Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TZON BARZEL

(a) (Rav Yehudah): If she brought in 2 vessels worth 1000 Zuz, and they increased in value to 2000, she takes one as her Kesuvah (the dowry she brought in), and may take the other by paying its value, because of the praise of her father's house.
(b) Question: What new matter does this teach - that what she brought from her father's house is hers? We already know this from his earlier teaching!
(c) Answer: From there, we would only know when she can take it all because of her Kesuvah; but that she can pay money to retrieve her vessels, one would think not - we hear, this is not so.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Yosi): A Bas Yisrael married a Kohen; he died, and she was pregnant - her slaves do not eat Terumah because the fetus owns part of them, and a fetus disqualifies from eating, but does not permit eating;
(b) Chachamim: According to your words, this should apply even by a Bas Kohen!
(c) (Gemara) Question: Is the reason of R. Yosi because he holds that a fetus in the womb of a Zarah (non-Kohenes) is a Zar - or, does he hold that one who is born permits others to eat Terumah, but not one that has not yet been born?

1. This affects a pregnant Kohenes - (if the former, her slaves eat; if the latter, they don't).

(d) Answer #1 ( Rabah): He holds, a fetus in the womb of a Zarah is a Zar.
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): He holds, one who is born permits others to eat Terumah, but not one that has not yet been born.
(f) Question (Beraisa - Chachamim): According to your words, what do you say by a Bas Kohen married to a Kohen?
(g) R. Yosi: I did not hear that law; I only heard the law I said.

1. This fits well according to the opinion that a fetus in the womb of a Zarah is a Zar.
2. Question: According to the opinion that one who is born permits others to eat Terumah, but not one that has not yet been born - why did he say, I only heard the law I said - they are the same question!

i. This is left difficult.

(h) (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): This is R. Yosi's opinion, but Chachamim say, if the Kohen left sons, her slaves eat on account of his sons; if he left no sons, they eat on account of his brothers; if he left no brothers, they eat on account of the whole family.
(i) Question: This (is R. Yosi's opinion) - implying, Shmuel himself does not hold this way?

1. But Shmuel said, 'Gather me 10, I will say before them, one who acquires on behalf of a fetus, it is a valid acquisition'!

(j) Answer: Rather, This (is R. Yosi's opinion) - and Shmuel holds as him.
(k) Question: What did Shmuel come to teach - that Chachamim argue on R. Yosi - but they do not argue!

1. (R. Zachai): R. Yosi gave this testimony in the name of Shemayah and Avtalyon, and Chachamim admitted to him!

(l) Answer (Rav Ashi): It does not say, they accepted it; it says, they admitted, that it is reasonable.

(a) (Beraisa): If he (died and) left sons, both types of slaves eat; if he left her pregnant, neither type eats; if he left sons and she was pregnant, Milug slaves eat as she does; Tzon Barzel slaves do not eat, because the fetus owns a share, and a fetus disqualifies from eating, but does not permit eating - this is R. Yosi's opinion;
(b) R. Yishmael Bar R. Yosi says in the name of his father, a daughter permits them to eat, a son does not permit them to eat;
(c) R. Shimon Bar Yochai says, if he left sons, both types of slaves eat; if he left daughters, they do not eat, lest the fetus is a male, and the daughters do not inherit when there is a son.

1. Question: Why did R. Shimon Bar Yochai say, lest the fetus is a male - even if it is a female, they do not eat!
2. Answer: True! R. Shimon Bar Yochai covers both cases.

i. If it is a female - she also disqualifies them from eating.
ii. If it is a male - the daughters do not inherit at all.

(d) Question: The 1st Tana says, if he left sons, they eat - but the fetus owns a share!

(e) Answer #1: He holds, we are not concerned for a minority (that a boy will be born).
(f) Answer #2 : Really, he holds, we are concerned for a minority - but we fix things as Rav Nachman.

1. (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): Orphans that come to divide their father's estate - Beis Din appoints a guardian, who picks for them a nice share; when they grow up, they can protest;
2. Rav Nachman himself holds, they cannot protest - if they could protest, there is no strength to the enactment of Beis Din!

(g) Suggestion: The Tana'im argue whether we make an enactment as Rav Nachman.
(h) Rejection: No, all agree to it - they argue whether we are concerned for a minority.
(i) (Above Beraisa): R. Yishmael Bar R. Yosi says in the name of his father, a daughter permits them to eat, a son does not permit them to eat.
(j) Question: Why doesn't a son permit them to eat - because of the share of the fetus - the same should apply when he left a daughter!
(k) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, the estate is small, and there is a son with the daughter - either way, the fetus has no share.

1. If it is a male - it is no better than the son (who does not inherit).
2. If it is a female - a daughter eats by Rabbinical enactment - there is no enactment before she is born!
3. Question: How can you establish the Beraisa to speak of a small estate - the end of the Beraisa says, lest the fetus is a male, and the daughters do not inherit when there is a son.

i. To the contrary - when the estate is small, it goes to the daughters!

4. Answer: The end of the Beraisa is a case of a large estate.
5. Question: Is it really true that a small estate goes to the daughters?

i. (R. Asi): If (male) orphans sold property from a small estate, the sale stands!

(l) Answer #2: Rather, when it says that a daughter permits the slaves to eat - this means, the mother.
(m) Objection: But R. Yosi taught that!
(n) Answer: Yes! R. Yishmael Bar R. Yosi also taught that part of the Beraisa in the name of his father.

(a) (Mishnah): A fetus, a Yavam, engagement, a deaf man, and a 9-year old disqualify but do not permit to eat;
(b) If we are in doubt if a boy is 9 years old or not; if we are in doubt if a boy brought 2 hairs or not; if a house fell on a man and his brother's daughter, and it is not known who died first - the widow does Chalitzah but not Yibum.
(c) (Gemara): A fetus disqualifies if she is a Bas Kohen widowed or divorced from a Yisrael - "In her youth (she returns to eat Terumah)" - to exclude a pregnant woman;
(d) If she is a Bas Yisrael widowed or divorced from a Kohen, a fetus does not permit her to eat - one who is born, permits eating; one who is not born, does not permit.
(e) A Yavam disqualifies a Bas Kohen widowed or divorced from a Yisrael - "She will return to her father's house", to exclude a Shomeres Yavam.
(f) If she is a Bas Yisrael widowed or divorced from a Kohen, a Yavam does not permit her to eat - "the acquisition of his money" - she is the acquisition of his brother.
(g) A Bas Kohen engaged to a Yisrael is disqualified from eating, since he acquired her.