Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN A WIDOW EATS TERUMAH AND MA'ASER

(a) A Bas Kohen that married a Yisrael may not eat Terumah; if he died, and she has a son from him, she does not eat Terumah;

1. If she married a Levi, she eats Ma'aser; if he died, and she has a son from him, she eats Ma'aser;
2. If she married a Kohen, she eats Terumah; if he died, and she has a son from him, she eats Terumah;
3. If her son from the Kohen died, she may eat Ma'aser; if her son from the Levi died, she may not eat Ma'aser; if her son from the Yisrael died, she returns to her father's house.

i. "She will return to her father's house, as when she was a Na'arah; she will eat from his bread".

(b) (Gemara) Question: If her son from the Levi dies, she resumes eating Terumah because of her son (from the Kohen) - what is the source for this?
(c) Answer (R. Aba): "*And* a Bas (Kohen)".

1. Suggestion: This is as R. Akiva, that expounds "*And*".
2. Rejection: No, even Chachamim admit here, since the entire verse "And a Bas..." is extra.

(d) (Beraisa): She returns to eat Terumah, but not chest and foreleg.
(e) Opinion #1 (Rav Chisda): This is learned from "She will not eat b'TeRUMas ha'Kodshim" - what is MuRAM (lifted) from the Kodshim.
(f) Opinion #2 (Rav Nachman): This is learned from "From the bread" - but not all the bread, to exclude chest and foreleg.

1. Question (Rami Bar Chama): We should say that the verse only excludes that her father does not resume authority to annul her vows!
2. Answer (Rava): We already know that from Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael.

i. (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) Question: "The vow of a widow or divorcee will stand" - what does this teach - she is not in the jurisdiction of her father or husband (obviously, no one can annul her vow)!
ii. Answer: The father or his messengers handed her over to the messengers of the husband, and she was widowed or divorced on the way.
iii. Should we say, it is as if she was still in her father's house? Or is it as if she entered her husband's house?
iv. The verse teaches, once she leaves the father's jurisdiction for a moment, he cannot annul her vows.

(g) Opinion #3 (Rav Safra): "From the bread" - but not meat.
(h) Opinion #4 (Rav Papa): "From the bread of her father" - bread which her father owns, to exclude chest and foreleg, which he (does not own but) merits to eat from Hash-m's table.
(i) Opinion #5 (Rava): "The chest of waving and foreleg ... and your daughters with you" - when (your daughters) are with you.
(j) (Rav Ada Bar Ahavah - Beraisa): When she returns to her father's house, she eats Terumah, but not chest and foreleg; when she returns because of her son, she eats even chest and foreleg.
(k) Objection (Rav Ashi): Since you learn (one who resumes eating because of her son) from "And a Bas Kohen" (that returns to her father's house), you cannot learn more than that case!
(l) Answer (Rav Mordechai): In that case, the Torah excluded chest and foreleg; here, it does not.

(a) (Mishnah): A Bas Kohen that married a Yisrael ...
(b) (Beraisa): "She will return to her father's house" - to exclude a Shomeres Yavam; "As in her youth" - to exclude if she is pregnant;
(c) Question: Can't we learn this from a Kal v'Chomer?

1. By Yibum, a child from a previous husband does not count as a child from the latter husband to exempt a widow from Yibum, but a fetus is as a born child (to exempt from Yibum);
2. By Terumah, a child from a previous husband counts as a child from the latter husband to disqualify a widow from eating - all the more so, a fetus should count as a born child (to disqualify from eating).

(d) Answer: We cannot learn from this Kal v'Chomer.

1. By Yibum, a fetus is as a born child, since children that die (after the husband) are as live children (to exempt from Yibum);
2. We cannot say by Terumah, that a fetus should count as a born child (to disqualify from eating), since children that die are not as live children.

i. Therefore, we need "As in her youth" to exclude a pregnant widow.

(e) The Torah needed to teach both a pregnant widow and "She has no seed".

1. If the Torah only wrote "She has no seed" - we would think, because she was 1 body and became 2 bodies, she does not return to eat Terumah; but a pregnant woman is still 1 body, she would eat.
2. If the Torah only taught that a pregnant widow does not eat - we would think, because she was empty and is now full, she does not return to eat Terumah; but one that had children is still an empty body, she would eat.

(f) (Rav Yehudah from Diskarta): We should learn that dead children are not as live children regarding Yibum from a Kal v'Chomer!

1. By Terumah, a child from a previous husband counts as a child from the latter husband to disqualify a widow from eating, but a dead child does not count as a live child (to disqualify from eating).
2. By Yibum, a child from a previous husband does not count as a child from the latter husband to exempt a widow from Yibum - all the more so, a dead child should not count as a live child (to exempt from Yibum)!

i. Therefore, the Torah wrote "Its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace" - once she is exempted from Yibum, she remains exempt, even if the children die.

