Previous daf

1)

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Emor "*u'Bas* Kohen Ki Sihyeh Almanah u'Gerushah"?

(b) Is this D'rashah confined to Rebbi Akiva, who always Darshens an extra 'Vav'?

(a) Which Halachah does the Beraisa teach us, that Rav Chisda Amar Ravina bar Shiloh learns from "Hi *bi'Terumas* Kodshim Lo Socheil".
How does he learn it from this Pasuk, which seems to be speaking about a bas Kohen who is currently married to a Yisrael?

(b) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah learns it from "*mi*'Lechem Avihah Tocheil".
How does he derive it from there? How is it possible to learn Chazeh ve'Shok (which constitutes meat) from the word "mi'*Lechem*"?

(c) Rami bar Chama asks whether we should not preclude a bas Kohen who returns to her father's house from something quite different than Chazeh ve'Shok.
To what is he referring?

(d) What, briefly, does Rava answer?

(a) What problem does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael have with the Pasuk in Matos "ve'Neder Almanah u'Gerushah Yakum Alehah"?

(b) How does he therefore establish the Pasuk (at the same time as refuting Rami bar Chami's suggestion)?

(c) Rav Safra precludes a Chozeres from Chazeh ve'Shok from the Pasuk "mi'Lechem Avihah Tocheil" 'Lechem, ve'Lo Basar'.
How does ...

1. ... Rav Papa preclude them from "mi'Lechem Avihah"?
2. ... Rava preclude them from the Pasuk in Sh'mini "ve'Es Chazei ha'Tenufah ... Tochlu Atah ... u'V'nosecha *Itach*"?

(a) What does the Beraisa say with regard to a bas Yisrael, who eats Terumah on account of her son from her deceased husband, who was a Kohen? Is she also permitted to eat Chazeh ve'Shok?

(b) What did Rav Mordechai ask on this Beraisa when he quoted it to Rav Ashi?

(c) What did Rav Ashi reply?

(a) What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah"?
2. ... "ki'Ne'urehah"?

(b) We query the need for this latter Derashah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' to make 'Ubar ki'Yelud' from Yibum.
What is the 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(c) How do we refute it on the basis of 'Asah Meisim ka'Chayim'?

(d) Having written ...

1. ... "ve'Zera Ein Lah" (to teach us that if a bas Kohen has children, she may not return to her father's house to eat Terumah), why does it need to write "ki'Ne'urehah"?
2. ... "ki'Ne'urehah", why does it need to write "ve'Zera Ein Lah"?

6)

(a) In the case of a bas Kohen who had a son from her first husband who was a Yisrael, he prevents her from returning to her father's house, even if she subsequently married someone else who died, yet if that son died, we do not consider him as if he was alive.
Then why do we not say that, in our case, seeing as a baby from her first husband does not exempt her from Yibum from her second one, we should certainly not consider her son to be alive (to obligate her to perform Yibum or at least Chalitzah, if her son dies)?

(b) And, using the reverse logic, why do we not consider Meisim ka'Chayim to forbid a Chozeres to eat Terumah even if her son died?

(c) And why do we not learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (from the fact that 'Asah Meisim ka'Chayim' by Yibum) that a son from her first husband exempts a Yevamah from Yibum should her second husband die without children?

(d) And by the same token, why we do not learn a 'Kal va'Chomer' to permit a bas Kohen whose second husband died without children, to return to her father's house and eat Terumah, even though she had children from her first one.

7)

(a) Is a woman permitted to marry on the testimony of one witness who testified that her husband died?

(b) What happens to her if she does, and her husband returns?

(c) Why is that? Why is she not considered an O'nes?

(d) The children that she subsequently bears from either man are Mamzeirim. Is there any distinction between the children of the first husband and those of the second?

(a) Is she entitled to claim her Kesubah or any of the Tena'ei Kesubah?

(b) Assuming that either husband is a Kohen, is he permitted to bury her?

(c) Do they retain the right to receive whatever she finds or produces, and to nullify her vows?

(a) On what basis will she ...

1. ... become Pasul to marry a Kohen (even should both men die), if she is a bas Yisrael?
2. ... lose her right to eat Ma'aser, if she is a bas Levi and Terumah de'Rabbanan, if she is a bas Kohen?

(b) What will happen if both men die without children, and each one has a brother?

(c) What does ...

1. ... Rebbi Yossi say about her Kesubah?
2. ... Rebbi Elazar say about her findings, what she produces, and nullifying her vows?

(d) Rebbi Shimon too, disagrees with the Tana Lama with regard to her performing Yibum.
What does *he* say? In which other point does he argue with him?

(a) 'Niseis she'Lo bi'Reshus Beis-Din, Muteres Lachzor Lo'.
What does 'she'Lo bi'Reshus' mean?

(b) In which way is marrying through the ruling of the Beis-Din with one witness more lenient than marrying independently through two witnesses?

(c) Why is a woman who marries through two witnesses not considered an O'nes to be Patur from a Korban?

(d) In which case is she obligated to bring a Chatas even if the Beis-Din gave her their consent to get married?

(a) From where do we know that the Reisha of our Mishnah is speaking when the woman got married through the testimony of one witness (and not of two)?

(b) We also see from a Mishnah in ha'Ishah Basra that one witness is believed to authorize a woman to marry.
What does the Tana say there about one witness quoting another witness?

(c) Is a woman believed in this issue if she quotes ...

1. ... another woman?
2. ... an Eved or a Shifchah?

(d) How do we deduce from the Mishnah in K'risus 'Eid Echad Omer Achalta Cheilev, ve'Hu Omer Lo Achalti, Patur' that one witness is believed? What proof do we have from there that he is even believed min ha'Torah and not just mi'de'Rabbanan?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "O Hoda *Eilav* Chataso"? Is he Patur even if he remains silent?

(b) How do we know that the Pasuk is not speaking in a case when there are two witnesses?

(c) What do we now try to prove from here?

(d) And on what grounds do we retract?

(a) The Seifa of the Mishnah in K'risus states that if two witnesses testify that someone ate Cheilev, and he denies it, he is Patur from bringing a Korban.
On what basis does Rebbi Meir disagree with the Tana Lama?

(b) How does the Tana Kama counter his argument?

(c) So what do we prove from here?

Next daf