Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) [line 7] SHNEI SHEMOS - two prohibitions (which seems to contradict the teaching of Rav Yehudah, that the Kohen Gadol should be liable twice for the prohibition of Almanah and twice for the prohibition of Gerushah, once each for "Lo Yikach" and once each for "Lo Yechalel")

2) [line 13] MIDRABANAN, U'KERA ASMACHTA B'ALMA (ASMACHTA)
(a) At times, when Chazal make a Derashah (extrapolate a Halachah or other teaching) from a word in the Torah, it happens that the Halachah or teaching is not mid'Oraisa at all, but rather mid'Rabanan. When this happens, the Gemara usually states that the Halachah is mid'Rabanan, and "Kera Asmachta b'Alma," i.e. that the verse is only cited as a "support" for the Halachah mid'Rabanan, but its source is not actually from the Torah. (TOSFOS to Bava Basra 66b DH Michlal d'She'ivah writes that in many instances, Derashos of Chazal in the Midreshei Halachah, such as Toras Kohanim, which appear to be from the Torah, are only Asmachta'os.)
(b) A second type of Asmachta applies even to a Halachah which actually is mid'Oraisa. When Chazal find a hint in the Torah to a Halachah that has its basis in the Oral Tradition, they call this an Asmachta as well (Eruvin 5a, Chulin 77a).
(c) The Rishonim argue as to the reason why Chazal, in these instances, used verses to support their teachings.

1. From the words of the RAMBAM (Introduction to his Perush ha'Mishnayos) it appears that Asmachta'os are only mnemonic devices. (It is possible that he writes this only with regard to the latter type of Asmachta, Asmachta'os for Isurei Torah.)
2. MAHARIL (in Likutei Maharil) writes that Chazal used the device of Asmachta in order to make people regard certain Halachos mid'Rabanan as if they were actually mid'Oraisa, so that they should not treat them lightly.
3. The RITVA (to Rosh Hashanah 16a, see Be'er ha'Golah of the MAHARAL, Be'er #1) states that when Chazal present an Asmachta, it means that the Torah meant to suggest that it is fitting to implement such a Halachah, but that it did not choose to make it obligatory. The Torah empowered the Chachamim to enact it should the need for it arise. Similarly, the SHELAH (in Torah she'Be'al Peh, entry titled "Rabanan") writes that when the Chachamim utilized a hint from a verse, it means that they learned a particular approach of reasoning from this verse. Accordingly, it appeared to them that there was a need to decree this particular Halachah.
4. The MESHECH CHOCHMAH (Parshas Shoftim) claims that when Chazal present an Asmachta, it means that *after* Chazal instituted a particular Halachah or enacted a particular decree, they studied the Torah and found that the Torah had already hinted to that future decree in its eternal wisdom.

3) [line 15] BA'AL LOKEH - (the words of RASHI DH Ba'al Lokeh do not apply to the teaching of Abaye on this line, but rather to the teaching of *Rava* on line 17)

4a) [line 18] MAH TA'AM "LO YIKACH?" - For what reason does the Torah state, "[Almanah u'Gerushah va'Chalalah Zonah; Es Eleh] Lo Yikach..." - "[A widow, a divorcee, a Chalalah and a prostitute; these women] he shall not marry..." (Vayikra 21:14)?
b) [line 19] MISHUM "LO YECHALEL." - in order that "Lo Yechalel Zar'o b'Amav..." - "He shall not invalidate his seed among his people..." (Vayikra 21:15). As such, Rava rules that only if he has relations is he liable to two sets of Malkos. If he does not, he does not even receive one set of Malkos for "Lo Yikach."

5) [line 19] MACHZIR GERUSHASO
See Background to Kidushin 77:8.