(g) We should learn that dead children are as live children regarding Terumah from a Kal v'Chomer!

1. By Yibum, a child from a previous husband does not count as a child from the latter husband to exempt a widow from Yibum, but a dead child is as a live child (to exempt from Yibum).
2. By Terumah, a child from a previous husband counts as a child from the latter husband to disqualify a widow from eating - all the more so, a dead child should count as a live child (to disqualify from eating)!

i. Therefore, the Torah wrote "She has no seed" - and if they died, she has no seed!

(h) We should learn that a child from a previous husband is as a child from the latter husband to exempt a widow from Yibum from a Kal v'Chomer!

1. By Terumah, a dead child is not as a live child (to disqualify from eating), but a child from a previous husband does not count as a child from the latter husband;
2. By Yibum, a dead child is as a live child (to exempt from Yibum), all the more so a child from a previous husband should count as a child from the latter husband to exempt from Yibum!

i. The Torah wrote, "*He* does not have a son".

(i) We should learn that a child from a previous husband is not as a child from the latter husband to disqualify a widow from eating Terumah from a Kal v'Chomer!

1. By Yibum, a dead child is as a live child (to exempt from Yibum), but a child from a previous husband does not count as a child from the latter husband;
2. By Terumah, a dead child is not as a live child (to disqualify from eating), all the more so a child from a previous husband should not count as a child from the latter husband!

i. The Torah wrote, "She does not have", and she has!

3) A FALSE REPORT OF A MAN'S DEATH

(a) (Mishnah): A man went overseas; they (really, 1 witness) told his wife that he died. She got married, and her husband returned. The following fines apply:

1. She may not remain with either man; she needs a Get from both men; she does not receive from either man a Kesuvah, nor fruits (of her property), nor food, nor remnants (of her property) - if she received, she must return them;
2. If she has a child from either man, it is a Mamzer; if she dies, neither becomes Tamei to engage in her burial; neither receives objects she finds, nor her earnings; neither may annul her vows;
3. If she is a Bas Yisrael, she is disqualified from Kehunah; if she is a Bas Levi, she is disqualified from Ma'aser; if she is a Bas Kohen, she is disqualified from Terumah.
4. The heirs of either husband do not inherit her Kesuvah; if the husbands die, the brothers do Chalitzah but not Yibum;
5. R. Yosi says, she receives a Kesuvah from her 1st husband; R. Elazar says, the 1st husband receives objects she finds and her earnings, and may annul her vows;
6. R. Shimon says, if the 1st husband dies, if his brother does Yibum or Chalitzah, exempts the Tzarah; if she has a child from the 1st husband, it is not a Mamzer;

(b) If she got married without permission of Beis Din, she may return to her 1st husband; if she was married through permission of Beis Din, she cannot stay married, and is exempt from a sacrifice; if she was married without permission of Beis Din, she cannot stay married, and must bring a sacrifice;

1. Acting according to Beis Din exempts from a sacrifice.

(c) If Beis Din instructed her to get married, and she sinned, she must bring a sacrifice - she was only authorized to get married.

(a) (Gemara): The end of the Mishnah says, if married without permission of Beis Din, she may return to her 1st husband - without permission means, according to witnesses;

1. We infer, the beginning of the Mishnah, with permission of Beis Din, is through 1 witness - we see, 1 witness is believed!
2. (Mishnah): It became established to marry based on a witness that heard from a witness, a woman that heard from a woman, a woman that heard from a slave.

i. This also shows, 1 witness is believed!

(b) (Mishnah): 1 witness said, 'You ate Chelev', he denies it - he is exempt.

1. He is only exempt because he denied it - had he been silent, the witness would have been believed - this shows, 1 witness is believed mid'Oraisa.

(c) Question: What is the source that 1 witness is believed?
(d) Answer #1 (Beraisa): "Or his sin became known to him" - not that witnesses told him.

1. One might think, he is exempt even if he does not deny - the Torah says, "Or his sin became known to him" - in any way.
2. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If 2 witnesses came and he did not contradict them - why do we need a verse?

3. Answer: Rather, 1 witness, and if he does not contradict him, the witness is believed.

(e) Question: Perhaps the witness is not believed, but rather, being silent is like admitting to what the witness said!

1. The end of the Mishnah proves that this is so!
2. (Mishnah): 2 witnesses say, 'You ate Chelev', and he says, 'I did not eat' - he is exempt; R. Meir says, he must bring a sacrifice.

i. R. Meir: If 2 witnesses can sentence him to death, which is stringent, Kal v'Chomer they can obligate him to bring a sacrifice, which is lenient!
ii. Chachamim: If he wants, he could say that he intentionally ate (and is exempt from a sacrifice).