Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav Yehudah, a Kohen Gadol who marries an Almanah, transgresses two La'avin - "Lo Yikach" and "Lo Yechalel".

(b) This Chidush - is not confined to a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah, but extends to all Isurei Kehunah, as we explained above.

(c) Rav Yehudah did not include the La'av of "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o", to make it three - since he is speaking when the Kohen did not complete his Bi'ah (because although Ha'ara'ah is considered Bi'ah, it cannot produce children).

(d) Rav Yehudah ...

1. ... interprets the Beraisa 'Almanah u'Gerushah Lokeh Mishum Sh'nei Sheimos' to mean - two Sheimos for Almanah and two for Gerushah.
2. ... amends the Seifa 'Gerushah va'Chalutzah, Eino Chayav Ela Mishum Achas' to read - 'Eino Chayav Ela Al Achas' (but not on Chalutzah which is only an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan, and on Gerushah he is Chayav two sets of Malkos, as we explained)

(a) Chalutzah, as we just explained, is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and when the Beraisa learns Chalutzah from the extra 'Vav' in "*ve'Ishah* Gerushah me'Iyshah" - it does so on the basis of an 'Asmachta' (a support from the Torah for a Rabbinical institution).

(b) According to Abaye, a Kohen Gadol receives Malkos for the Kidushin of an Almanah, as well as for the Bi'ah. Rava disagrees - because "Lo Yikach ... ve'Lo Yechalel" implies a Kidushin that leads to Bi'ah. Consquently, if there has been no Bi'ah, there is no Malkos for the Kidushin.

(c)

1. Abaye extrapolates from the Pasuk "Lo Yuchal Ba'alah ha'Rishon ... Lashuv Lekachtah Lih'yos Lo le'Ishah" - that a Machzir Gerushaso only receives Malkos if the Kidushin is followed by Bi'ah (like Rava holds by an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol).
2. Rava extrapolates that if a Kohen Gadol has relations with an Almanah without Kidushin, that he nevertheless receives Malkos (because although the Kidushin depends on the Bi'ah, the Bi'ah does not depend on the Kidushin).

(d) They both agree however - that a Machzir Gerushaso who was Bo'el without Kidushin does not receive Malkos, because the Torah is referring clearly refers to a regular marriage process).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Rebbi Yehudah says 'bas Ger Zachar ke'bas Chalal Zachar', which the Beraisa attempt to support Rebbi Yehudah with a 'Kal va'Chomer' - from a Chalal, who was born to Jewish parents, and yet his daughter is Pasul (how much more so a Ger, whose parents were Nochrim).

(b) We query this 'Kal va'Chomer' however, with the Pircha that a Chalal, on the other hand, was formed through sin, whereas a Ger was not. We counter this Pircha - by bringing the case of an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, whose daughter is a Chalalah even though her parents were not formed through a sin.

(c) So we learn 'bas Ger Zachar' from the combination ('Tzad ha'Shaveh') of Chalal and Kohen Gadol be'Almanah, which are both exceptions. The advantage that a Chalal has over a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah is - that the daughter of a Chalal and a Yisre'elis is not born from a sinful relationship, whereas the daughter of an Almanah and a Kohen Gadol is.

(d) The Pircha on the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' is that a Ger has an advantage over both a Chalal and a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah -inasmuch as there is no aspect of sin with him at all, whereas a Chalal is born from a sin and a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah performing one.

(a) The Pircha on the Limud from a Mitzri Rishon and a Mitzris Rishonah (which replaces Kohen Gadol be'Almanah), who are neither formed through sin nor do they commit one, is - that they are not fit to enter the Kahal.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah finally learns 'bas Ger Zachar ke'bas Chalal Zachar' - from a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' between Chalal and Mitzri Rishon.

(c) We refute the Pircha 'Mah le'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen, she'Kein Poslin be'Bi'asan (Tomar be'Ger, she'Eino Posel be'Bi'aso') - on the grounds that, based on this very 'Mah ha'Tzad' Rebbi Yehudah invalidates whoever has Bi'ah with a Ger from the Kehunah.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and Rebbi Yossi disagree with Rebbi Yehudah's 'Mah ha'Tzad'. They validate the daughter of a Ger - by refuting Rebbi Yehudah's 'Mah ha'Tzad' (from Chalal and Mitzri) on the grounds that Chalal and Mitzri may well both be exceptions, but their respective Pesulim are so different (the former is Kasher to enter the Kahal, the latter is not), that they simply cannot combine to form a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'.

(a) Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chol ha'Taf ba'Nashim Hachayu Lachem" that a Giyores under the age of three is permitted, and he extrapolates it from the person who went to war with them (and who is incorporated in "Lachem"). This refers to - Pinchas, who was a Kohen.

(b) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Shimon's proof - by establishing the Pasuk in respect of taking them (not as wives, but) as slaves.

