Previous daf

1)

(a) In a case where two objects of Nichsei Tzon Barzel originally worth *one* thousand Zuz, go up in price and are now worth *two* thousand - Rav Yehudah rules that besides taking the one article that is her due, the woman also takes the other, though she must pay for it.

(b) He says that - because of 'Sh'vach Beis Avihah.

(c) Having already taught us the principle of 'Sh'vach Beis Avihah', he nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it here - because it is one thing to say that she can take the object in preference to the money, but quite another, to say that, even though she has already received what is her due, she is permitted to buy the second object.

(a) If a Kohen who is married to a bas Yisrael dies, leaving children, Rebbi Yossi forbids Avdei Tzon Barzel to eat Terumah, 'she'ha'Ubar Posel ve'Eino Ma'achil' (because an Ubar [an unborn fetus] invalidates but does not feed). When he says ...

1. ... 'she'ha'Ubar Posel' - he means that it invalidates a bas Kohen who married a Kohen, who died leaving her pregnant. The Ubar prevents her from eating Terumah 'in her father's house'.
2. ... 've'Eino Ma'achil' - he means that a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen may neither eat Terumah, nor feed her Avadim Terumah.

(b) The reason for this may be because Rebbi Yossi holds that a fetus in the womb of a Zarah is a Zarah. Otherwise, it might be based on the Pasuk "vi'Y'lid Beiso Heim Yochlu be'Lachmo" - from which he infers 'Yelud Ma'achil, Eino Yelud Eino Ma'achil'.

(c) The difference between the two reasons - is if a bas Kohen marries a Kohen: according to the first reason, her Avadim will be permitted to eat, whereas, according to the second reason, they will not.

(d) The Chachamim query Rebbi Yossi's exclusive case. According to them, he should not have confined his words to a *bas Yisrael* who married a Kohen, seeing as the same ought to apply to a *bas Kohen* who married a Kohen.

(a) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa replied to the Chachamim's Kashya (in our Mishnah) 'Zu Shama'ti, ve'Zu Lo Shama'ti' - meaning that a bas Yisrael who is pregnant does not feed her Avdei Tzon Barzel Terumah, because 'Ubar be'Me'ei Zar, Zar Hu'; whereas a bas Kohen does, because the Ubar is not a Zar.

(b) This presents Rav Yosef (who gives Rebbi Yossi's reason as 'Yelud Ma'achil ... ') with a Kashya - because, according to him, there is no reason to differentiate between a bas Yisrael and a bas Kohen. Note: The Gemara on the next Amud, nevertheless explains Rebbi Yossi according to Rav Yosef.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel says that it is only Rebbi Yossi who holds 'Ubar Eino Ma'achil', but according to the Rabbanan - if he leaves sons, the Avdei Tzon Barzel eat because of his sons; if not, they eat because of his brothers, and if he does not even leave brothers, then they eat because of the rest of the family (even if his wife is pregnant).

(b) Shmuel told Rav Chana Bagdesa'ah to collect ten men. Rav Chana was called by that name - either because he was an expert in Agadah (be'Agad'ta), or because he came from Baghdad.

(c) Shmuel want to declare in their presence - that if someone acquires something on behalf of an Ubar, the Kinyan is effective, and it now belongs to the Ubar.

(d) We see from here that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yossi - who says that an Ubar can acquire (even though he is not yet alive).

6)

(a) The Beraisa discusses the various possibilities (with regard to Avdei mi'Lug and Avdei Tzon Barzel eating Terumah after the husband, who is a Kohen, dies). Should he die, leaving behind either sons and a wife who is *not* pregnant, or sons and a wife who *is* - Avdei mi'Lug, who belong to the wife, may eat Terumah.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi, if he dies leaving behind ...

1. ... sons and a wife who is not pregnant - Avdei Tzon Barzel may eat Terumah.
2. ... sons and a wife who *is* - they are not permitted to eat Terumah.

(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi quoting his father, says that a daughter feeds, a son does not (this will be clarified later). Rebbi Shimon says that if he leaves behind sons, then the Avdei Tzon Barzel may eat, even if his wife is pregnant. He does not contend with the possibility that she may give birth to a boy ... like Rebbi Yossi (despite the fact that, in principle, he holds like Rebbi Yossi) - because he follows the majority, and the majority of women give birth either to a girl or to a still-born baby (and only a minority of babies are males).

(b) If he leaves only girls, he says, the Avdei Tzon Barzel are not permitted to eat - because, he says, perhaps the baby will be a boy, in which case, the girls will not receive a portion, only the Ubar, and an Ubar does not feed.

(c) It was not really necessary to attribute the prohibition to the possibil ity that the baby will be a boy - because, even if it had turned out to be a girl, she would, in her capacity of an Ubar who is destined to receive a portion, not have fed the Avadim Terumah. He only wished to point out that even if the Ubar turned out to be a boy, it would still not have been able to feed them.

8)

(a) We explained above that Rebbi Shimon does not contend with the fact that the Ubar might turn out to be a boy, because he goes after the majority. In fact, it is possible to establish his opinion even if he contends with the minority - because Rebbi Shimon speaks when the Beis-Din distributed the property in such a way that the children who were already born received the Avadim, and the Ubar, other property, like Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel.

