Previous daf

1)

(a) Still in connection with a Tumtim she'Nikra ...

1. ... Rav Sheravya learns from the Pasuk "Ishah ki Sazri'a *ve'Yaldah* Zachar ve'Tam'ah Shiv'as Yamim" - that a woman is only Temei'ah Leidah (for seven days), if the baby is known to be a boy when it is born.
2. ... Rav Shizbi learns from there "Ishah ki Sazri'a *ve'Yaldah* Zachar ... u'va'Yom ha'Shemini Yimol" - that Milah on the eighth day overrides Shabbos if the baby was known to be a boy at birth, but not if it is a Tumtum she'Nikra.

(b) The first Halachah will apply should the Tumtum turn out to a girl - in which case, her mother will not be Tamei for fourteen days (since the Torah writes in that connection too "ve'Im Nekeivah *Seiled*, ve'Tam'ah Shevu'ayim".

(a) The Beraisa rules that if a woman has a miscarriage which turns out to be a Tumtum or an Androginos (a person who has both male and female sex organs) - must keep the Tum'ah (and we initially think, the Taharah days) of both a boy and a girl.

(b) The ramifications of this ruling are - that she keeps fourteen days of Tum'ah (during which time she is Tamei, even without have seen any blood, as if she given birth to a girl) and the remaining nineteen days (out of the thirty-three days) of Taharah (when she is Tahor even if she sees blood) which follow the birth of a boy.

(c) In any event, this Beraisa disproves Rav Sheravya (who precludes a Tumtum [even 'she'Nikra'] from the entire Din of Tum'ah and Taharah). It is not also a disproof for Rav Shizbi, who Darshens "ve'Yaldah" to preclude a Tumtum from Milah overriding Shabbos - because it is possible that the Tana has a Safek whether to Darshen "ve'Yaldah" in this way or not, due to an alternative way of Darshening it. Consequently, he goes le'Chumra both ways (and this is also the opinion of Rav Shizbi).

(d) The alternative D'rashah that the Tana (and Rav Shizbi) learns from "Ishah Ki Sazri'a ve'Yaldah" is - the well-known D'rashah that if a woman 'sows' first, she will give birth to a boy, and vice-versa.

(a) The problem with the above answer is - that, seeing as it is now a Safek whether she has the days of Tum'ah and Taharah at all, the Tana ought then to have said 'Teishev le'Tum'ah, le'Taharah u'le'Nidah'.

(b) In short, the woman ought not to have any days of Taharah at all - because the moment the fourteen days of Tum'ah for a girl have passed, in the event that she sees blood, she should be considered a Nidah mi'Safek.

(c) In spite of the fact that the woman has to observe fourteen days of Tum'ah anyway, the Tana inserts 'le'Zachar', because it will affect her status should she see blood on the thirty-fourth day and then again on the forty-first. If the baby was *not a boy*, then the first sighting was that of Nidus, and the second of Ziyvus (which requires seven clean days and a Korban), whereas if it *was*, then the first sighting will have taken place during the days of Taharah following the birth, and the second sighting will be one of Nidus (which renders her Tamei for seven straight days, and does not require a Korban).

(d) Despite the fact that we do not offer any answer to this Kashya, we do not conclude 'Tiyuvta' (like we just did on Rav Sheravya) - because we could simply answer by amending the Beraisa to read 'Teishev le'Zachar, la'Nekeivah u'le'Nidah'.

(a) We learned a Beraisa which bears out Rebbi Ami "Ben", 've'Lo Tumtum', "Bechor" 've'Lo Safek'. We explain that this comes to preclude from the statement of Rava, who said that if a man's two wives gave birth to two babies simultaneously, one of them to a Bechor, and they were mixed-up from birth, the one writes the other a Harsha'ah (a document authorizing him to claim the Bechorah in his stead, should he be the Bechor), to claim the Cheilek Bechorah on his brother's behalf, should *he* be the actual Bechor, and on his own behalf, should *he* be the Bechor..

(b) Ravin went to great lengths to discover the Halachah in this case. Eventually, he learned from Rebbi Yanai - that in a case of 'Hukru ve'li'Besof Nis'arvu' (if the babies only became mixed-up after they had been recognized), a Harsha'ah helps, but not in a case of 'Nis'arvu ve'li'Besof Hukru' (where they were mixed-up at birth, even if they were later recognized).

(c) The source for this Chumra (in the latter case) is - "Bechor", 've'Lo Safek', as we just learned from the Beraisa.

(d) Rava's reaction to Rebbi Yanai's ruling was - to retract from his original ruling and to concede to his explanation.

(a) Before hearing the true explanation from Rebbi Yanai, Rava thought that the Tana learns from ...

1. ... "ve'Hayah ha'Ben" - that the baby must be known to be a boy from the time of birth, and not a Tumtum.
2. ... "ha'Bechor" - nothing other than a Bechor receives a double portion.

