Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT DISQUALIFIES A YEVAMAH

(a) Suggestion: This refutes Rav Hamnuna.

1. (Rav Hamnuna): A Shomeres Yavam that has relations with a stranger may not do Yibum.

(b) Rejection: No, even a stranger that has relations with her disqualifies her - since the beginning of the Mishnah deals with the Yavam, also the end.
(c) (Mishnah): Also an Ailonis that did Chalitzah ...
(d) She is only disqualified because she had relations; otherwise, not!

1. This is unlike R. Yehudah, who says that an Ailonis is a Zonah.

(a) (Mishnah): A Seris Chamah Kohen that married a Bas Yisrael permits her to eat Terumah; R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, an Androginus Kohen that that married a Bas Yisrael permits her to eat Terumah;
(b) R. Yehudah says, a Tumtum that was torn and found to be a male, does not do Chalitzah, since he is as a Seris;
(c) An Androginus may marry a woman, but he may be married to a man; R. Eliezer says, one is liable to stoning for relations with an Androginus, as with a man.
(d) (Gemara) Question: This is obvious (that the wife of a Seris Chamah Kohen eats Terumah)!
(e) Answer: One might have thought, only a man that can have children permits others to eat Terumah - we hear, this is not so.
(f) (Mishnah): R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, an Androginus ...
(g) (Reish Lakish): He permits her to eat Terumah, but not the chest and foreleg (parts of a sacrifice given to the Kohen).
(h) (R. Yochanan): He even permits her to eat the chest and foreleg.
(i) Question: Why does Reish Lakish permit her to eat Terumah, but not the chest and foreleg - both are forbidden mid'Oraisa to a non-Kohen!
(j) Answer: He only permits her to eat Terumah nowadays, which is only mid'Rabanan.
(k) Question: But in the time of the Beis ha'Mikdash, when Terumah is mid'Oraisa, he would prohibit her? If so, instead of teaching that she cannot eat the chest and foreleg, he should, make a distinction within Terumah itself!

1. He should teach - she may only eat Rabbinic Terumah, but not Terumah mid'Oraisa!

(l) Answer: This is what he taught! He only permits her to eat Rabbinic Terumah of today, but not Terumah in the time when there is the chest and foreleg (i.e. when the Beis ha'Mikdash stands), even Rabbinic Terumah, lest she come to eat Terumah mid'Oraisa.

1. R. Yochanan: Do you hold that Terumah is only mid'Rabanantoday?
2. Reish Lakish: Yes! I learn, 'A ring (of pressed figs of Terumah which was mixed with rings of Chulin) becomes Batel (one may eat from the mixture)'.
3. R. Yochanan: But I learn, 'A piece (of a sacrifice which was mixed with other pieces) becomes Batel'!

i. Do you think, the Mishnah says, '*All* that is counted (is never Batel)"? No, the text is, "*That* which is counted'!

(a) Question: What are they arguing over?
(b) Answer (Mishnah - R. Meir): Someone that had bundles of clover of Kilai ha'Kerem (crossbred vegetation in a vineyard), they must be burned; if they got mixed with (permitted) bundles, they must be burned;

(c) Chachamim say, they are Batel if there are 200 permitted bundles.
(d) R. Meir says, all that it is normally counted, prohibits (and is never Batel); Chachamim say, only 6 things are never Batel; R. Akiva says, 7:

1. Nuts of Parech;
2. Pomegranates of Badan;
3. Sealed barrels (of wine);
4. leeks
5. Stalks of cabbage;
6. Greek gourds;
7. R. Akiva adds, loaves of a home-ownwer.

(e) Some of these (the 1st 3) are forbidden and make the mixture forbidden because of Orlah (fruits within the 1st 3 years); the others, because of Kilai ha'Kerem.

i. R. Yochanan holds, the text is, "*That* which is counted'; Reish Lakish holds, the text is '*All* that is counted'.

(f) Question: What is the argument regarding "a piece among pieces'?
(g) Answer (Beraisa): A piece of a Tamei sin-offering which was mixed with 100 Tahor pieces, or a Tamei piece of the showbread that was mixed with 100 Tahor pieces, it is Batel; R. Yehudah says, it is not;
(h) But a piece of a Tahor sin-offering which was mixed with 100 Tahor Chulin pieces, or a Tahor piece of the showbread that was mixed with 100 Tahor Chulin pieces, all agree that it is not Batel.

1. The 1st part of the Beraisa teaches that it is Batel (even though it is counted - this is difficult on Reish Lakish)!

(i) Answer (R. Chiya Brei d'Rav Huna): The case is, the piece was dissolved.
(j) Question: If so, why does R. Yehudah say that it is not Batel?