Previous daf

1)

(a) Resh Lakish makes a distinction with regard to the Din of relying on the children of the man who came from overseas clinging to their mother - between eating Kodshei ha'Gevul (Terumah and Chalah) ...

1. ... in which case we rely on the Chazakah ...
2. ... and Yuchsin, in which case we do not.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan relies on the Chazakah even re. Yuchsin.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan follows his own reasoning elsewhere, where Rebbi Chiya bar Aba quotes him as saying - that we even administer Malkos and even Sekilah on the basis of a Chazakah, how much more so regarding Yuchsin.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless limits the power of Chazakah - with re. to burning Terumah (as we shall soon see).

(a) 'Malkin al ha'Chazakos' refers to a statement of Rav Yehudah, and 'Soklin ve'Sorfin al ha'Chazakos', to a statement of Rabah bar Rav Huna. Rav Yehudah says 'Ba'alah Lokeh Alehah Mishum Nidah' - when the husband hears that his wife is a Nidah via the neighbors, who inform him that she began wearing the clothes that she normally wears when she is a Nidah.

(b) When Rabah bar Rav Huna says 'Ish ve'Ishah, Tinok ve'Tinokes she'Higdilu be'Soch ha'Bayis, Niskalin Zeh al Zeh, ve'Nisrafin Zeh al Zeh' - he is referring to a family consisting of a man and a woman, a boy and a girl who grew up on the assumption that they are husband and wife, a son and a daughter. Should the son then have relations with the woman, he is Chayav Sekilah, and the daughter, Sereifah for having relations with the man.

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi quoting bar Kapara related the incident of a woman who came to Yehrushalayim with her son riding on her shoulders - and who proceeded to bring him up as her own son. When he grew up, he had relations with her, and Beis-Din sentenced them to Sekilah, even though the only evidence that she was indeed his mother consisted of the fact that when they first arrived, he clung to her like a child clings to his mother.

(a) We learned earlier that according to Rebbi Yochanan, one does not burn Terumah on the basis of a Chazakah. According to Resh Lakish - one does.

(b) The Mishnah in Taharos cites Rebbi Meir, who rules that, if a child is playing beside a large dough, a piece of which he is found to be holding in his hand, the large piece of dough is Tahor. The Rabbanan declare it Tamei (despite the Chezkas Taharah of the dough) - on the basis of 'Rov' (because most children tend to play among the trash, were there are bound to be dead 'Sheratzim'), and 'Rov' overrides 'Chazakah'.

(c) Rebbi Meir disagrees - because he adds the 'Mi'ut' (minority) of children who don't play among the trash to the Chazakah, to override the 'Rov'.

(d) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Meir - inasmuch as they do not contend with the minority at all (as Rebbi Meir does).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan interprets the Rabbanan's 'Metam'in' to mean - Tolin (it cannot be eaten, yet it may not be burned [because of the prohibition of destroying Terumah), whereas according to Resh Lakish Mishum Rebbi Oshaya it means 'Sorfin'.

(b) The major Halachic difference between a dead frog and a dead toad is - that whereas the former is Tahor, the latter (which is one of the eight Sheratzim), is Metamei.

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa says that if a large dough is lying in a house which is infested with frogs and toads, and the dough contains small pieces of one or the other (we do not know which) - if there are a majority of frogs, the dough is Tahor; of toads, it is Tamei.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan issues a ruling in the latter case there - that not only is the dough Tamei, but any Terumah that has contact with that dough must be burned (clashing with his earlier ruling that we do not burn Terumah on the basis of a Chazakah alone).

(a) We resolve the discrepancy between Rebbi Yochanan's two rulings regarding burning Terumah on the basis of a Chazakah - by differentiating between two sorts of 'Rov'; the latter case being a 'Ruba de'Iysa Kaman' (depending on actual numbers [whether in the house concerned, there are more of one kind or of the other']), the former, a 'Ruba de'Leisa Kaman' (depending on what most people do (i.e. that most children tend to play among the trash), which is really a Chazakah, and not a 'Rov at all.

(b) We know that in his Machlokes with Resh Lakish, Rebbi Yochanan is right - because he has the support of a Beraisa.

(a) In the Beraisa that supports Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana remarks tha, the above-mentioned case of the child playing beside a dough - Chazal considered the child as if he were a grown-up, who is able to ask a She'eilah ('she'Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol'). Otherwise, the dough ought to have been Tahor even if there were a majority of toads (and even in the Reshus ha'Yachid) - because the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid Tamei', only applies by 'Devarim she'Yesh Bahem Da'as Lish'ol'.

