Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) LASHES FOR PROFANING

(a) (Rav Yehudah): A Kohen Gadol that has relations with a widow - he gets 2 sets of lashes, for "He will not take" and "He will not profane".
(b) Question: He should also be lashed for "He will not profane his seed"!
(c) Answer: The case is, he did not complete the marital act ("He will not profane his seed" only applies by relations capable of making a woman pregnant).
(d) Question (Rava - Beraisa): (A Kohen Gadol had relations with) a widow that is a divorcee - he is lashed for each of these prohibitions.

1. Suggestion: This means, once for each of these prohibitions.

(e) Answer: No, he gets 2 sets of lashes for each (for "He will not take" and "He will not profane")
(f) Question (end of the Beraisa): (For relations with) a divorcee that is a Chalutzah - he is only lashed once.
(g) Answer: It means, he is only lashed for one of those prohibitions - but he gets 2 sets for it.
(h) Question: May we infer from here that the prohibition of a Chalutzah is only mi'Derabanan?

1. (Beraisa): "And a woman divorced from her husband (a Kohen may not take)" - this includes a Chalutzah.

(i) That is only an Asmachta mi'Derabanan.
(j) (Abaye): If a Kohen was Mekadesh a woman forbidden to Kohanim - he is lashed once for "He will not take";

1. If he had relations with her - he is lashed once for "He will not profane".

(k) (Rava): He is only lashed if he has relations with her;

1. "He will not take...he will not profane" - taking is only forbidden so he will not profane.

(l) Abaye admits by one who remarries his divorcee that he is not lashed for Kidushin without relations - "To take her to be as a wife" is only fulfilled through relations.
(m) Rava admits by a Kohen Gadol that has relations with a widow that he is lashed, even without Kidushin - "He will not profane his seed among his nation" - relations alone profane.
(n) Both agree that one who remarries his divorcee that he is not lashed for relations without Kidushin - the Torah only forbade her through marriage.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): The daughter of a male convert is as the daughter of a Chalal.
(b) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): The daughter of a male convert is as the daughter of a Chalal - a Kal v'Chomer teaches this.

1. A Chalal was fathered by a Yisrael, yet a Chalal's daughter is disqualified (from Kehunah) - a convert was fathered by a Nochri, all the more so his daughter is disqualified!

(c) Question: We cannot learn from a Chalal, for he was conceived through sin!
(d) Answer #1: We see from a Kohen Gadol that has relations with a widow, his daughter is disqualified, even though the Kohen Gadol was not conceived in sin (i.e. this is not the determining factor).

1. Question: We cannot learn from a Kohen Gadol's daughter (from a widow), he transgressed by having relations with the widow!
2. Answer: We see from a Chalal (his daughter is disqualified, even though his wife is permitted to him) that this is not the determining factor.
3. (Summation): Chalal and Kohen Gadol each have different problems. The commonality between them is that they are different from the congregation (a transgression was involved in their formation or relations), and their daughters are disqualified;

i. Also a convert is different from the congregation (he was fathered by a Nochri), his daughter is disqualified!

4. Rejection: We cannot learn from a Chalal and a Kohen Gadol - a transgression was involved in each of them!

(e) Answer #2: Rather, a first-generation Mitzri shows that being formed through sin is not the determining factor (his daughter is forbidden).
(f) Question: We cannot learn from a (first-generation) Mitzri, for he is forbidden to marry a Bas Yisrael!
(g) Answer: We see from a Chalal (his daughter is disqualified, even though he is permitted to a Bas Yisrael) that this is not the determining factor.

1. (Summation): Chalal and a Mitzri each have different problems. The commonality between them is that they are different from the congregation (1 was formed through sin, 1 cannot marry a Bas Yisrael), and their daughters are disqualified;

i. Also a convert is different from the congregation (he was fathered by a Nochri), his daughter is disqualified!

2. Rejection: We cannot learn from a Chalal and a Mitzri - both of them disqualify a woman (from Kehunah) by having relations with her!
3. Answer: Indeed, R. Yehudah learns that a convert also disqualifies a woman by having relations with her, from this Kal v'Chomer!

