Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT WE LEARN FROM EACH MISHNAH OF OUR CHAPTER

1. If we taught only these 2 Mishnayos, I would say that they are believed only in monetary cases, but not in the case of prohibitions, such as a married woman (who claims that she was divorced - 22A).
2. Question: Why must we teach the case(22A), 'I was captured but not defiled'?
3. Answer: Because we want to teach that if witnesses come after they were (permitted to be) married, they do not leave (the permission).

i. This answer fits Rabah Bar Avin (23A) who says that this clause only applies to the case of a captive.
ii. Question: How will R. Oshiya (who says that this clause also applies to the woman who claims that she was divorced) answer?
iii. Answer: Because we want to teach the case of 2 women that were captured(23B).

4. Question: Why must we teach the case of 2 women that were captured?
5. Answer: One might have thought, we should suspect that they are conspiring to falsely testify to help each other - we learn that this is not so.
6. Why must we teach the case of 2 men (our Mishnah)?
7. Answer: To teach the argument of R. Yehudah and Chachamim.

(a) (Beraisa): 'I am a Kohen, and so is my friend' - he is believed regarding Trumah, but not regarding lineage (to get married);
(b) If a 3rd man is with them, so each Kohen has 2 other men testifying that he is a Kohen, this establishes that they have proper lineage;
(c) R. Yehudah says, even regarding Trumah, a 3rd man is required.
(d) Suggestion: We see, R. Yehudah is concerned that 2 will lie to help each other, and Chachamim are not concerned for this.
(e) Question: Elsewhere, they hold contrary to this!

1. (Mishnah): Merchants entered a city. One said, 'My produce is new, my friend's is old; mine is untithed, my friend's is tithed' - he is not believed; R. Yehudah says, he is believed.

(f) Answer #1 (Rav Ada Bar Ahavah): The opinions (in the Beraisa are incorrect and) must be switched.
(g) Answer #2 (Abaye): (R. Yehudah) is lenient by doubtfully tithed produce, since most commoners do tithe.
(h) Objection (Rava): Was there not also a contradiction in the reasoning of Chachamim that needed resolution?!
(i) Answer #3 (Rava): We resolve R. Yehudah as Abaye. We resolve Chachamim with an answer Rav Chama Bar Ukva once gave, 'he is holding tools of the trade'.

(j) Here also, when he is holding tools of the trade (commerce) we are concerned that he is lying to help his friend.

1. Rav Chama Bar Ukva gave his answer to resolve the following question.
2. (Mishnah): A potter left his pots and went to drink. The inner ones are pure, the outer ones are impure.
3. Question: But a Beraisa teaches, both are impure!
4. Answer (R. Chama Bar Ukva): (The Beraisa speaks when) he has his work vessels, and everyone touches the pots (since they know that they are for sale).
5. Question: But another Beraisa teaches, both are pure!
6. Answer (R. Chama Bar Ukva): (This Beraisa speaks when) he does not have his work vessels.
7. Question: What is the case of the Mishnah, that only the outer pots are impure?
8. Answer: The pots are close to a major road, where obstacles force people to the sides, and their clothing render the pots impure.

(k) Answer #4: The dispute between R. Yehudah and Chachamim is based on whether we establish a person as having proper lineage if we see that he eats Trumah. (Since R. Yehudah says that we do, he always requires 2 witnesses to establish a person as a Kohen to eat Trumah; where 1 witness suffices, he is not concerned that 2 people will conspire to testify falsely for each other.)

(a) Question: Can we establish that a person has proper lineage based on what it says in a document?

1. Question: What is the case?

i. If it says, 'I, Ploni the Kohen sign as a witness' - no one testifies about him!
ii. Rather, it says 'I, Ploni the Kohen borrowed ... ' and witnesses signed below.

(b) Do we say, witnesses only testify to the loan; or, to everything in the document?
(c) Answer: Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argued; one said that documents do establish lineage, the other said it does not.
(d) Question: If we see a man Duchan (bless Birkas Kohanim), does this establish that he has proper lineage?

1. This question is not dependent on the debate whether we establish lineage based on seeing someone eat Trumah.
2. The opinion that says that we *do* establish lineage based on seeing someone eat Trumah - perhaps that is only because a non-Kohen who eats Trumah is liable to death at the hands of Heaven (so we may assume that he must be a proper Kohen); but for a non-Kohen to Duchan is only a prohibition inferred from a positive Mitzvah, perhaps this is no proof of proper lineage - or perhaps, we make no distinction.
3. The opinion that says that we do *not* establish lineage based on seeing someone eat Trumah - perhaps that is only because Trumah is eaten in private; but Duchaning is done in public, if he was not a proper Kohen he would not be so bold to Duchan - or perhaps, we make no distinction.

(e) Answer: Rav Chisda and R. Avina argued; one said that Duchaning does establish lineage, the other said it does not.
(f) Question (Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak): May we establish lineage based on Duchaning?
(g) Answer (Rava): Rav Chisda and R. Avina argued on this.
(h) Question (Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak): What is the final ruling?
(i) Answer (Rava): I know a Beraisa (which says that we do not).

1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi): Great is Chazakah - "Among the Kohanim ... they could not find their documents of lineage, and were disqualified from Kehunah".
2. "haTarshasa said to them, you will not eat Kadshim".

i. Trumah, which they ate in Bavel, they can also eat in Eretz Yisrael.

3. If we establish lineage based on Duchaning - people will come to approve of the lineage of these disqualified Kohanim!
4. Objection (Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak): There it is different, since people see a weakness in their Chazakah (they cannot eat Kadshim).

i. Support: We must say this - if not, how will the opinion that we do establish lineage from eating Trumah address this concern?!