(b) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says that when orphans come to divide up their father's property - Beis-Din provide them with an Apotropos (an administrator) to give each one property that is the most suitable for him.

(c) According to Shmuel, when the orphans grow up, they will have the authority to nullify the Beis-Din's division of property, and will be permitted to re-divide it. Rav Nachman says - that to so would be tantamount to undermining the Beis-Din's authority. Consequently, he maintains, the Beis-Din's decision, in this matter, is final.

(a) Rebbi Shimon maintains that, if the Kohen dies and leaves sons, the Avdei Tzon Barzel are permitted to eat Terumah; the Tana Kama holds that they are not. We initially suggest that Rebbi Shimon holds of Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel's Takanah, whilst the Tana Kama does not. As a matter of fact, the Tana Kama too, would agree with the Takanah, if they had been arguing in a case when the Beis-Din divided the orphans' property. But that is not the case. In fact - they are arguing when the orphans divided the property themselves; Rebbi Shimon, who permits the Avadim to eat, *does not contend with the minority* (of cases that the Ubar will turn out to be a boy - as we explained on the previous Amud), whereas the Tana Kama *does*.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi quoting his father, says that a daughter feeds, a son does not. Abaye initially establishes this by a case of 'Nechasim Mu'atim' - where normally, the daughters are fed from the property, and the sons must go begging, if necessary.

(c) The case of 'ha'Bas Ma'achil' of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi is - when there is one daughter and one son, and the deceased Kohen's wife is pregnant.

(d) The reason that we do not forbid the Avdei Tzon Barzel to eat in case the Ubar turns out to be a daughter is because - mi'Mah Nafshach; if the Ubar turns out to be a son, he is not better than the first son, who has no portion in the property anyway. Whereas, should it turn out to be a daughter, then she too, will not receive a portion as an Ubar, seeing as the fact that daughters receive Nechasim Mu'atim and not sons, is mi'de'Rabbanan, and it is only by a Yerushah *d'Oraysa* that Rebbi Yossi holds that an Ubar inherits, but by a Yerushah mi'de'Rabbanan, he inherits only when he is born.

(a) Although Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi is speaking by Nechasim Mu'atim, we currently contend, Rebbi Shimon (whose statement 'Nekeivos, Lo Yocheilu, Shema Yimatzei Ubar Zachar, *ve'Ein le'Banos be'Makom Ben*' follows that of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi) - is nevertheless speaking by Nechasim Murubim.

(b) We have been assuming that Nechasim Mu'atim belong to the daughters. Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan says however, that - if the sons sold Nechasim Mu'atim, their sale is valid.

(c) According to what we just said, Nechasim Mu'atim (in spite of the fact that it is the *daughters* are fed from them) really belongs to the sons, proving our explanation of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi (that the daughters feed the Avdei Tzon Barzel) incorrect.

(d) So we explain the '*ha'Bas* Ma'acheles' of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi to mean '*ha'Eim* Ma'acheles' - meaning that she feeds her Avdei *mi'Lug* Terumah (because she has sons). This is indeed the same as the Tana Kama quoting Rebbi Yossi. The Tana Kama however, is none other than Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi.

(a) An Ubar, a Yavam, betrothal, a deaf-mute, and a nine-year old have in common - the fact that, on the one hand, they invalidate a bas Kohen le'Yisrael from eating Terumah, and, on the other, they do not authorize a bas Yisrael le'Kohen to eat it.

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah also incorporates a Safek nine-year old and a Safek Gadol who betrothed a woman, in this list.

(c) 'Nafal ha'Bayis Alav ve'al Bas Achiv (who is his wife), ve'Eino Yadu'a Eizeh Meis Rishon'. If *he* died first - then both wives will fall to Yibum simultaneously, in which case, the Tzarah will be Patur from Yibum because of Tzaras ha'Bas (even though, the Tzaras ha'Bas subsequently died; whereas, if the *Bas Achiv* died first, then the Tzarah alone will fall to Yibum, and there will be no reason to exempt her from Yibum.

(d) The Tana therefore rules - that she performs Chalitzah and not Yibum.

(a) 'ha'Ubar Posel' (by a bas Kohen le'Yisrael). We learn this from the Pasuk "ki'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - because, due to her state of pregnancy, she is not like she was in her youth (before she was married).

(b) 'ha'Ubar Eino Ma'achil" (by a bas Yisrael le'Kohen) - because 'Yelud Ma'achil, she'Eino Yelud, Eino Ma'achil' (like Rav Yosef on the previous Amud).

(c) We learn 'ha'Yavam Posel' from the Pasuk "ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah" (since a Yevamah is not free to return to her father's house). We learn 'Eino Ma'achil' from "Kinyan Kaspo" - because she is not *his* Kinyan Kaspo, but the Kinyan Kaspo of his brother.

(a) Eirusin invalidates a Bas Kohen to a Yisrael from eating Terumah - because the Yisrael has acquired her.

(b) And it does not feed a bas Yisrael to a Kohen because of Ula - who explains that Chazal decreed, forbidding her to eat, in case she sends a cup of wine that her future in-laws give her, to her brothers and sisters (who are Zarim).