Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel validates a hole in the Milah that became stopped-up - as long as the Zera does not tear it open again as it passes through.

(b) Rava establishes Shmuel by a hole in the Atarah. Shmuel cannot be speaking about a hole in the lower part of the Milah - because there, even if the flesh is cut-off completely, he is still Kasher.

(c) Shmuel is certainly not speaking by the top part of the Milah - because there, the fusion will not tear open when the Zera passes through; that only happens close to the point where it leaves the body.

(d) One checks whether the fusion will tear open as a result of the Zera passing through - by placing hot barley-bread by the back passage, causing an emission, following which it is easy to ascertain whether the fusion tore open or not.

(a) We ask why it is necessary to use such extreme measures - whether one cannot find a simpler way of causing an emission, seeing as most people are not like Ya'akov Avinu, who never had an emission before he married Leah (see Tosfos DH 'she'Lo').

(b) Abaye therefore suggests bringing the colored clothes of a woman.

(c) Rava refutes this because not everyone is like Barzilai ha'Gil'adi (whose deire for women caused him to age prematurely) - meaning that most people are not so adulterous, that merely seeing a woman's colored clothes will cause them to have an emission.

(d) So we test the fusion - using the method that was suggested initially (taking hot barley-bread ... ).

(a) A hole renders a person Pasul - because, as a result, the Zera drips instead of flowing (and is therefore not fit to germinate).

(b) When the Tana of the Beraisa, after stating that if the hole became stopped-up, it is Kasher once more, adds 'and this is a P'sul that returns to its original Hechsher' - he means to preclude a membrane that grew over a wound on the lung of an animal, which remains Pasul.

(c) Rav Idi bar Avin told Abaye that the way to stop-up a hole was to bring a grain of barley, fat and a large ant - the grain to scratch the skin around the location of the hole, the fat to rub over the wound, and the large ant which one allows to bite the wound before cutting off its head, to serve as a clamp to hold the ends of the hole tight until it grows together. A grain of barley was used rather than a metal implement - because metal causes wounding or swelling.

(d) All this would not work with a grown-up - because the skin tends to peel after it has begun to heal.

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna says - that someone who urinates from two places is Pasul.

(b) His father Rav Huna said that two women who go through the motions of an immoral act together - are Pasul li'Kehunah (because this makes them Zonos).

(c) Rava said that the Halachah is neither like the father nor like the son.

(d) Because, even Rebbi Elazar, who maintains that a Panuy who had relations with a Penuyah turns her into a Zonah, only says that by a man and a woman, but not by two women, whose behavior is indecent, but does not render them Zonos.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah derives from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Yavo P'tzu'a Daka u'K'rus Shafchah *bi'K'hal Hashem*" - that they are permitted to marry a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres, who are not considered a Kahal.

(b) They asked Rav Sheishes - whether a P'tzu'a Daka Kohen retains his Kedushah and is therefore forbidden to marry a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres, or whether he has lost it and is permitted to marry them.

(c) Rav Sheishes resolves their She'eilah from the Beraisa 'P'tzu'a Daka Yisrael Mutar bi'Nesinah' - from which we see that a Yisrael loses his Kedushas Yisrael (otherwise he would not be permitted to marry a Nesinah, who is one of the seven nations).

(d) Rava initially refutes Rav Sheishes' proof, on the grounds that, when the Torah writes "Lo Tischatein Bam", it refers to marrying them when they are still Nochrim, in case they lead one astray after their idols. Once they convert, it is only the Rabbanan who forbade marrying them, and that decree did not extend to those men who are unable to have children.

(a) When it was pointed out to him that the Tana even permits a Mamzer (who *is* able to have children) to marry a Nesinah, he changed from his provious explanation - to explain that the decree of Chazal did not extend to *any* P'sulim.

(b) Rava changed his entire interpretation of the Pasuk "Lo Tischatein Bam" - because, he pointed out, before a Nochri converts, marriage is not applicable to them, only after they convert.

(c) Consequently, he concludes, Rav Sheishes was right in inferring from the fact that a P'tzu'a Daka is permitted to marry a Nesinah, that he must have lost his Kedushah, and that a Ptzu'a Daka Kohen is therefore permitted to marry a Giyores and a Meshuchreres.

(a) The problem with the Pasuk "va'Yischatein Shlomoh es bas Par'oh" is - that we just said that there is no marriage with a Nochris before she converts.

(b) To answer that he converted her clashes with what we learned above (on 24b.) that they did not accept converts in the days of David and Shlomoh. We answer however, that that was only because they were afraid that the conversion was purely for the sake of Yisrael's great wealth - a reason that would not apply to bas Par'oh, who did not need their wealth.

