Previous daf

1) A deaf-mute who is ...

1. ... a Yisrael invalidates a bas Kohen from eating Terumah - because the Rabbanan instituted Kidushin on his behalf, so he acquires her mi'de'Rabbanan.
2. ... a Kohen does not feed a bas Yisrael Terumah - because he does not acquire her min ha'Torah, in which case she is not "Kinyan Kaspo".

(a) A Yavam who is ...

1. ... a Katan (under the age of nine) invalidates his Yevamah bas Kohen from eating the Terumah of her father's house - because she is bound to him, and the Pasuk "ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah" does not apply to her.
2. ... a Gadol and a Kohen does not feed his Yevamah Yisre'eilis Terumah - because she is his *brother's* Kinyan Kaspo, and not *his*.

(b) When the Tana includes a nine-year old boy in his list of those who are 'Posel ve'Eino Ma'achil', Abaye initially thinks - that he is referring to a nine-year old who acquired his Yevamah with Bi'ah.

(c) Nevertheless, he does not feed her Terumah - because Chazal made the Bi'ah of a nine-year old like Ma'amar (see Tosfos DH 'Kanya Lei').

(d) According to Abaye - 'Posel' does not refer to this case, only to the other cases in the Mishnah.

(a) The problem with Abaye's explanation is why then does the Tana insert 'Safek ben Tish'ah Shanim' - if a Vaday ben Tish'ah does not feed his Yevamah, how much more so a Safek?

(b) So we establish the case of a nine-year old by Pesulei Kahal or Kehunah, such as Amoni, Mo'avi, Chalal and Mamzer - who invalidate a Kohenes, Levi'ah or Yisre'eilis through Bi'ah, and 'ben Tish'ah Shanim' in our Mishnah pertains to Poslin. 'Ein Ma'achilin' refers to the other cases, but not to a ben Tish'ah Shanim.

(c) The Kashya that we just asked from Safek is no longer difficult - because, since the Tana is referring to 'Poslin', he needs to add Safek ben Tish'ah, to inform us that the Bi'ah of a Safek ben Tish'ah invalidates too.

(d) The Seifa (on 69a.) 'Im Einan Re'uyin la'Vo be'Yisrael, Poslin' (which infers that the Reisha [our Mishnah] is not speaking about Pesulim) - is speaking about Pesulei *Kehunah* (such as a Gerushah and a Zonah); the Reisha, about Pesulei *Kahal*.

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa invalidates a Kohenes, a Levi'ah or a Yisre'eilis through the Bi'ah of any of the P'sulei Kahal or Kehunah.

1. A Mitzri and Edomi - are both Chayvei Asei, who are forbidden as far as two generations, but no more.
2. This Tana holds that Kutim are Geirei Arayos (Geirim who only converted out of fear of a plague of lions, but not with any sincerity). Consequently, their conversion was not accepted.

(b) The ramifications of a Levi'ah or a Yisre'eilis becoming Pasul through a Bi'ah Pesulah - are that they are forbidden to marry a Kohen.

(c) The Tana learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Bas Kohen Ki Sihyeh le'Ish Zar Hi bi'S'rumas ha'Kodshim Lo Socheil" - that the Bi'ah of someone who is Pasul to a bas Kohen invalidates her from eating Terumah.
2. ... "ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah ... mi'Lechem Avihah Tochel" - that there is an Asei forbidding a bas Kohen who marries a Zar to eat Terumah.
3. ... "ve'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Bo" (the conclusion of the previous Pasuk - Pasuk 13) - that there is a La'av, too.
4. ... "ve'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh" (Pasuk 10) - that a Zar is forbidden to eat Terumah.

5)

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from *"ve'*Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh ... " - to preclude a Kohen from eating Terumah when he is an Onen.

(b) And Rav Chisda Amar Ravina bar Rav Shilo learns from "u'Bas Kohen Ki Sihyeh le'Ish Zar Hi bi'*Terumas* ha'Kodshim Lo Socheil" - that although a bas Kohen who becomes widowed, may return to her father's house to eat Terumah, she is not allowed to eat 'Moram min ha'Kodshim' (the chest and the right calf which the owner must give every Kohen from his Korban Sh'lamim, and which is normally permitted to a bas Kohen).

