Previous daf

1)

(a) The Torah inserts the word "Kahal" ("bi'Kehal Hashem") - five times (by Mamzer, Amoni and Mo'avi [twice], Petzu'a Daka and Mitzri and Edomi).

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi, three of them come to forbid the five Pesulim concerned on Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisre'elim respectively, the fourth one to forbid a Mamzer to a Shesuki ('Kahal Vaday, ve'Lo Kahal Safek') - and the fifth one, to permit a Shesuki to a Yisrael ('Mamzer Vaday, ve'Lo Mamzer Safek').

(c) He does not use one of the "Kahal" to forbid the Pesulim on Geirim - because he holds 'Kehal Geirim Lo Ikri Kahal'.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah uses one of the five "Kahal" to forbid the Pesulim on Geirim, and he learns Kohanim and Levi'im from one "Kahal" - because Kohanim and Levi'im belong to the same tribe.

(b) Alternatively, he agrees with Rebbi Yossi, who requires two Pesukim for Kohanim and Levi'im. The two D'rashos that he then makes from the one "Kahal" are - to permit a Mamzer to a Shesuki ('Kahal Vaday, ve'Lo Kahal Safek') - and a Shesuki to a Yisrael ('Mamzer Vaday, ve'Lo Mamzer Safek').

(c) In a third possible explanation, Rebbi Yehudah explains the five "Kahal" exactly as Rebbi Yossi does, and he includes Geirim in the five prohibitions from the Pasuk "ha'Kahal, Chukah Achas Lachem ve'la'Ger ha'Gar". Rebbi Yossi disagrees with him - because, he says, the word "Chukah" interrupts between "ha'Kahal" and "ha'Ger".

(a)

1. When Rebbi Zeira Darshened in Mechuza that a Ger is permitted to marry a Mamzeres - the townspeople pelted him with Esrogim.
2. Rava ascribed their reaction to a lack of diplomacy on Rebbi Zeira's part - because (bearing in mind the basis for this ruling) that is not something that he ought to have Darshened in a town in which so many Geirim resided.

(b) When Rava (who was the Rav of Mechuza) Darshened that a Ger is permitted to marry a Kohenes - they loaded him with silks.

(c) He then added that a Ger is also permitted to marry a Mamzeres. When they told him that any favor that he had gained with them following his first ruling, he had now lost with the second, he replied - that by permitting them to marry both a Mamzeres and a Kohenes, he was merely offering them the best of both worlds.

(d) We rule - that a Ger is permitted to marry ...

1. ... a Kohenes, because 'Lo Huzharu Kesheiros Linasei li'Pesulim'.
2. ... a Mamzeres, because 'Kehal Geirim Lo Ikri Kahal'.

(a) Rava rules that min ha'Torah, a Shesuki is Kasher. This is based on the principle of 'Holchin Achar ha'Rov' (because seeing as we know his mother to be unmarried, the majority of men are permitted to her).

(b) The reason for this, assuming that ...

1. ... the Shesuki left home and went to the woman for the Kidushin is - because we will then apply the principle 'Kol de'Parish me'Ruba Parish'.
2. ... the woman left home and went to the Shesuki is - because of the Pasuk "Lo Yavo Mamzer" ('Mamzer Vaday, ve'Lo Mamzer Safek').

(c) If not for the Pasuk, we would have declared him Pasul, in spite of the majority - because of the principle 'Kol Kavu'a, ke'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami" (whenever the doubt arises in the location where the P'sul resides, it is considered an even Safek [fifty fifty]).

(d) The reason that we initially give for the prohibition of marrying a Shesuki - is for fear that he may marry his own paternal sister.

(a) Chazal did not prohibit a Shesuki to marry a Shesukis.

(b) We reject the suggestion that a Shesuki should be forbidden to marry ...

1. ... a Shesukis too, in case he is marrying his paternal sister - because that would be assuming that all the Shesukis in town are born from the same man.
2. ... the daughter of a Shesukis in case he is might be marrying his paternal sister (the daughter of her father, who bore him from his mother before marrying the mother of the Shesukis) - because it is so rare.

(c) We counter - that if that is so, a Shesuki marrying a Yisre'elis is rare too, so why did Chazal forbid it?

