispute is if she is believed about herself. In the 2nd, the dispute is if she is believed to say that the child has proper lineage.

1. This answer fits the opinion that R. Gamliel believes her even regarding the child.
2. Question: The opinion that says that even R. Gamliel believes her only regarding herself - how can he answer?
3. Answer: Rav Asi must learn as the former opinion.

(k) (Rav Papa): According to Ze'iri, R. Yehoshua prohibits her to a Kohen for being in seclusion.

1. Suggestion: Rav says that we give lashes for being in seclusion, but we do not prohibit a girl that was in seclusion - is Rav's law unlike R. Yehoshua?

(l) Answer (Abaye): Not necessarily - R. Yehoshua's law is only a stringency regarding lineage (to marry a Kohen; Rav said that we do not prohibit a woman on her husband).

(m) Question (Beraisa): A girl was seen in seclusion or in a ruin with a man; she says that he has proper lineage.
(n) R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer: She is believed; R. Yehoshua disqualifies her from marrying a Kohen unless she can bring proof.

1. According to Ze'iri, we need to hear both cases.
2. According to Rav Asi, why do we need both cases (since we must know that there were relations in both cases)!

(o) Answer#1: It is all one case - they were in seclusion in a ruin.
(p) Objection: But it says, in seclusion *or* in a ruin!
(q) Answer#2: One case is a ruin in the city, the other, a ruin in the wilderness.

1. Both must be taught - if we only taught a ruin in the city, we would think that R. Gamliel only believes her because most men in the area have proper lineage.
2. If we only taught a ruin in the wilderness, we would think that R. Yehoshua only disqualifies her because the man could come from anywhere, and most men in the world are not Jewish, and disqualify her to a Kohen.

(a) Question: The following Beraisa is understandable according to Ze'iri, that 'talking' in the Mishnah means seclusion; it does not fit Rav Asi, who says that it means that she had relations.
(b) (Beraisa): A woman may give this testimony (to say that she is still fit for a Kohen); R. Yehoshua argues.

1. R. Yehoshua: Don't you admit to me, that if witnesses say that a woman was taken captive, she is not believed to say that she was not defiled?
2. Chachamim: The cases are different - in our case (she spoke with a man), there are no witnesses.
3. R. Yehoshua: There are also witnesses here, we see that she is pregnant!
4. Chachamim: Most Nachrim are immoral.
5. R. Yehoshua: There are no guardians regarding relations.

(c) This applies to the woman herself - all agree that the child is a Shtuki (to be explained soon).

1. Question *on* the Beraisa: How does the answer of Chachamim fit R. Yehoshua's question?
2. Answer: Chachamim: We accept your position regarding the pregnant girl. How do you defend your position by the girl that was talking?
3. R. Yehoshua: Talking is like being taken captive.
4. Chachamim: A captive is different, since most Nachrim are immoral.
5. R. Yehoshua: It is no different - when a man is secluded with a woman, there is no guardian against relations.

(d) The Beraisa considers talking and being pregnant as 2 different cases (and the subject was always the girl, not the child) - this refutes Rav Asi.
(e) Question: How could R. Yehoshua ask from the case of a captive - there, most captors disqualify her, but most men of the city do not!
(f) Answer: This supports R. Yehoshua Ben Levi, who says that the Tana'im do not make such a distinction - R. Gamliel believes her, even where most men would defile her; R. Yehoshua is stringent, even where most men do not defile her.

(a) (R. Yochanan): R. Gamliel, who says she is believed that she is still fit to marry a Kohen, says that she is also believed that the child has proper lineage; R. Yehoshua, who says that she may not marry a Kohen, also says that the child may not marry one of Kosher lineage.
(b) (R. Elazar): (Even) R. Gamliel says that the child may not marry one of Kosher lineage.

1. (Rabah): R. Elazar's reasoning is that she has a Chazakah (status quo) of being permitted; the child does not.

(c) Question (R. Elazar - Beraisa): (The dispute of her credibility) regards herself, but all agree that the child is a Shtuki.

1. Is not a Shtuki disqualified from marrying those of Kosher lineage (he is called Shtuki, because his mother tells him Shtok (be quiet) when he sees a man and calls him 'father')?

(d) Answer (R. Yochanan): No, the Shtuki is Kosher.
(e) Question: Do we find a Kosher Shtuki?
(f) Answer: Yes, as Shmuel.

1. (Shmuel): 10 Kohanim were together. 1 separated and had relations with a woman. The child is a Shtuki.
2. This cannot mean, we Mashtik (silence him) from inheriting his father - Shmuel would not need to teach this, since we do not know which is his father!
3. Rather, we silence him from privileges of Kehunah.
4. "To him and his sons after him" - one whose children trace their lineage after him, to exclude our case.