6) [line 21] " [LO YUCHAL BA'ALAH HA'RISHON ASHER SHILECHAH, LASHUV] L'KACHTAH LIHEYOS LO L'ISHAH..." - "[Her former husband, who sent her away, may not] take her [again] to be his wife..." (Devarim 24:4) - "Liheyos Lo l'Ishah" implies marital relations. As such, Abaye agrees to Rava's ruling in the case of a Machzir Gerushaso, that he does not receive Malkos for being Mekadesh her if he does not have marital relations with her afterwards.

7) [line 28] YETZIRASO B'AVEIRAH - his conception was brought about through a sin (relations of a Kohen with a woman who is prohibited to him), [as opposed to a Ger and a Kohen Gadol, whose conceptions were not brought about through sin]

8) [line 30] V'CHAZAR HA'DIN, LO RE'I ZEH K'RE'I ZEH
(a) The method of learning that is being used by our Gemara is called a comparison, or "Meh Matzinu" - "What we have found [in one subject, applies to another subject, also.]" Among the rules of this method is the rule of a "Pirchah" (a question), where even a slight difference between the subjects causes the comparison to collapse, and no connection may be made.
(b) At this point the Gemara will bring a "Yochi'ach" or "Tochi'ach" (fem.) (a proof), where another subject, which fulfills the requirements of the Pirchah, is used to rebuild the comparison. A second Pirchah follows, where the Yochi'ach subject is brought into question. Then the original subject becomes the Yochi'ach.
(c) The conclusion is v'Chazar ha'Din (the Din goes back and forth), Lo Re'i Zeh k'Re'i Zeh (this subject is not exactly like that subject and vice versa), but the Tzad ha'Shaveh (common denominator) may be used to connect the Halachos of the two subjects. As such, we may learn a new Halachah from them (in our case, according to Rebbi Yehudah, that the daughter of a Ger is unfit to marry a Kohen). The common denominator may also be brought into question, which inhibits learning the new Halachah from the two subjects (which occurs in our Gemara and necessitates changing the Yochi'ach subject).

9a) [line 30] SHE'EINAN B'ROV HA'KAHAL - that their situation does not apply to most of the community (i.e. that a Kohen Gadol with an Almanah is "Bi'aso b'Aveirah" and a Chalal is "Yetziraso b'Aveirah")
b) [line 31] HA'GER, SHE'EINO B'ROV HA'KAHAL - the convert, whose situation does not apply to most of the community (i.e. that he originates from a "Tipah Pesulah")

10) [line 33] MITZRI RISHON
(a) Only the grandchild of an Egyptian or Edomite convert may marry into the Jewish people as stated in Devarim 23:8-9 (Yevamos 76b). One who marries a first or second-generation Egyptian or Edomite convert transgresses a Lav ha'Ba mi'Chlal Aseh. This prohibition applies to both male and female converts. If an Egyptian woman who is married to an Egyptian man converts while she is pregnant, the child who is born is a Mitzri Sheni (second-generation Egyptian).
(b) According to most opinions this prohibition does not apply today because the Egyptians and Edomim about whom the Torah speaks have become lost among the nations (SEFER HA'CHINUCH # 563, 564).
(c) With regard to our Sugya, a Mitzri Rishon fulfills the requirements of the "Yochi'ach" (see above, entry #8) since his conception was *not* brought about through a sin and his daughter is unfit to marry a Kohen.

11) [line 39] "V'CHOL HA'TAF BA'NASHIM...HACHAYU LACHEM." - "But all of the young women...keep alive for yourselves [to become slaves]." (Bamidbar 31:18) - Keeping the young women alive "for yourselves" also implies that if they convert, they are fit to marry the soldiers who captured them.

