Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A NACHRI OR SLAVE DISQUALIFIES

(a) Question: This teaches about a Bas Kohen; how do we know regarding a Bas Levi or Bas Yisrael?
(b) Answer: Answer: As R. Aba taught (elsewhere), since the Torah said "And a Bas" (as opposed to "A Bas").
(c) Suggestion: This is only as R. Akiva, who expounds extra occurrences of the letter Vav!
(d) Rejection: No, even Chachamim could agree here, since the entire verse (And a Bas Kohen...) is extra.
(e) Suggestion: Why don't we learn, men from whom she can be widowed or divorced, when she has no children from them, she eats; when she has children from them, she does not; but men from whom she cannot be widowed or divorced, even if she has children from them, she eats!
(f) Rejection: If so, why did the Torah teach that a Bas Levi and Bas Yisrael are also disqualified? (This is only needed for the latter case)!
(g) Question: According to R. Akiva, who says that engagement does not take effect by Chayavei Lavin, and explains, "When she will be to a foreign man" to mean she has relations with a foreign man - why did the Torah write, "widow or divorcee" (since they do not apply)?
(h) Answer: To teach the laws themselves, a stringency by a widow (if she has children, she may not eat) and a leniency by a divorcee (if she has no children, she may eat).

1. It is necessary to teach both.
2. If only the case of a widow was taught - (that if she has no children, she may eat) - one would think, this is because she is still fit to marry a Kohen; but a divorcee, who cannot marry a Kohen, does not eat, even if she has no children.
3. If only the case of a divorcee was taught - (that if she has children, she may not eat) - one would think, this is because she is unfit to marry a Kohen; but a widow, who can marry a Kohen, eats, even if she has children.

(i) Suggestion: Perhaps even a man that remarries his wife (after she married someone else, and is forbidden to him) disqualifies her!
(j) Rejection: The Torah said, to a foreigner - one who is forbidden to her from birth.
(k) Question: If so, a Chalal, who is not forbidden to her at all should not disqualify her!
(l) Answer: "(A Kohen Gadol) will not disqualify his seed..." - we equate the law of his seed (a Chalal) to him.

1. Just as he disqualifies, also his seed disqualifies.

(m) Suggestion: Let us say that his seed disqualifies by engagement alone!
(n) Rejection: No, he is compared to a Kohen Gadol that disqualifies a widow.

1. A Kohen Gadol only disqualifies a widow through relations; also, a Chalal.

(o) Suggestion: Let us say that a Chalal only disqualifies when he has relations within wedlock!
(p) Rejection: No, he is compared to a Kohen Gadol that disqualifies a widow.

1. A Kohen Gadol disqualifies a widow through relations alone; also, a Chalal.

(a) (Beraisa - R. Yosi): Anyone whose seed is forbidden, disqualifies; anyone whose seed is permitted, does not disqualify.
(b) Question: How does this argue on the 1st Tana?
(c) Answer (R. Yochanan): A 2nd generation (i.e. the son of a converted) Mitzri or Edomi (that has relations with a Bas Yisrael).

1. Both Tana'im learned from the comparison to a Kohen Gadol and a widow.
2. The 1st Tana learns, just as a Kohen Gadol is forbidden to have relations with a widow, if he does, he disqualifies her - the same applies to a 2nd generation Mitzri or Edomi.
3. R. Yosi learns, a Kohen Gadol's children from a widow are disqualified, so the Kohen Gadol disqualifies her - but children of a 2nd generation Mitzri (or Edomi) are fine, so he does not disqualify her.

i. "The 3rd generation of children born to them may enter the congregation of Hash-m".

(d) (Beraisa - R. Shimon Ben Gamliel): Any man whose daughter can marry a Kohen, his widow can marry a Kohen ...
(e) Question: How does R. Shimon Ben Gamliel argue on R. Yosi?
(f) Answer (Ula): They argue by a convert from Amon or Moav (that has relations with a Bas Yisrael).

1. Both Tana'im learned from the comparison to a Kohen Gadol and a widow.
2. R. Yosi learns, a Kohen Gadol's children from a widow are disqualified, and the Kohen Gadol disqualifies her - also, in every case that a man's children through a woman are forbidden (including a converted Amoni or Moavi that marries a Bas Yisrael), he disqualifies her.
3. R. Shimon Ben Gamliel learns, all children of a Kohen Gadol that has relations with a widow are disqualified - also, in every case that all of a man's children through a woman are forbidden, he disqualifies her.

i. This excludes a converted Amoni or Moavi, since only his sons are forbidden, not his daughters.

(a) (Mishnah): A rapist, enticer, and a lunatic neither disqualify nor permit eating Terumah; if they are forbidden to marry a Bas Yisrael, they disqualify.

