Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi learns from "Be'ulas Ba'al" that only her husband makes her a Be'ulah through a Bi'ah she'Lo ke'Darkah, but not someone else. Rebbi Zeira reconciles this with the Beraisa (which we quoted a little earlier), where Rebbi commutes the sentence of the subsequent nine adulterers to Chenek - by confining the D'rashah from "Be'ulas Ba'al" to K'nas (when she is not an Arusah, but not to their death-penalty, when she is).

(b) He learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the rape of a Na'arah Besulah)"u'Meis ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah *Levado*" - that when it comes to the death penalty, only the first adulterer receives Sekilah, as we just explained.

(c) The Rabbanan (who hold that all ten receive Sekilah) explain "Levado" like Rebbi Yonasan in a Beraisa, who learns from there - that a man who commits adultery with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, receives Sekilah even though the girl does not (i.e. if she is a Ketanah).

(d) Rebbi Yoshiyah disputes this. He learns from the Pasuk there (in connection with the same case, but where the woman was a willing partner) "u'Meisu Gam Sheneihem" - that the man is only Chayav if the girl is Chayav too (but not if she is a Ketanah).

3)

(a) One of the ramifications of the She'eilah whether it is the beginning of Bi'ah (Ha'ara'ah) that acquires the woman or the end is, if, should she accept Kidushin from another man between the two, the second Kidushin is valid or not. The other one concerns a Kohen Gadol - whether he is permitted to acquire a wife through Bi'ah. Because, by the time he concludes the Bi'ah, she is already a Be'ulah, and, assuming that he did not acquire her at the time of Ha'ara'ah, he will not fulfil his obligation of marrying a Besulah.

(b) Ameimar Amar Rava rules - that the Mekadesh has in mind to acquire the woman only at the end of Bi'ah (like the second side of the She'eilah).

(c) We ask whether Bi'ah makes Nisu'in or Erusin. The three ramifications of this She'eilah are - regarding inheritance and burying her in the event of her death and annuling her vows.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa list the rights of a father in his daughter. The three rights that he has over and above those concerning the Kesef, Sh'tar and Bi'ah of her Kidushin and concerning her Get are - in what she finds, in what she produces and regarding unnuling her Nedarim.

(b) The rights that he does not have, which her husband subsequently does are - that he does the Peiros of any property that she inherits from maternal family.

(c) Abaye attempts to prove from the fact that the Tana mentioned her marriage, after 'Kesef, Sh'tar and Bi'ah', that Bi'ah makes Kidushin. We refute this however, on the grounds that - her marriage refers to the other two cases of Kidushin, which certainly make Eirusin and not Nisuin.

(a) Rava too, tries to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa. The Beraisa says 'Miskadeshes be'Bi'ah, ve'Im Ba Alehah Yavam, Kan'ah ve'Chayavin Alehah Mishum Eishes Ish' - about a girl who has turned three.

(b) When the Tana says 'u'Metamah es Bo'alah Letamei Mishkav Tachton ke'Elyon' - he means that someone who is Bo'el a Nidah is Tamei for seven days, to the point of making any sheets on which he subsequently lies (even if there are ten sheets beneath him) Rishon le'Tum'ah (to make food and drink a Sheini, but not people and vessels), like the sheets that cover a Zav.

(c) A Nidah herself is more stringent in this regard - inasmuch as she renders all the sheets underneath her an Av ha'Tum'ah (to render even people and vessels Tamei, too).

(d) If she is under three - the Bo'el will be Tamei for only one day, like someone who touches a Nidah.

7) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Kinyan Kaspo Hu Yochal Bo" - that whatever belongs to the Kohen, such as his Eved Cana'ani, may eat Terumah.
2. ... "Kol Tahor be'Veischa Yochal Oso" - that even his wife may eat Terumah too.

(a) ben Bag-Bag sent to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira querying what he had heard in his name - that an Arusah bas Yisrael to a Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah.

(b) The latter replied that he was surprised to hear that he (ben Bag-Bag did not agree with this, seeing as we could learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Shifchah Cana'anis, who could not eat Terumah through Bi'ah, yet she could eat it through Kesef, in which case an Arusah bas Yisrael, who could eat Terumah through Bi'ah, could certainly eat it through Kesef.

(c) Bi'ah with a Shifchah Cana'anis does not feed her Terumah, because neither does it make her 'Kinyan Kaspo', nor is Kidushin applicable with a Shifchah Cana'anis.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira ascribes the prohibition of an Arusah to eat Terumah as a Takanas Chachamim (in case she hands a cup of Terumah to her siblings, who are forbidden to drink it).

(a) With regard to the 'Kal va'Chomer' (regarding learning an Arusah bas Yisrael from a Shifchah Cana'anis, the Tana cannot be speaking ...

1. ... when both the Bi'ah and the Kesef were followed by Chupah - because then Kesef would feed her Terumah, too.
2. ... (according to our initially understanding) when the Bi'ah was followed by Chupah but the Kesef was not - because then how could we learn that Kesef (on its own) should acquire, from the fact that Bi'ah acquires together with Chupah?

(b) So we attempt to establish the Beraisa - when both are speaking when there was no Chupah, proving that Bi'ah makes Chupah (otherwise why would it be more obvious that Bi'ah acquires more than Kesef?

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak refutes the proof by establishing the Beraisa when the Bi'ah was followed by Chupah, but the Kesef was not. He dispenses with the problem that we just had with this - by entering that very point into the 'Kal va'Chomer' and saying that if a Shifchah Cana'anis, who could not eat Terumah through Bi'ah (even in conjunction with Chupah), yet she could eat it through Kesef alone, then an Arusah bas Yisrael, who could eat Terumah through Bi'ah in conjunction with Chupah, could certainly eat it through Kesef alone.

(d) ben Bag-Bag counters Rebbi Yehudah's 'Kal va'Chomer', by making a clear distinction between the Kinyan Kesef of an Arusah - which is still lacking Chupah, and that of a Shifchah Cana'anis, which is complete. It would therefore be logical to say that even if a Shifchah can eat, an Arusah cannot.

(a) According to Ravina, ben Bag-Bag concedes that min ha'Torah, an Arusah bas Yisrael is permitted to eat Terumah. The message that he sent to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira was - that he was surprised that he did not forbid it because of 'Simpon' (perhaps he will find some blemish on her which will render the Kidushin invalid, nullifying her right to eat Terumah retroactively).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira replied - that, if we did not worry about Simpon regarding a Shifchah whom Kinyan Kesef permits to eat Terumah (even though Bi'ah does not), then we should certainly not worry about Simpon with regard to an Arusah bas Yisrael, whom even a Kinyan Kesef feeds Terumah too!

(c) ben Bag-Bag argues with Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira however, inasmuch as, in his opinion, the entire concept of Simpon does not apply to Avadim (in which case there is no room for a 'Kal va'Chomer'), as we shall now see.