(c) In fact, we conclude that the four Tana'im in our Mishnah all derive their respective opinions from the same Pasuk in Yechezkel "Almanah u'Gerushah Lo Yikachu ... Ki Im Besulos mi'Zera Beis Yisrael". We will interpret "mi'Zera Beis Yisrael", according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah ('bas Ger Zachar ... ') to mean - 'Kol Zera mi'Yisrael' (meaning Ikar Zera, that her father must be a Yisrael).
2. ... Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov ( 'Yisrael she'Nasa Giyores, Bito Kesherah li'Kehunah') to mean - 'Afilu Miktzas Zera' (as long as one of the parents is Jewish).
3. ... Rebbi Yossi ('Af Ger she'Nasa Giyores ... ') - 'Mi she'Nizre'u be'Yisrael' (as long as the daughter was conceived from parents who are now Jewish).
4. ... Rebbi Shimon - 'Mi she'Nizre'u Besulehah be'Yisrael' (as long her Besulim arrived after she converted (even if her parents are both Nochrim.

6)

(a) When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asked Rava about an apparent discrepancy between the first half of the above-mentioned Pasuk in Yechezkel and the second half (which reads "ve'ha'Almanah Asher Tih'yeh Almanah mi'Kohen Yikachu"), he was referring to the fact that the first half of the Pasuk (which forbids marrying an Alamanah) is speaking to a Kohen Gadol, and the second half (which permits it) to a Kohen Hedyot.

(b) To which Rava's replied - that this was indeed the case, and that there was nothing wrong with it.

(c) And Rava proved his point from the Pasuk "ve'Ner Elokim Terem Yichbeh" - which clearly refers to the Heichal of Mishkan Shiloh, whereas "u'Sh'muel Shochev be'Heichal Hashem" which can only refer to the Ezras ha'Levi'im, where the Levi'im who guarded the Mishkan, slept.

(a) When the Navi writes "ve'Almanah Asher Tih'yeh Almanah mi'Kohen Yikachu" (implying that one Kohen is forbidden to marry the Almanah of another Kohen) - he really means that a Kohen other than the Kohen Gadol, may marry an Almanah.

(b) This is also the opinion of the Tana Kama in a Beraisa, though Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. And when Rebbi Yehudah says 'min ha'Masi'in li'Kehunah Yikachu' - he means that they may marry only an Almanah who is permitted to marry a Kohen (but not if she is a Giyores).

(c) What he said above that conforms with this statement was - bas Ger Zachar ke'Bas Chalal Zachar.

(d) The statement of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel with which Rebbi Yehudah also conforms is - ' ... ve'Chol sh'I Atah Nosei es Bito, I Atah Nosei Almenoso'.

(a)

1. Rav Hamnuna quoting Ula rules - like like Rebbi Yossi.
2. The Kohanim following the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash says Rabah bar Chanah, followed the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.

(b) Rav Nachman quoting Rav Huna, makes a similar statement. He said that if a Kohen ...

1. ... came to inquire about the Halachah - they would permit him to marry the daughter of a Ger, provided one her parents was a born Jew.
2. ... actually married the daughter of a Ger and a Giyores - they would not obligate him to divorce her.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah states that if someone declares his son to be a Mamzer he is not believed - because a person is never believed to testify for or against a close relative.

(b) If both parents declare that the fetus that the mother is carrying is a Mamzer - they are not believed either.

(c) The Tana finds it necessary to add ...

1. ... here that the mother testifies too - because she is is better acquainted with the history of the babay that she is carrying than the father (so we otherwise have thought that she is believed).
2. ... this case (in addition to the Reisha) - because, unlike the Reisha, there was never a moment that the child had a Chezkas Kashrus (so perhaps parents would be believed, even though in the Reisha, they are not).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah says - that they are believed.

(a) We know that a father is believed to declare his son a Bechor so that he should inherit a double portion - from the S'vara of 'Migu', seeing as he has the power to present it to him as a gift whenever he wants.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "Ki Im ha'Bechor ben ha'Senu'ah *Yakir*" - that the father is believed even when there is no 'Migu' (as we will see shortly), and moreover, that he is even believed to testify that he is a ben Gerushah (or even a Mamzer).

(c) What do the Rabbanan learn from there - that he is believed to testify that he is a Bechor (only).

(d) 'be'Tzarich Hekeira' means - that he was not known until now to be the Bechor (e.g. that he just came from overseas).

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, we need "Yakir" with re. to property that the father received when he was a Goses. What makes it necessary for us to say this is the fact that Rebbi Meir holds - 'Adam makneh Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam (in which case, in the previous scenario, we would not require a Pasuk).

(b) Rebbi Meir concedes that a Pasuk is required in the latter case - because he is unable to give presents at that stage (so that we cannot apply the S'vara of 'Migu').

(c) We did not answer that the property fell to the father after his death - because a Bechor does not receive a double portion of any property that falls to the father after his death ('Ein ha'Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim ba'Ra'uy ke've'Muchzak').

(a) If, after asking a Sheli'ach to betroth his daughter on his behalf, the father went himself and betrothed her - then we go after whichever transaction took place first.

(b) If they do cannot ascertain which one took place first - then each man must give her a Get.

(c) Alternatively - one of them gives her a Get, enabling the other one to marry her.

(d) In the equivalent case, where it is the woman who accepted Kidushin after asking her Sheli'ach to accept Kidushin on her behalf - exactly the same will apply as in the previous case.