(a) Rebbi Aba Amar Rav learns from the extra 'Vav' Pasuk "*U'Bas Kohen* Ki Sihyeh le'Ish Zar ... " - that a Levi'ah and a Yisre'eilis become invalidated too, through the Bi'ah of one of the P'sulim.

(b) This Derashah is not exclusive to Rebbi Akiva, who Darshens 'Vavin' - because it is not just from the 'Vav' that we Darshen it, but from the fact that "U'Bas Kohen" is superfluous (seeing as the Torah already wrote "ve'Kohen Ki Yikneh ... ", it could have just continued "ve'Chi Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar ... " instead of "U'Bas Kohen Ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar ... ").

(c) This Pasuk could well be coming to forbid her to eat Terumah (despite the fact that a Levi'ah and a Yisre'eilis may not eat Terumah anyway) - when she married a Kohen, who died leaving her with a son (in whose honor she is permitted to eat).

(a) We suggest that a bas Levi or a bas Yisrael who had relations with a P'sul Kahal and who had a son from him, should be Asur to eat Terumah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - from a bas Kohen, who eats in her own rights (because *she is imbued with Kedushas Kehunah*), then certainly a bas Yisrael, who is *not*, should certainly become invalidated through a Bi'ah with someone who is Pasul.

(b) We dismiss this contention however, on the grounds that - if not for an independent Pasuk by a bas Yisrael, we would say the opposite: that it is precisely *because* of the Kedushah that a Kohenes becomes desecrated through a Bi'as P'sul, but not a bas Yisrael, who only eats on account of her son.

(c) So we switch the D'rashos, to learn the prohibition of a bas Yisrael eating Terumah from the Pasuk "u'Bas Kohen", and that of marrying a Kohen from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Gerushah - who is permitted to eat Terumah, yet she is forbidden to marry a Kohen, then a Bi'as P'sul, which invalidates a bas Yisrael from eating Terumah, should certainly invalidate her from marrying a Kohen.

(d) We dispense with the problem of learning a La'av with Malkos from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (in spite of the principle 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din') - by pointing out that this is not really a 'Kal va'Chomer' at all - but a 'Giluy Milsa' (an indication), because Terumah is the essence of the Kehunah, so it stands to reason that, any woman who is forbidden to eat Terumah, is forbidden to marry a Kohen.

(a) We know that, when the Tana of the Beraisa (with regard to the Pasuk "u'Bas Kohen, Ki Sihyeh le'Ish Zar") says Niv'alah le'Pasul Lah Paslah', he refers to Chayvei La'avin, and not to Chayvei Kareis - because of the Lashon 'Ki Sih'yeh' (which always has connotations of a case where Kidushin is effective).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "u'Bas Kohen Ki Sihyeh *Almanah u'Gerushah* ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah" - that a bas Kohen is only permitted to return to the Terumah of her father's house after a Bi'ah with someone who could make her an Almanah or a Gerushah, to preclude the Bi'ah of a Nochri or an Eved Kena'ani, with whom Kidushin are not effective.

(c) We know that Chayvei Kareis invalidate too (in spite of the fact that their Kidushin is not effective) from the same source as Nochri and Eved, which we just explained (see also Tosfos DH 'Oveid Kochavim').

(d) We learn from the Pasuk "Eishes Re'eihu" - that the Kidushin of a Nochri is not effective.

(a) The She'iltos learns from the Pasuk "ve'Hi Be'ulas Ba'al" - that by the Dinim of B'nei No'ach, a man only acquires his wife through living with her (Bi'ah), but not through Kidushei Kesef or Sh'tar.

(b) He extrapolate from there that even the Kidushei Bi'ah of a Nochri is not effective on a Jewish woman - because the three ways of acquiring a woman are compared to each other. Consequently, wherever the one does not apply, the other does not apply either.