12) [line 39] VA'HALO PINCHAS HAYAH IMAHEM - and we should note that Pinchas was with the soldiers at the time (implying that these girls could be fit to marry Kohanim, also)

13) [line 40] V'CHULAN MIKRA ECHAD DARSHU - and each of them (the four Tana'im who disagree) found support [for his opinion] in one (and the same) verse

14) [line 42] KOL ZERA MI'YISRAEL - that is, all of the *primary status of the offspring* (i.e. its lineage, which follows the father) must be from Yisrael, and not a Ger. (If, however, the father is a Yisrael and the mother is a Giyores, their daughter is fit to marry a Kohen according to Rebbi Yehudah -- RASHI to Kidushin 77a DH Bas Ger Zachar)

15) [line 43] "MI'ZERA," VA'AFILU MIKTZAS ZERA - the letter Mem in the word "mi'Zera" limits the requirement of "Zera" and includes even partial "Zera," i.e. one of the parents (but not both) can be a Ger

16) [line 43] MI SHE'NIZRE'U B'YISRAEL - one who was conceived (lit. planted) in the community of Yisrael, i.e. even the daughter of a Ger and a Giyores

17) [last line] MI SHE'NIZRE'U BESULEHA B'YISRAEL - one whose Besulim grew to completion after she was a member of the community of Yisrael, i.e. even a girl who converted before she was three years old

18) [line 3] "V'NER ELOKIM TEREM YICHBEH U'SHMUEL SHOCHEV, B'HEICHAL HASH-M..." - "And before the lamp of Elokim had gone out in the Temple of HaSh-m, [where the ark of Elokim was,] and Shmuel was lying down to sleep;" (Shmuel I 3:3) - The verse translated in the order of the words is rendered, "And before the lamp of Elokim had gone out and Shmuel was lying down to sleep in the Temple of HaSh-m..."

19) [line 4] EIN YESHIVAH BA'AZARAH ELA L'MALCHEI BEIS DAVID BILVAD
(a) Because of the sanctity of the Beis ha'Mikdash and the Azarah (its surrounding courtyard), the kings of the Davidic dynasty were the only ones who were allowed to sit there. This Halachah is based on the verse brought by the Gemara (Sotah 40b et al), "Then King David went in, and sat before HaSh-m, and he said, 'Who am I, O HaSh-m? And what importance is there in my house, that You have brought me thus far?" (Shmuel II 7:18).
(b) There are those who are of the opinion that even the Davidic kings were not permitted to sit in the Azarah (see TOSFOS to Sotah ibid. DH veha'Amar), and they interpret the verse in three ways:

1. The verse means that he *supported* himself, leaning, but did not actually sit. This action is prohibited to all others besides the Davidic kings.
2. The verse is to be interpreted figuratively, that he "sat himself down" in fervent preyer, but did not actually sit at all.
3. There was a chair prepared for King David *just outside* of the Azarah, to which this verse is referring.

21) [line 19] NAHAGU KOHANIM SILSUL B'ATZMAN - the Kohanim adopted a more stringent position of dignity with regard to who they would marry

22) [line 21] BA LIMALECH - if he comes to ask

23) [line 24] HA'OMER BENI ZEH MAMZER (NE'EMANUS HA'AV)
(a) The verse states, regarding a Bechor (firstborn), "Ki Es ha'Bechor...
*Yakir*," meaning the father should "recognize" the Bechor (Devarim 21:17). From the word "Yakir" the Chachamim learn that we may rely on the word of the father (i.e., his "recognition" of the son) to determine which son is the Bechor.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah (in the Gemara below) we also learn from this word that if the father is a Kohen, we may rely on his affirmation to determine whether or not his son was born from a divorcee or Chalutzah, making him a Chalal, (who is not valid to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash like other Kohanim). In our Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah extends this believability to a father who claims that his son is a Mamzer. The Chachamim argue with Rebbi Yehudah, maintaining that the father may only determine which of his sons is the Bechor. He is not trusted to decide whether his son is of impure lineage.

24) [line 44] ADAM MAKNEH DAVAR SHE'LO BA LA'OLAM
There is a Machlokes Tana'im as to whether "Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam" - "a person can acquire a thing that has not yet emerged into the world," or not (Kedushin 63a). Some examples of things that have not yet emerged into the world are the fruits that will grow on a tree or the goods to be produced by one's wife.

25) [line 46] KESHE'HU GOSES - when the father is a Goses, a sick person who is on the verge of death

Next daf