Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IS A WOMAN COMMANDED TO HAVE CHILDREN?

(a) Question: Is a woman really not commanded?

1. (Rav Acha Bar Rav Ketina): There was a case of a half-freed female slave, and they forced her owner to free the rest of her (so she could marry and have children)!

(b) Answer: She is not commanded - the half-slave was freed because people were freely having relations with her.

(a) (Mishnah): A widow married to a Kohen Gadol, or a divorcee or Chalutzah married to a regular Kohen - if she brought into the marriage Milug slaves and Tzon Barzel slaves - Milug slaves do not eat Terumah, Tzon Barzel slaves eat Terumah.
(b) Milug slaves are such that if they die, she loses; if they increase, it is her gain; even though the husband must feed them, they do not eat Terumah;
(c) Tzon Barzel slaves are such that if they die, he loses; if they increase, it is his gain; since he has responsibility for them, they eat Terumah.
(d) A Bas Yisrael that married a Kohen and brought in slaves - both types eat Terumah;
(e) A Bas Kohen that married a Yisrael and brought in slaves - neither type eat Terumah.
(f) (Gemara) Question: Why don't Milug slaves eat Terumah - they should be considered the acquisition of his acquisition!

1. (Beraisa): "A Kohen that will acquire a soul, the purchase of his money - he will eat (Terumah)" - this teaches, if he marries a woman and buys slaves, they eat Terumah.
2. Question: How do we know that if his wife or slaves bought slaves, that these slaves eat?
3. Answer: "A Kohen that will acquire a soul, the purchase of (that soul's) money - will eat".

(g) Answer #1: Anyone that can eat, causes others to eat; anyone that cannot eat, does not cause others to eat.

1. Question: Is this really true? An uncircumcised or Tamei Kohen - they cannot eat, but they cause others to eat!
2. Answer: Their mouths hurt them (they are standing to eat, once they fix themselves.)
3. Question: A Mamzer cannot eat, and he causes others to eat!

(h) Answer #2 (Ravina): An acquisition that can eat, causes others to eat; an acquisition that cannot eat, does not cause others to eat.
(i) Answer #3 (Rava): mid'Oraisa, they may eat; Chachamim decreed that they may not eat, in order that she should think, 'I cannot eat, my slaves cannot eat - I am as a harlot!', and he will come to divorce her.
(j) Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): It is a decree, lest they come to eat after her husband dies.
(k) Question: !f so, the slaves of a Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen should not eat, lest they come to eat after her husband dies!
(l) Answer: The case is, the widow married to the Kohen Gadol is a Kohenes - she will come to make a mistake.

1. Originally, her slaves ate Terumah of her father's house. When she married, they ate Terumah of her husband. Now that she returns to her initial status, they should continue to eat.

i. She does not know that she became a Chalalah, and is no longer a Kohenes.

(m) Question: This explains why slaves of a Kohenes may not eat. Why may slaves of a Bas Yisrael (married to a Kohen she is forbidden to) not eat?
(n) Answer: Chachamim did not distinguish among widows (and forbade the slaves of all of them).

(a) Question: A woman entered Tzon Barzel slaves into the marriage. At the time of divorce, she wants to take them back; her husband wants to keep them and pay her their value. Who wins?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): She wins.

(c) Answer #2 (R. Ami): He wins.

1. (Rav Yehudah): She wins, because of the praise of her father's house (they should return with her).
2. (R. Ami): He wins - since we learned, if they die, he loses; if they increase, it is his gain; since he has responsibility for them, they eat Terumah.
3. Objection (Rav Safra): The Mishnah does not say they are his - it just says, since he has responsibility for them, they eat - really they are hers!

(d) Question: Whenever he has responsibility for them, they eat?!

1. (Mishnah): A Yisrael that rented a cow from a Kohen may feed it Karshinei Terumah; a Kohen that rented a cow from a Yisrael, even though he must feed it, may not feed it Karshinei Terumah!

(e) Counter-question: Do you think this is a good comparison?!

1. Granted, a renter is responsible for theft and loss - but is he responsible for accidents, weakening, or a decrease in their value (as the husband is)?!

(f) The case resembles the end of the Mishnah.

1. (Mishnah): A Yisrael that appraised a cow (and accepted to return the appraised value) from a Kohen may not feed it Karshinei Terumah; a Kohen that appraised a cow from a Yisrael, may not feed it Karshinei Terumah.

(g) (Rabah and Rav Yosef): A Beraisa supports Rav Yehudah, another Beraisa supports R. Ami.

1. Support for R. Ami - (Beraisa): Tzon Barzel slaves go free if the husband knocks out a tooth or eye, but not if she does.
2. Support for Rav Yehudah - (Beraisa): A wife that enters Tzon Barzel to her husband - he may not sell it; even if he brought in property, he may not sell hers.

i. If either sold it, to buy food - a case arose, and R. Shimon Ben Gamliel ruled that the husband may retrieve the property from the buyer.

(h) (Rava, citing Rav Nachman): The law is as Rav Yehudah.
(i) Question (Rava): But a Beraisa supports R. Ami!
(j) Answer (Rav Nachman): Even so, the reason of Rav Yehudah (praise of her father's house) is better.
(k) A woman brought a silk cloak into the marriage; it was written in the Kesuvah. When he died, the orphans spread it on the corpse.

1. Rava: It gets the status of shrouds (and may not be taken from the deceased).
2. Question (Nanai): But Rava said, the law is as Rav Yehudah (she has the right to reclaim it)!
3. Answer (Rav Kahana): Rav Yehudah admits, it is not hers until she collects it - until then, it belongs to her husband.

i. Rava ruled according to his law - making something Hekdesh (which includes making it forbidden to derive benefit from, such as shrouds), the prohibition of Chametz, and freeing a slave uproot liens.