Previous daf

1)

(a) Nechsei mi'Lug - is property that the wife brings into the marriage, which is not inserted in her Kesubah and for which her husband does not therefore take responsibility; whereas Nechsei Tzon Barzel - is property which she does insert in the Kesubah and for which her husband takes responsibility, and corresponding to which the husband tends to bring into the marriage property of his own.

(b) The husband is obligated to feed his wife's Avdei mi'Lug - in spite of the fact that they are considered her property.

(c) If a Kohen Gadol marries an Almanah, Avdei Tzon Barzel are permitted to eat Terumah, whereas Avdei mi'Lug are not - because they belong to her, and she is a Chalalah (this will be explained shortly).

(d) Both the Avdei mi'Lug and the Avdei Tzon Barzel of ...

1. ... a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen - are permitted to eat Terumah.
2. ... a bas Kohen who married a Yisrael - are not.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Kohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh (Kinyan Kaspo) Hu Yochal Bo" - that the wife (even if she is a bas Yisrael) and the Avdei Kena'anim of a Kohen are permitted to eat Terumah.
2. ... "ve'Kohen ki Yikneh Nefesh *Kinyan Kaspo* Hu Yochal Bo" - that if his wife or his Avadim acquired Avadim, they too, are permitted to eat Terumah.

(b) We need a Pasuk to include Eved she'Kanah Avadim", for a case where 'Mah she'Kanah Eved Kanah Rabo' does not apply (i.e. when someone presented an Eved with money on the express condition that his master does not acquire it).

(c) This Beraisa poses the Kashya - why the Tana of our Mishnah forbids Avdei mi'Lug of an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol to eat Terumah? Why are they not permitted because of Kinyano she'Kanah Kinyan?

(d) We initially try to resolve this problem - by restricting the right to feed to those who are themselves *permitted to eat*, but not to those who are *not*.

(a) Nevertheless, the Avadim of a Kohen who is an Areil or who is Tamei are permitted to eat, even though they themselves are not - because their situation is only temporary, and stands to be reversed (like someone whose mouth hurts, who is just waiting for a cure); whereas an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol is a permanent Chalalah.

(b) We ask on this from a Mamzer, who is not allowed to eat permanently, yet he permits his grandmother to eat. In fact, 'Mamzer' is only mentioned arbitrarily (because that is what the Mishnah is talking about). The case is that of a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen, bearing him a daughter. The daughter then married a Yisrael, bore him a son and died. The Kashya is - from the child's grandmother, who is permitted to eat because she has off-spring from a Kohen, even though the son himself is forbidden to eat because he is a Zar?

(c) Ravina answers that the Tana is not forbidding *anyone* who cannot eat to cause others to eat, only someone who himself eats only because he is a Kinyan. Rava disagrees; according to him, min ha'Torah, the Avdei mi'Lug of an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol are permitted to eat Terumah, and it is the Chachamim who forbade it - in order to make her feel that, if neither she nor her Avadim are permitted to eat Terumah, she must be a Zonah, thereby creating an atmosphere that will lead to a quick divorce.

(d) Rav Ashi too, ascribes the prohibition to a Rabbinical decree. We refute his initial suggestion, that it is because she might continue to feed them after her husband dies - because, if that was so, we ought to forbid every bas Yisrael who marries a Kohen to feed her Avadim Terumah, for the same reason.

(a) We conclude that Rav Ashi is referring to - a bas Kohen who married an Almanah, and whose Avadim we forbid to eat Terumah, because otherwise, we are afraid that since her Avadim were permitted to eat before she married the Kohen Gadol, and they are still permitted now (because of her husband), she will assume that they will remain permitted even after her divorce, without realizing that, since she is a Chalalah, *she* will no longer be able to feed them, and there is no other reason for them to be able to eat.

(b) The Tana does not specifically confine the decree to an Almanah who is a bas Kohen (and not to a bas Yisrael) - because Chazal did not want to differentiate between one Almanah and another ('Lo Plug').

5)

(a) If a divorced woman claims back objects of Nichsei Tzon Barzel, and her husband insists on paying her money, Rav Yehudah rules that the Din is with her - because of 'Sh'vach Beis Avihah' (in honor of her father's house, a sort of family heirloom, which has special sentimental value).

(b) According to Rav Ami, the Din is with him - because, seeing as he accepts full responsibility (as we saw in our Mishnah), the objects are considered his.

(c) Rav Safra finds a snag with Rav Ami's reasoning in the words 'Ho'il ve'Chayav be'Achariyusan' - which merely says that he is responsible, but not that he actually becomes the owner.

(a) The Mishnah in Terumos say that ...

1. ... a Yisrael who hired a cow from a Kohen - is permitted to feed it oats of Terumah.
2. ... a Kohen who hired a cow from a Yisrael - is not.

(b) A Kohen may feed Avdei Tzon Barzel, Terumah - because he accepts *full* responsibility for them; whereas a Kohen who hired a cow from a Yisrael may not - because he only accepts responsibility for theft and loss, but not for accidents, physical decline and devaluation.

(c) The Seifa of the Mishnah in Terumos, which speaks about 'Sham Parah', conforms with our Din of Avdei Tzon Barzel - because 'Sham Parah' means that one assesses the animal at the time of hiring, and undertakes to return the assessed value under all circumstances, including accidents, physical decline and devaluation.

(d) The Tana rules there 'Yisrael she'Sham Parah mi'Kohen - Lo Ya'achilenah Karshinei Terumah, Aval Kohen she'Sham Parah mi'Yisrael, Ya'achilenah Karshinei Terumah (just like the Din of Avdei Tzon Barzel).

(a) Rabah and Rav Yosef were sitting at Rav Nachman's Derashah when they cited Beraisos to prove both the opinions of Rav Yehudah and of Rav Ami.

(b) The Beraisa that supports the opinion of ...

1. ... Rav Ami says that - if a husband or a wife knocks out a tooth or who blinds the eye, of an Eved of Tzon Barzel, he goes out to freedom.
2. ... Rav Yehudah says - that the husband is not permitted to sell Nechsei Tzon Barzel.

(c) The Tana adds - that he is not even permitted to sell the corresponding property that he brought in to the marriage.

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that - if one of them sold Nichsei Tzon Barzel without permission the husband has the right to claim it back from the purchaser.

(a) Rav Nachman ruled like Rav Yehudah (that the woman is entitled to her objects in preference to cash), despite the Beraisa that supports Rav Ami - because his reasoning is sound.

(b) When the heirs took a coat of Nichsei Tzon Barzel after their father's death and placed it over their dead father's body - Rava ruled that 'the dead body had acquired it' (that the woman could no longer claim it).

(c) This ruling appears to contradict Rava Amar Rav Nachman's previous ruling - inasmuch as there, he ruled that she had the right to claim her Nichsei Tzon Barzel after her husband divorced her (or died).

(d) In reply, Rav Kahana explained to Na'na'i (Rava's grandson) that even Rav Yehudah would concede that, in this case, the widow would have no claim - seeing as he did not say that the Nichsei Tzon Barzel belonged to her, but that she had a right to claim them. In fact, they belonged to the heirs. Consequently, when they placed the coat on their dead father's body (which has a Din of Hekdesh), Hekdesh removed the Shi'bud (the right to claim).

Next daf