(c) Even assuming that Shlomoh really did convert bas Par'oh - we are left with the problem that she was a first generation Egyptian, who is forbidden even if she converts.

(d) We know that the 'modern' Egyptians (of those days) were those who had originally lived there - because of Rebbi Yehudah, who testified that he had a Chaver called Menimin, a disciple of Rebbi Akiva who was also an Egyptian convert.

8)

(a) Rav Papa proves from a Pasuk in Melachim that in fact, Shlomoh did not marry bas Par'oh. It says that he did - because he was so fond of her that it was as if he had married.

(b) Our Mishnah stated 'P'tzu'a Daka u'K'rus Shafchah Mutarim be'Giyores u'Meshuchreres, ve'Einan Asurin Ela mi'la'Vo be'Kahal'.
We cannot infer from the first half of the statement that a P'tzu'a Daka is forbidden (to prove Rav Sheishes wrong) - because from the second half, that je is permitted. So we cannot infer anything.

(a) The Chumra that ...

1. ... an Amoni have over a Mitzri is - that the women are permitted.
2. ... a Mitzri have over an Amoni is - that a third generation Mitzri is permitted.

(b) Rebbi Shimon is even more lenient than the Tana Kama with regard to a Mitzri. He learns a 'Kal va'Chomer': - If, where the men are prohibited forever, the women are permitted immediately (by the Amonim and the Mo'avim), then, where they are only prohibited for three generations (the Mitzri'im), the women should certainly be.permitted immediately.

(c) The Chachamim in the Mishnah replied to him - that if it is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, they would accept it, but if it was his own 'Kal va'Chomer', then they had a Kashya on it.

(a) When Shaul ha'Melech asked Avner "ben Mi Zeh ha'N'ar?", why could he not have been referring to ...

1. ... David himself - because David was his armor-bearer. How could he not have known him?
2. ... to David's father Yishai himself - because Yishai was a well'known public figure (as Rav or Rebbi Aba said, he used to go out at the head of six hundred thousand men.

(b) What he was asking him was whether Yishai descended from Peretz (in which case he was destined to become king - which frightened Shaul), or from Zerach, in which case he could be a dignitary without becming king.

(c) The connotation of the name 'Peretz' is - that he can break a path through somebody else's property (something theat a king had the right to do).

(d) The cause of Shaul's anxiety - was the fact that when David wore Shaul's armor (to go and fight Goli'as), it fitted him perfectly, despite the fact that Shaul was a giant of a man, head and shoulders taller than anyone else.

(a) Do'eg ha'Edomi poured fuel on to the flames. He retorted - that, better still, they should enquire whether David was even permitted to enter into the Kahal (to marry a Jewess (let alone become king), because he descended from Rus ha'Mo'avi'ah.

(b) Avner replied - that the Torah writes "Amoni u'Mo'avi", implying 've'Lo Amonis u'Mo'avis' (that the women are permitted).

(c) We Darshen 'Amoni ve'Lo Amonis, Mo'avi ve'Lo Mo'avis', but not 'Mamzer ve'Lo Mamzeres' - because the very word Mamzer implies 'Mum Zar' (a blemish of foreignness), so what difference could there possibly between a male Mamzer and a female?

(d) We do not Darshen 'Mitzri ve'Lo Mitzris' - because the real reason that we Darshen "Amoni" 've'Lo Amonis ... is not so much intrinsically (since the male form usually incorporates the female form), but because the Torah adds " ... because they did come into the desert and offer you bread and water; and it is men who are expacted to do this, not women.

(a) Do'eg attempted to refute the explanation that it is not the way of women to provide food to foreign people outside their land - by arguing that it is up to the men to provide the men, and the women, to provide for the women.

(b) The King changed his description of David from "Na'ar" to an "Elem" - because 'Elem' is from the root 'Nis'almah' (hidden), as if to say 'the Halachah is hidden from you; Go and ask in the Beis ha'Medrash.

(c) Just when Do'eg was about to pronounce David, Pasul - Amasa ben Ish (alias Yisra he'Yisre'eili) put on a sword and announced that he would pierce anyone who did not listen to him. Because he had received a tradition from the Beis-Din of Shmuel ha'Ramasi that "Amoni u'Mo'avi" 've'Lo Amonis ve'Lo Mo'avis'.

(d) Yisra ha'Yisre'eili was his real name; and the reason that the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim calls him Yisra ha'Yishme'eili, is because he girded his sword like a Yishme'eili.