(h) (Mishnah): R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, a convert...
(i) (Beraisa - R. Shimon bar Yochai): A girl that converted before 3 years old, she is permitted to Kehunah - "Keep all the young girls (of Midyan, after defeating them in war) alive for yourselves (they are permitted to you)" - and Pinchas was among the men;

1. Chachamim say, you may keep them alive - as slaves.

(j) The different opinions among the Tana'im were learned from the verse "They will not marry a widow or divorcee, rather virgins from the seed of Yisrael".

1. R. Yehudah learns, all the (primary seed, i.e. the father) must be from Yisrael;
2. R. Eliezer ben Yakov expounds, "From the seed of Yisrael" - it suffices if 1 parent is a Yisrael;
3. R. Yosi holds, she must be seeded in Yisrael (her parents are Yisraelim);
4. R. Shimon bar Yochai holds, she must be a Yisraelis when her (signs of) virginity sprout (at the age of 3).

(a) Question (Rav Nachman): The beginning of the verse speaks of a Kohen Gadol, the end speaks of a regular Kohen!

(b) Answer (Rava): Yes!
(c) Question (Rav Nachman): Do verses change like that?
(d) Answer (Rava): Yes - "The lamp of Hash-m did not yet go out, and Shmuel was lying down in the Heichal".

1. Question: But only kings from the line of David may sit in the Mikdash!
2. Answer: Rather, the verse means, the lamp of Hash-m did not yet go out in the Heichal, and Shmuel was lying down (elsewhere).

(e) Question: "A widow that will be a widow from a Kohen they (may) marry" - but not a widow of a Yisrael?!
(f) Answer #1: It means, from (only some of) the Kohanim (i.e. all but the Kohen Gadol), they may marry a widow.
(g) Answer #2 (R. Yehudah): Kohanim may marry widows of men whose daughters are permitted to Kohanim.

1. This fits R. Yehudah's opinion that the daughter of a male convert is (forbidden to Kehunah) as the daughter of a Chalal;
2. A Kohen may marry Reuven's widow only if he may marry Reuven's daughter.

(a) (Mishnah): R. Yosi says, even a convert that married a convert (his daughter is permitted to Kehunah).
(b) (Rav Hamnuna): The law is as R. Yosi.
(c) (Rabah bar bar Chanah): The law is as R. Yosi - but after the destruction of the Mikdash, Kohanim conduct stringently as R. Eliezer ben Yakov.
(d) (Rav Nachman): If a Kohen asks - we tell him the law is as R. Eliezer ben Yakov; if he married the daughter of converts, he may stay married, as R. Yosi.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven said 'My son Shimon is a Mamzer' - he is not believed;
(b) Even if Reuven and his wife say that she is pregnant with a Mamzer, they are not believed;

1. R. Yehudah says, they are believed.

(c) (Gemara) Question: Why does it say 'Even if they both say'?
(d) Answer: This teaches a bigger Chidush: not only if he says - for he is not sure if she is pregnant from him - but even if she also says (and she is sure), they are not believed;

1. Further - not only when the child has a Chazakah of being Kosher (i.e. they did not say he is a Mamzer until after he was born), but even by a fetus, which has no Chazakah, they are not believed.

(e) (Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, they are believed.
(f) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "He will recognize" - he will inform others - this teaches that a man is believed to say 'This is my firstborn son'.

1. Just as a man is believed to say 'This is my firstborn son', he is believed to say 'This son was born to a divorcee or Chalutzah';
2. Chachamim say, he is not believed.

(g) Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): We see how R. Yehudah expounds "He will recognize" - what do Chachamim learn from it?
(h) Answer (Rava): When we do not know who is the firstborn, the father is believed.
(i) Question: For what is he believed - to inherit a double portion? Even without a verse, since the father could give his son an extra portion as a gift, he is believed to say that he inherits a double portion!
(j) Answer: This would not suffice to give the son an extra share in property that subsequently comes to the father.
(k) Question: R. Meir holds, a man can transfer ownership of something not yet in the world (such as property he will later receive) - the father could give an extra share of all property he will receive, why must the Torah believe him about the firstborn?
(l) Answer: Such a gift would not help for property that falls to the father when the father is Goses (dying, and unable to give a gift).