Previous daf

1)

(a) An engaged couple came before Rav Yosef. Both agreed that the woman was pregnant from her betrothed. Rav Yosef accepted their testimony on the grounds that they both agreed. He would have accepted it even if the man had denied being the father of the baby however - on the grounds that Shmuel rules like Raban Gamliel (that *she* is believed in any case).

(b) Abaye queried Rav Yosef's ruling in this case - on the grounds that Shmuel himself ruled like Raban Gamliel only Bedieved (if she had already married a Kohen without consulting Beis-Din), but not to marry him Lechatchilah.

(c) Rav Yosef justified his ruling however - by pointing out that this case too, was a case of Bedieved, seeing as she was already pregnant (and it is a question of invalidating the baby when it is born), and in addition, they were already betrothed, and it was a matter of remaining together (Bedieved).

(a) Assuming 'Almanas Isah' to be a S'fek S'feika' (like Rav Yosef Tuv Ileim), an Almanas Isah' is a case where - firstly, the woman is a Safek Megureshes (because we do not know whether the Get that her husband threw to her was closer to her or to him); then her husband died within three months, and still within the three month period, she went and married a Kohen, and became pregnant immediately. We now have a Safek whether the child is the son of the first husband (and Kasher), or the son of the second husband, the Kohen. And even if he is the son of the Kohen, perhaps the Get was not valid and the baby, born to a Kohen who married an Almanah, will be Kasher.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira rule - that an Almanas Isah is Kasher li'Kehunah.

(c) We reconcile this ruling with Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling in our Mishnah, where he does not believe the woman who says that the man she had been 'talking to' was a Kohen - because a woman is careful whom she *marries* (in which case we can *believe her*), but not with whom she has illicit relations (so we *cannot*).

(d) We retract from this answer however, in light of the fact that Raban Gamliel's two rulings also appear contradictory. We reconcile ...

1. ... Raban Gamliel, who believes the woman in our Mishnah, but not an Almanas Isah - because he confines his ruling there to a case where the woman is certain (even when there is only *one* Safek), but not to a case where she is *not* (such as 'Almanas Isah' - even when there are *two*).
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua (finally), who believes her here by Almanas Isah but not in our Mishnah - because he confines his ruling here to a case where there *are two S'feikos* (even when she is *not certain*), but not to a case when there is only *one* (even when she *is*).

(a) The case currently under discussion is called 'Almanas Isah' - because, like a dough, which is made-up of various ingredients, it is made up of various S'feikos.

(b) The significance of Safek Mamzeirus, Nesinus and Avdei Melachim with regard to Almanas Isah - is that, if any of them are included in the S'feikos, Rebbi Yehoshua will not declare her Kasher.

(c) 'Avdei Melachim' - refers to the slaves in the palace of Shlomoh ha'Melech, who used their wealth and power to marry B'nos Yisrael, and to the offspring of Hurdus, slave of the Chashmona'im who overpowered his masters and assumed the throne.

4)

(a) We initially infer (with regard to a Safek Chalal) from the Tana's exclusive list (of the three above-mentioned P'sulim - Safek Mamzeirus, Nesinus and Avdei Melachim) - that, if a Safek Chalal were to be included in the S'feikos, Rebbi Yehoshua would declare her Kasher.

(b) The Tana's distinction between Safek Chalal and other cases of Safek P'sul is difficult to understand however - seeing as the P'sul of Chalal is d'Oraysa no less than the other three Pesulim.

(c) The problem with Rebbi Meir, who says in the Beraisa 'Kol she'Ein Bah Echad mi'Kol Eilu, Masi'in li'Kehunah' is - that he seems to be merely echoing the words of the Tana Kama, instead of arguing with him?

(d) The Tana also writes '*ve'Chein* (similarly) Amar Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar Amar Rebbi Meir ki'D'varav', and then goes on to say 'Makirin Yisrael Mamzeirim she'Beineihem, ve'Ein Makirin Chalalim she'Beineihem' (suggesting that Almanas Isah that incorporates a Safek Mamzer is permitted, whereas if it incorporates a Safek Chalal, she is forbidden) - which is quite the opposite of what the Tana Kama said).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan bases the triple Machlokes in the Beraisa on two issues (Chalal Shosek and Mamzer Tzovei'ach). Rebbi Meir and the Tana Kama argue over Chalal Shosek. The Tana Kama permits Almanas Isah to marry li'Kehunah provided Mamzeirus, Nesinus and Avdei Melachim are not included in the Safek. The reason for these three is - because we are speaking in a case when, whenever one called him any of these, he was silent, and we have a principle 'Sh'sikah ke'Hoda'ah' (silence is tantamount to admission).

(b) Consequently, the same will apply to a Safek Chalal.

(c) Rebbi Meir declares her Kasher li'Kehunah in the case of a Safek Chalal - because her deceased husband chose to be silent when they referred to him as a Safek Chalal, not because he agreed with them but because he did not mind as long as they did not refer to him as a P'sul Kahal.

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar Amar Rebbi Meir disagrees with the Tana Kama quoting Rebbi Meir in a number of points. With regard to ...

1. ... Chalal ve'Shosek - he holds that he is Pasul, because of Sh'sikah ke'Hoda'ah (like the Tana Kama of Rebbi Meir), because he is afraid that, should he raise a protest, people will discover that he really is Pasul (otherwise, people do not recognize the Chalalim among them).
2. ... Mamzer ve'Shosek - he holds that he is Kasher, because his silence is due to the fact that people know who the Mamzeirim really are, so he does nor bother to protest.

(b) He agrees that a Almanas Isah that incorporates a Safek Chalal whom we know for sure to have been a Chalal is Kasher (such as the case of Safek Gerushah that we discussed initially).

(c) If Almanas Isah incorporates a case of Mamzer ve'Tzovei'ach, she is Pasul li'Kehunah.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri ruled - that the girl who was raped when she went down to the well to draw water from the spring, was Kasher as long as most of the people of the town were fit to marry Kohanim.

(b) Rava has a problem with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's ruling - inasmuch as Rebbi Yehoshua invalidates her even in a town with a majority of people who are Kasher, whereas Raban Gamliel validated her even a town where he majority were Kasher; so with whom does Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri concur?

(c) Rav Nachman establishes Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's ruling in accordance with Rebbi Yehoshua. The incident occurred however, 'bi'K'ronos shel Tzipori' - meaning that there was a second Rov to complement the first one (namely, when the wagons came in from Tzipori, most of the travellers who passed by were Kasher), in which case, even Rebbi Yehoshua will permit her to marry li'Kehunah.