1. If he is a Yisrael that has relations with a Bas Kohen, she continues to eat Terumah;

2. If she became pregnant, she may not eat; if the fetus was cut up inside her, she may eat.
3. If he is a Kohen that has relations with a Bas Yisrael, she may not eat Terumah;
4. If she became pregnant, she may not eat; if she gave birth, she may eat.

i. The child has more ability to permit her to eat than the father does!

(b) A slave disqualifies because of relations, but not because of seed.

1. A Kohen was married to a Bas Yisrael or a Yisrael to a Bas Kohen; and they had a son; the son had relations with a slave, and she gave birth - the child is a slave.
2. In the case of the Kohen that was married to a Bas Yisrael - she may not eat Terumah (if she was widowed or divorced, and her son died - her grandchild, the slave, is not considered as seed from a Kohen).
3. In the case of the Yisrael that was married to a Bas Kohen - she may eat Terumah (if she is widowed or divorced and her son died).

(c) A Mamzer can disqualify or permit eating.

1. A Kohen was married to a Bas Yisrael or a Yisrael to a Bas Kohen; and they had a daughter; the daughter had a child from a Nachri or slave - the child is a Mamzer.
2. In the case of the Kohen that was married to a Bas Yisrael - she may eat Terumah (even if widowed or divorced and her daughter died - her grandchild, the Mamzer, is considered as seed from a Kohen).
3. In the case of the Yisrael that was married to a Bas Kohen - she may not eat Terumah (even if she was widowed or divorced, and her daughter died).

(d) Sometimes a Kohen Gadol can forbid eating.

1. A Bas Kohen was married to a Yisrael, and they had a daughter; the daughter had a child from a Kohen - the child is fit to serve as a Kohen Gadol.
2. He permits his mother to eat Terumah, and forbids his mother's mother.

i. His grandmother laments, 'There should not be as my grandson the Kohen Gadol, who prohibits me to eat Terumah.'

(e) (Gemara): We learn from our Mishnah what was taught in this Beraisa.

1. (Beraisa): A lunatic or minor that married and died - his wife is exempt from Chalitzah and Yibum (because the marriage did not take effect).

(f) (Mishnah): If he is a Yisrael that has relations with a Bas Kohen, she continues to eat Terumah; if she became pregnant, she may not eat.
(g) Question: Since if she is pregnant, she may not eat - when we do not know if she is pregnant, we should be concerned, perhaps she is pregnant!

1. (Mishnah): We separate (women that had relations with each other's husband) for 3 months, lest they are pregnant.

(h) Answer #1 (Rabah Bar Rav Huna): We are only concerned regarding lineage, not for Terumah.
(i) Question: Are we really not concerned regarding Terumah?

1. (Beraisa): A man gave a Get to his wife, that she should be divorced a moment before he dies - she is immediately forbidden to eat Terumah.

(j) Answer #2 (Rabah Bar Rav Huna): Rather, we are only concerned for relations which came through marriage, not for extramarital relations.
(k) Question: Are we really concerned for relations through marriage?

1. (Beraisa): A Bas Kohen was married to a Yisrael, and he died. She may immerse, and eat Terumah at nightfall.

(l) Answer (Rav Chisda): She may eat for 40 days.

1. If she is not pregnant - there is no problem.
2. If she is pregnant - until 40 days, the fetus is (considered to be) mere water.

(m) Question (Abaye): But the end of the Beraisa teaches, If she is seen to be pregnant, she is retroactively messed up (we see, she was allowed to eat)!
(n) Answer (Rav Chisda): She is retroactively messed up for the 40 days she ate Terumah.

(a) Version #1: A Chasan has relations with his betrothed in her father's house. Rav: The child is a Mamzer.
(b) Shmuel: The child is a Shtuki (i.e. of uncertain lineage).
(c) (Rava): Presumably, Rav said his law when she is suspected of relations with others; if not, we attribute the child to her husband.

1. (Rava): I say this because the Mishnah teaches, if she gave birth (after being raped or enticed by a Kohen), she may eat.
2. Question (Rava): What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If she is suspected of relations with others - why may she eat?!

3. Answer (Rava): Rather, we must say, she is only suspected of relations with him.

i. Even though she is forbidden both to him and to all others - we assume that the child is from him.
ii. Here (by the engaged girl), she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to all others - all the more so, we should assume the child is from her husband!

(d) Objection (Abaye): Really, one can say, whenever she is suspected of him, even if she is not suspected of others, Rav said that the child is a Mamzer.

1. We say, just as she freely had relations with her betrothed, she freely had relations with others.
2. The case of our Mishnah is when she was locked in a jail cell with the Kohen (and she could not have had relations with anyone else).

(e) Version #2: If we know that the Chasan had relations with his betrothed, all agree that we attribute the child to him. They argue by an engaged girl that is pregnant (nothing else is known).
(f) Rav: The child is a Mamzer.
(g) Shmuel: The child is a Shtuki.
(h) (Rava): Presumably, Rav said his law when she is not suspected of relations with her betrothed, and is suspected of relations with others.