(b) According to Rebbi Yanai - "ve'Hayah" refers to "ha'Bechor" as well as to "ha'Ben", in which case, both must be clarified at the time of birth; otherwise he will not receive the Cheilek Bechorah.

6)

(a) The B'nei Akra de'Agma asked Shmuel what the Din will be if Reuven was established - through hearsay, as the Bechor, but his father declared Shimon the Bechor.

(b) Shmuel replied - that Reuven and Shimon will have to write out a Sh'tar Harsha'ah for each other, so that between them, they will be able to claim the Cheilek Bechor from the other brothers.

(c) Bearing in mind that this hinges on a Machlokes Tana'im (as we shall now see) Shmuel's ruling is based on - the fact that he did not know which opinion was Halachah.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah ...

1. ... learns from the Pasuk "Ki es ha'Bechor ben ha'Senu'ah *Yakir*" - that a father is believed to declare one of his sons to be the Bechor, even though this clashes against the Chazakah.
2. ... continues - that just as he is believed concerning the Bechorah, so too, is a father who is a Kohen believed to declare his son a ben Gerushah or Chalutzah (whom the Rabbanan decreed to be a Chalal, because he is similar to a ben Gerushah), and therefore Pasul li'Kehunah.

(b) The Rabbanan learn from the word "Yakir" - that if he arrives in a new town where he and his children are as yet unknown, he is believed.

(a) Bearing in mind that the issue of Ne'emanus here concerns which son receives the Cheilek Bechorah, the problem we have with the Rabbanan is - why they require a D'rashah from "Yakir", seeing as the father has a 'Migu' in that he is able to give him his property anyway as a Matanah, even to a stranger, why should he not be believed to declare one of his sons the Bechor, without a Pasuk?

(b) We confine the Kashya to the Rabbanan - because, according to Rebbi Yehudah, we need the Pasuk to teach us that the father is believed even against a Chazakah.

(c) We answer - that the father is believed even with regard to property that he has yet to obtain (and which he would not be able to give his son as a Matanah, due to the principle 'Ein Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam'.

(d) Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' (and who is generally the Bar Plugta of Rebbi Yehudah), will establish "Yakir" - by property which the father will only receive when he is a Go'ses, and which he cannot be Makneh in advance, since when he reaches that stage, he will be physically unable to be Makneh it.

1. ... she'Hu Bechor, va'Amar Aviv al Acher she'Hu Bechor, Ne'eman' is - Rebbi Yehudah.
2. ... she'Eino Bechor, va'Amar Bechor Hu, Eino Ne'eman' is - the Rabbanan.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan says 'B'ni Hu, ve'Chazar ve'Amar Avdi Hu, Eino Ne'eman'. In the reverse case 'Avdi Hu, ve'Chazar ve'Amar B'ni Hu', he rules 'Ne'eman' - because we, say, he really was his son, and the reason that he first called him 'Avdi' was because he served him like an Eved.

(b) We do not however, believe him in the first case, on the grounds that he is really his Eved, and he called him 'B'ni, because he loves him like a son - because no-one has such a close relationship with his Eved.

(c) If however, he is passing through customs, Rebbi Yochanan reverses the ruling. In that case, he refers to him as 'B'ni' - as he passes through, and as 'Avdi', later, once he leaves the domain of the tax-men (and the same, in the reverse case).

(d) There he rules, that if he first said 'B'ni' and then 'Avdi', he is believed, but not vice-versa - because seeing as one pays taxes on Avadim but not on one's children, one would expect him to refer to his Eved as B'ni as long as he is in vicinity of the tax men (to avoid having to pay taxes), but not vice-versa.

(a) We ask on Rebbi Yochanan from the Beraisa 'Hayah Meshamsho ke'Ven, u'Va ve'Amar B'ni Hu, ve'Chazar ve'Amar Avdi Hu, Eino Ne'eman'. The Tana rules in the Seifa 'Hayah Meshamsho ke'Eved, u'Ba ve'Amar Avdi Hu, ve'Chazar ve'Amar B'ni Hu - Eino Ne'eman' (like he ruled in the Reisha).

(b) This Beraisa poses a strong Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - who believes 'Avdi Hu, ve'Chazar ve'Amar B'ni Hu', even where we did not see his son serving him like an Eved, so he certainly ought to believe him where we did (as in the Beraisa)?

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles the Beraisa with Rebbi Yochanan by establishing it by Avda Meitzar Me'ah - which means that he called him (not just 'Avdi', but) 'Avda Meitzar Me'ah', meaning that he is the ideal Eved, who is worth a hundred Dinrim, something which no-one would say about his son.

(d) This will also explain - why the Tana adds 'Hayah Meshamsho ke'Eved', to stress that even then, he is not believed when he later says 'B'ni Hu'.