Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) AN ENGAGED GIRL THAT IS PREGNANT

1. If she was suspected of relations with him, even if also suspected of relations with others, we would attribute the child to her husband.
2. (Rava): I say this because the Mishnah teaches, if (a woman raped or enticed by a Kohen) gave birth, she may eat.
3. Question (Rava): What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If she is suspected of relations with him, but not with others - of course she eats, the Mishnah need not teach this!

(b) Answer (Rava): Rather, we must say, she is also suspected of relations with others.

1. Even though she is forbidden both to him and to all others - we assume that the child is from him.
2. Here (by the engaged girl), she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to all others - all the more so, we should assume the child is from her husband!

(c) Objection (Abaye): Really, one can say, whenever she is suspected of others, even if she is also suspected of her betrothed, Rav said that the child is a Mamzer.

1. The case of our Mishnah is when she was not suspected of relations at all (except for the time she was raped or enticed).

(d) (Mishnah): A slave disqualifies because of relations, (but not because of seed).
(e) Question: What is the source of this?
(f) Answer: "(The slave) and her children will be (slaves)".
(g) (Mishnah): A Mamzer can disqualify or permit eating.
(h) (Beraisa): "She does not have seed" - one would only know that this applies to children; "She does not have seed" - this teaches, even grandchildren are considered seed;
(i) One would only know that this applies to proper seed; "She does not have seed" - this teaches, even Mamzerim are considered seed.
(j) Question: But this verse was already used to teach that grandchildren are considered as seed!
(k) Answer: The verse is not needed for that - grandchildren are as children.

1. The verse is only needed for Mamzerim.

(l) Question (Reish Lakish): (The Mishnah says, if a Nachri or slave had relations with the daughter, her child is a Mamzer. Is this as R. Akiva, who says that Mamzerim come from Chayavei Lavin?
(m) Answer (R. Yochanan): It is even as Chachamim - they admit by a Nachri or slave.

1. (Rav Dimi, citing Rebbi): A Nachri or slave that has relations with a Bas Yisrael, the child is a Mamzer.

(n) (Mishnah): Sometimes a Kohen Gadol can forbid eating.
(o) His grandmother says, 'I should be an atonement for my grandson the Mamzer, who permits me to eat Terumah, but not for my grandson the Kohen Gadol, who prohibits me to eat Terumah.'

(a) (Mishnah): An Arel (uncircumcised man) or one who is Tamei may not eat Terumah; his wife and slaves may eat.
(b) A Petzu'a Daka or Krus Shafchah - he and his slaves may eat, but not his wife; if he did not have relations with her since becoming a Patzu'a Dacha or Krus Shafchah, she may eat.

1. A Patzu'a Dacha is one whose Beitzim were crushed, even one of them;
2. A Krus Shafchah is one whose Ever was cut.

i. If there remains from the crown, even as a hair's breadth, he is permitted.

(c) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Eliezer) Question: How do we know that an Arel may not eat Terumah?
(d) Answer #1 (R. Eliezer): It says "A resident or hired worker" regarding the Pesach sacrifice, and also by Terumah.

1. Just as by Pesach, an Arel is forbidden, also by Terumah.

(e) Answer #2 (R. Akiva): We need not learn from there - It says "A man, a man", to include an Arel (that he may not eat Terumah, just as one who is Tamei).

1. Suggestion: The words ("A resident or hired worker", the Gezeirah Shaveh from which R. Eliezer learns) must be extra, for otherwise we can challenge the Gezeirah Shaveh.

i. The Pesach sacrifice is more stringent - one is liable for eating it if it is Pigul (was offered with intent to eat it past the allowed time), or leftover, or if one eats it when he is Tamei; we cannot learn to Terumah, which lacks these stringencies.

2. Conclusion: Correct! The words are extra.

(f) Question: Which words are extra, those written by Pesach or by Terumah?