(d) In fact we conclude, they forbade a Shesuki to marry a Yisre'elis - as a decree in order to raise the level of Yichus (Ma'alah Asu be'Yuchsin), which applies to a Kasher Yisre'elis but not to a Shesukis, who is herself a Safek Mamzeres.

(a) Rava makes the same statement re. an Asufi, and the Sugya follows a similar pattern, with the same conclusion. Rava bases his statement that an Asufi is Kasher mi'Din Torah on the premise - that that the majority of Be'ilos go after the husband.

(b) We are not concerned with the possibility that maybe he is the son af an Arusah (to whom most men are forbidden) or of a woman whose husband went overseas (to whom we cannot ascribe the Bi'ah that produced this child) - because against that we have the possibility that the Asufi's mother was unmarried (in which case most people are permitted to her) or that she was married but placed her baby in the street as a result of lack of food in their household.

(c) What makes us certain that a circumcised baby is not an Asufi - is the fact that the parents took the trouble to have it circumcised (which they would not have done had they wanted it to die on account of its illegitimacy).

(d) The same applies to a baby whom the parents beautified, straightened its limbs, or protected by placing a Kame'a round its neck. Besides straightening its limbs, 'Meshalti Hadmei' might mean - that its limbs were large and well-shaped, a sign that it was born to regular parents, who strengthen the baby by being intimate during the last three months, as Chazal have taught in Nidah.

7)

(a) The gauge that determines whether it is an Asufi or not, if it was found ...

1. ... suspended from a palm-tree is - whether a wild animal is able to reach it (in which case it is an Asufi) or not.
2. ... in a Zard'sa-tree (even if it is too high for the wild animals to reach) is - whether it is near the town (in which case it is very popular with demons and the baby is an Asufi)), or not.
3. ... a Shul (which, in those days, was generally situated outside the town) is - whether it is near to the town and much used (in which case the baby is not an Asufi) or not.

(b) If one finds a baby ...

1. ... in a ditch that is designated to store date-pits for animal fodder (which is outside the town and at the mercy of the demons), by the sides of the river where the snow melts into the water (and where ships do not sail) or in the middle of the road (where it is likely to get trampled to death) - it is an Asufi.
2. ... in a bowl in the middle of the river or at the side of the street (where it will be found and rescued) - it is not.

(c) Rava precludes a baby that one finds during a famine from the Din of Asufi. This cannot pertain to when he finds him ...

1. ... in the middle of the street - because how will the fact that there is a famine save him from being trampled to death.
2. ... at the side of the street - then he is not an Asufi anyway.

(a) So we connect Rava to a statement of Rav Yehudah ... Amar Rav, who says that a couple claim to be the babies parents they are believed as long as the baby is lying in the street, but not once he has been removed - because he has already adopted the title 'waif'.

(b) Rava now says - that when there is a famine, they are believed even if they claim to be the parents after if has been removed.

(a) Rava Chisda lists three people who are believed provided they lay their claim immediately. The first one is the parents of an Asufi, as we just explained, and the second one, a midwife, who is believed to testify - which baby (of a set of tins or triplets ... ) was born first.

(b) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, she is only believed as long as she has not left the room. According to Rebbi Eliezer - as long as she has not turned round.

(c) Rav Chisda's third case is - that of three women who were sleeping together in one bed, and beneath one of whom a drop of blood is found. Basically, they are all Tamei. However, should one of them examine herself and discover that she is Tamei, then she is Tamei and the other two, Tahor.

(d) Rav Chisda considers 'immediately' in this re. - within the time it takes for her to take the cloth that is ready beside her and clean herself ('ke'Shiur Veses').

(a) In a case where four women gave birth in the same room, one the wife of a Kohen, one the wife of a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin and one the wife of a Mamzer, the Tana of the Beraisa believes the midwife to testify which baby is which - provided no objection has been raised (that the baby which she claims is child of the Eishes Kohen or Levi, is really the child of the Eishes Mamzer).

(b) 'Ir'ur' (the objection) cannot refer to Ir'ur of one person, due to a statement by Rebbi Yochanan - because of the principle 'Ein Ir'ur Pachos mi'Shenayim'.

(c) Initially, we establish the Beraisa by Ir'ur of two witnesses, but we finally establish it even by Ir'ur of one - because Rebbi Yochanan's statement is confined to where the baby had a Chezkas Kashrus beforehand, which it not have here.