(b) In a second ruling. the Tana of the Beraisa discusses the Din re. a dough inside a house. And it is the chickens and the Tamei liquid, coupled with the fact that we discovered peck-marks on the dough, that leads us to believe that the dough is probably Tamei (because the chicken probably first lapped up some of the Tamei liquid, before pecking at the dough whilst drops of the liquid were still dripping from its beak.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi qualifies the current ruling of the Beraisa - restricting it to where the liquid is a pale color, because, if it is red, then the peck-marks ought to be red too (a clear proof that the chicken did not drink the liquid first.

(b) We query this leniency however - on the grounds that red liquid too, might become absorbed in the dough (without being noticeable).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan (who concedes that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi was the Gadol ha'Dor), maintains that he did not understand the reasoning behind the distinction. He therefore limits the qualification - to red liquid that one cannot see through (such as blood or thick red wine), but if it is sufficiently translucent to see the shape of the child's face through is, the dough is Tamei, like by a pale liquid.

8)

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah prohibits Yichud (the seclusion of a man and a woman in an enclosed area) even of one man with two women - though he permits one woman to be secluded with two men. This distinction is based on the principle that 'Nashim Da'atan Kalos' (women are more easily seduced than men, and are less embarrassed to commit adultery in front of one another than men).

(b) Rebbi Shimon says - that as long as one's wife is present, a man may seclude himself with two other women or even with one.

(c) Our Mishnah also permits a young boy to sleep with his mother, and a man with his young daughter. In the event that they are 'grown up' (which will be explained later) the Tana requires the children to be covered.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan extrapolates Yichud from the Pasuk (in connection with a Meisis) "Ki Yesischa Achicha ben Imecha" - from the fact that, if it does not come to teach us that a son is permitted to seclude himself with his mother, then why *does* the Torah write "Achicha *ben Imecha*", implying that a paternal brother would be less likely to entice him to serve idols than a maternal one?

(b) Abaye explains the Torah's choice of Lashon in the context of Meisis - to teach us that all the stringent laws of Meisis apply (not only to a paternal brother, whose hatred is common, due to the fact that he is a co-heir in his father's property, but) even to a maternal brother, who may have been well inclined towards his brother.

(a) To bury a baby that died within thirty days - one carries him in one's bosom. Only three people are required for the ceremony.

(b) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa permits one woman and two men, but forbids one man and two women (as we just learned in our Mishnah). Aba Shaul - permits even one man and two women.

(c) Aba Shaul could well be the author of our Mishnah - because he is only lenient with re. to people who are mourning, in which case it is easy to keep one's Yeitzer ha'Ra in check.

(d) The Rabbanan disagree because they concur with Rebbi Yitzchak, who interprets the Pasuk "Mah Yis'onen Adam Chai, Gever al Chata'av" to mean - that even when in mourning, one needs to beware of one's Yeitzer ha'Ra (for as long as one lives).

(a) According to Aba Shaul, the Pasuk "Mah Yis'onen ... " means - that a person should not hold it against Hashem when he suffers losses, but should rather bear in mind the boundless kindness of life that Hashem grants him continuously,. He should rather attribute his problems to his own sins.

(b) The Rabbanan counter this with an incident which actually took place - where a woman took out a child on the pretext that he had died and she was going to bury it, whereas her real intention was to commit adultery with the man who accompanied her.

(c) Alternatively, it is not the Rabbanan who respond with an incident, but Aba Shaul, who proves his point with an incident that is cited in Mo'ed Katan, about a woman whose first child died - and who allowed herself to become so distraught (with the injustice that Hashem had dealt her) that she could not stop weeping until eventually, due to her excessive sobbing, all her seven children died.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, backed by an incident that actually occured, restricts the concession more than one man secluding themselves with one woman - to decent people, but as far as people with immoral tendencies is concerned, even ten men are forbidden to seclude themselves with one woman, as we see in the case where ten men carried a married woman on a stretcher (ostensibly to be buried), but the moment they left town, they were intimate with her.

(b) Rav Yosef proves from the fact that sometimes, heavy beams are stolen (which can only have been carried by a few men) - that even men are sometimes not embarrassed to sin in each other's presence.

(c) We learned in the Mishnah in Sotah that the Beis-Din would send two Talmidei-Chachamim with a man taking his Sotah wife to Yerushalayim - to ensure that the couple would not be intimate on the way (in which case the water would not take effect on the woman.

(d) We cannot infer from there that ordinary people are not eligible, in keeping with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement - because the reason that Beis-Din sent specifically Talmidei-Chachamim, was in oder to issue them with the appropriate warning should they intend to be intimate (and not necessarily because other people would be suspect of committing adultery).