Previous daf

1)

(a) According to one Lashon, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav explains that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov (who learns in the Beraisa that, any children born to a Kohen Gadol from a girl who had been raped or seduced before they were married, are Chalalim), holds like Rebbi Elazar - who says 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'P'nuyah As'ah Zonah'.

(b) This explanation however, causes a discrepancy between the ruling 'Mishnas Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov' and another ruling issued by Rav Amram - who says 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Elazar'.

(a) According to Rav Ashi, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Chachamim argue about whether a child born from a Chayvei Asei is a Chalal. Rav Ashi is referring to the Asei of "Ki Im Besulah me'Amav Yikach Ishah".

(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk "Almanah, u'Gerushah ... es Eileh Lo Yikach Ki Im Besulah Yikach Ishah. ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o ... ". in his opinion - ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o ... " refers to the entire Pasuk that precedes it (including the Asei).

(c) The Chachamim counter that the word "Eileh" interrupts in order to confine "ve'Lo Yechalel" to Chayvei La'avin (mentioned in the first half of the Pasuk). Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from "Eileh" to preclude the child born from a Nidah from the Din of Chalal.

(d) The problem according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov is - why the Torah places "Eileh" in between the La'avin and the Asei, and not at the end of the Pasuk?

4)

(a) The Torah writes in Emor "ve'la'Achoso ha'Besulah", including an unmarried sister among the seven relatives whom a Kohen is obligated to bury (even though he becomes Tamei Meis in the process). Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah obligate him to render himself Tamei even if she is betrothed - Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon forbid him to do so.

(b) They all hold that a Kohen is forbidden to bury a sister who was raped or seduced?

(c) Rebbi Shimon forbids him to render himself Tamei for a sister who became a Mukas Eitz - because, in his opinion, he is not permitted to bury a sister who is not fit to marry a Kohen Gadol (which he learns from the prohibition of a Kohen Gadol marrying a Mukas Eitz, seeing as by both the Torah writes "Besulah").

(d) Everyone agrees that he is obligated to bury an unmarried sister who is a Bogeres.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, "ve'la'Achoso ha'Besulah" comes to preclude an Anusah and a Mefutah. From "Asher Lo Haysah *le'Ish*" - they learn that it is only a sister who lost her Besulim through a *man* whom a Kohen is forbidden to bury, but not through a stick.

(b) And from "ha'K'rovah" they preclude an Arusah. They learn from "Eilav" - that he is obligated to bury a Bogeres.

(c) Despite the fact that, according to Rebbi Meir, "Besulah" implies even a partial Besulah (as we learnt earlier), he nevertheless needs a Pasuk to include a Bogeres - because otherwise he would have learned "Besulah" "Besulah" from the din of rape, that Besulah is confined to a Na'arah (between twelve and twelve and a half).

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon, "ve'la'Achoso ha'Besulah" precludes an Anusah, a Mefutah and a Mukas Eitz ('Mukas Eitz' must be a mistake, because it is neither the opinion of Rebbi Yossi, as we shall see on the next Amud, nor does Rebbi Shimon learn it from here, see above, answer to 4c.). They learn from ...

1. ... "Asher Lo Haysah" - to preclude an Arusah.
2. ... "ha'K'rovah" - to include an Arusah who was divorced.

(b) From "Eilav" - they include a Bogeres.

(c) Due to the Pasuk "ha'K'rovah", Rebbi Shimon includes Arusah she'Nisgarshah, despite his opinion that a Kohen may not render himself Tamei for a sister who is not fit to marry a Kohen Gadol. He includes Arusah she'Nisgarshah from "ha'K'rovah" rather than a Mukas Eitz - because the physical change in her is not caused by something that was done to her (only by natural causes), unlike a Mukas Eitz, where something happened to her to remove the Besulim.

(d) He declines to learn *both* of them from "ha'K'rovah" - because "ha'K'rovah" is in the singular and therefore includes only one case, and not two.

7)

(a) Rebbi Yossi does not agree with Rebbi Shimon with regard to prohibiting a Kohen from becoming Tamei for a sister who is a Mukas Eitz. In this particular point, he agrees with Rebbi Meir, who obligates him from "Asher Lo Haysah le'Ish". He precludes an Arusah - from "Asher Lo Haysah", and includes a Mukas Eitz from "le'Ish" (as we explained above).

(b) Rebbi Shimon holds that - since we require a Pasuk to include a Bogeres, we can infer that otherwise "Besulah" would imply a complete Besulah. This is his source for saying that.

(a) Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk in Matos "ve'Chol ha'Taf ba'Nashim Asher Lo Yad'u Mishkav Zachar, Hachayu Lachem", that a Kohen is permitted to marry a Giyores who converted before she turned three - seeing as Pinchas (who had already been declared a Kohen) was with them.

(b) The Rabbanan (who disagree with Rebbi Shimon) explain that the Pasuk is not talking about marrying the girls, but taking them as slaves.

(c) "Kol Ishah Yoda'as Ish le'Mishkav Zachar Harogu" implies that any *woman* who did not have relations with a man was permitted - implying that any *small child* was permitted, whether she had had relations or not; whereas "ve'Chol ha'Taf ba'Nashim Asher Lo Yad'u Mishkav Zachar, Hachayu Lachem" - implies that the same clause applied to the small girls, too.

(d) Rav Huna reconciles the two Pesukim according to Rebbi Shimon - by explaining 'who had relations with a man' to mean who was *fit* to have relations. Consequently, the first half of the Pasuk forbade *all women* (because they were fit to have relations), and the second half, to permit all *small girls of under three* (because they were not).

(a) They knew which 'women' were fit to make Bi'ah and which were not (i.e. which ones had reached the age of three and which ones were under three) - by passing them in front of the Tzitz; all those whose faces turned green, were fit to have Bi'ah ... .

(b) If someone's face turns green - it is an indication that he is guilty of adultery?

(a) They discovered four hundred young girls from Yavesh Gil'ad who had not had relations with a man (to give as wives to the men of Binyamin) - which they discovered by seating them on a barrel of wine; those who *had*, smelt of wine ... .

(b) They not pass them in front of the Tzitz (like they did with the women of Midyan) - because the Torah (in connection with the Tzitz) writes "le'Ratzon" (indicating that the Tzitz is meant to show goodwill, and not to determine death).

(c) They nevertheless did so by the women of Midyan - because the Torah writes "le'Ratzon *Lahem"* (for Yisrael, but not for the daughters of Midyan).

(a) When Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi quoted Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi that 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai', Rebbi Zeira asked him - whether he heard it from him directly or whether he only inferred it from another ruling that he issued.

(b) The indirect source to which Rebbi Zeira was referring - was the episode when, after rumors began circulating about a certain town in Eretz Yisrael, they discovered a Kohen who had married a girl who had converted under the age of three, and Rebbi permitted him to retain her.

(c) Rebbi Zeira would then have refuted Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi's proof from there - because they were already married, and we just learned above that Rav and Rebbi Yochanan permit a Kohen Gadol to retain a Bogeres and a Mukas Eitz to whom he is already married, even though he is not permitted to marry her Lechatchilah.

(d) Rebbi Zeira based his rebuttal on Rav and Rebbi Yochanan (as we just explained). But our case is not comparable to that of a Bogeres or a Mukas Eitz - because there, she is going to become a Bogeres or a Mukas Eitz anyway, once she lives with the Kohen Gadol (which is why Rav and Rebbi Yochanan permitted him to retain her, as we explained above), which is not the case by a Kohen who marries a Giyores.