1. The words by Terumah are needed!

i. (Beraisa): "A resident" - this is a Jewish slave acquired until Yovel; "a hired worker" - this is a Jewish slave acquired for (6) years.

2. Suggestion: It should suffice for the Torah to say that a resident does not eat!

i. We would know, if one acquired until Yovel does not eat, all the more so, one acquired for years!

3. Answer: If it only said "resident" - we would think, this refers to one acquired for years, but one acquired until Yovel eats!

i. By also writing "hired worker", the Torah teaches that even one acquired until Yovel does not eat.

(g) Answer: The words are extra regarding Pesach.

1. Question: "A resident or hired worker" written by Pesach - to whom do they refer?
2. Suggestion: If they mean, one acquired for years or until Yovel - is he exempt from Pesach?!

i. We hold, he may not eat Terumah (even if his master is a Kohen) - this shows, he is not really owned by his master!

ii. Regarding Pesach, he should be obligated, since his master does not own him!

3. Answer: Rather, the words are extra,

(h) Question: But still, the Gezeirah Shaveh is only extra from one side, and R. Eliezer holds that we learn from such a Gezeirah Shaveh only if there is no question against it!
(i) Answer: Since neither word ("resident" or "hired worker") is needed - we can apply one of them to what we wish to learn (Terumah), and one to the source (Pesach), and now the Gezeirah Shaveh is extra from both sides.

(a) Question: We should say - just as an Onen is forbidden to eat the Pesach sacrifice, he is also forbidden to eat Terumah!
(b) Answer (R. Yosi Bar Chanina): "A non-Kohen (will not eat Terumah)" - a non-Kohen is forbidden, but not an Onen.
(c) Suggestion: Let us learn, a non-Kohen is forbidden, but not an Arel!
(d) Answer: The Gezeirah Shaveh teaches that an Arel is forbidden.
(e) Question: Why does he say that the Gezeirah Shaveh speaks of an Arel, and "A non-Kohen" comes to exclude an Onen (and not vice-versa)?
(f) Answer: It is more reasonable to say an Arel, since he has the following shortcomings:

1. He is lacking a physical action (circumcision);
2. This action must be done to his own body;
3. The punishment for staying uncircumcised is Kares;
4. The prohibition applied before the giving of the Torah;
5. Failure to circumcise his male slaves stops him (from eating Pesach).

(g) Question: Why don't we learn that an Onen is forbidden, since:

1. It can apply at any time;
2. It applies to men and women;
3. An Onen cannot fix himself (end his Aninus).

(h) Answer #1: There are more stringencies by an Arel.
(i) Answer #2 (Rava): Even if there would not be more - we would rather learn Arel from Pesach to Terumah, since Arel was written by Pesach, whereas Onen was not written by Pesach, rather was learned from Ma'aser.
(j) Suggestion: Just as failure to circumcise his male slaves stops him from eating Pesach, let us say it stops him from eating Terumah!
(k) Rejection: "You will circumcise him, then he will eat it" - failure to circumcise his male slaves stops him from eating Pesach, but not Terumah.
(l) Question: If so, we should also learn "Any Arel will not eat it" - an Arel may not eat Pesach, but he may eat Terumah!
(m) Answer: The Gezeirah Shaveh "resident and hired worker" teaches that an Arel may not eat Terumah, either.
(n) Question: Why not say, the Gezeirah Shaveh forbids one to eat Terumah until he circumcises his slaves!
(o) Answer: It is more reasonable to learn an Arel himself, because:

1. The action must be done to his own body;
2. The punishment for staying uncircumcised is Kares;

(p) Question: Rather say, we learn regarding one that has not circumcised his slaves, because it can apply at any time!
(q) Answer #1: There are more stringencies by an Arel himself.
(r) Answer #2: Even if there would not be more - we never find that one's own Arelus does not prevent him, but someone else's Arelus does!
(s) Question: If we expound the words "in it" - how will we expound "Any apostate will not eat in it"?