Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learnt from "u'Bas Kohen Ki Sih'yeh Almanah u'Gerushah ... " that the Bi'ah of an Akum and Eved invalidate a bas Kohen from eating Terumah. We know that the same will apply to a bas Levi or a bas Yisrael (even if she has a child from a Kohen) - from the extra 'Vav' in "u'Bas" (like Rav Aba explained on the previous Amud [see 6 a. and b. there] - and, as we explained there, the words "u'Bas Kohen" are actually superfluous).

(b) We refute the suggestion to learn from "Almanah u'Gerushah ve'Zera Ein Lah" that when there is no Almenus ve'Geirushin, they may eat as long as there is no child, whereas when there is not, they may eat even when there *is* - because, if that was so (that the Pasuk was coming to be lenient), then why would we need a Pasuk to include a Levi'ah and Yisre'eilis? If a Kohenes does not become Pasul through the Bi'ah of a Pasul (when there are children), then how much more so a Yisre'eilis?

(c) Nor do we need to include a Yisre'eilis who has a child from a Kohen, in the prohibition of eating Terumah, if she then marries a Yisrael, who dies leaving her with a child from him - because that too, is a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Kohenes, who cannot eat because she has children from a Yisrael, how much more so a Yisre'eilis.

(a) Rebbi Akiva (in whose opinion, Kidushin is not effective by Chayvei La'avin), will explain "u'Bas Kohen *Ki Sih'yeh* le'Ish Zar" - to mean "a bas Kohen who has relations with someone who is Pasul".

(b) According to him, the Torah writes "Almanah u'Gerushah" to be stringent with the former and lenient with the latter - meaning 'to forbid even an Almanah when there are children, and to permit even a Gerushah when there are not.

(c) Having already taught us that ...

1. ... a Kohenes who is an Almanah from a Yisrael is permitted to return to her father's house to eat Terumah (when her husband dies leaving her without children) - the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to teach us that a Gerushah is permitted too, because we might otherwise have thought that an Almanah is permitted only because she is permitted to marry a Kohen, whereas a Gerushah is not.
2. ... a Kohenes who is a Gerushah is forbidden to eat Terumah, when her husband who is a Yisrael dies leaving her with children, it is nevertheless necessary to add an Almanah - because we might otherwise have thought that an Almanah, who, unlike a Gerushah, is permitted to marry a Kohen, would be permitted.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Bas Kohen Ki Sih'yeh *le'Ish Zar*" - to preclude from the prohibition, a husband who takes back his Gerushah after she re-married and then died, since he was not initially a Zar to her.
2. ... "Lo *Yechalel Zar'o* be'Amav" - that even a Chalal (who is permitted to marry a bas Kohen and is not therefore a Zar) is invalidated (because the Torah is comparing the children of a Kohen Gadol who married an Almanah (who are Chalalim) to the Kohen Gadol himself (with regard to rendering a woman a Chalalah [prohibiting her from eating Terumah]).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk (with regard to a Kohen Gadol who married an Almanah) "Lo Yechalel *Zar'o*" - that the Kohen Gadol invalidates the Almanah only from the time of the Bi'ah (and not from the Kidushin).

(c) We know that Bi'ah (and not Kidushin) and that Bi'ah alone (even without Kidushin) invalidates a woman from Terumah and from Kehunah - from Almanah le'Kohen Gadol.

(a) Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the Tana Kama in the Beraisa currently under discussion. According to him, it is only a Pasul whose child is also Pasul who invalidates a bas Kohen from eating Terumah - precluding a a second generation Mitzri or Edomi, whose child will be permitted.

(b) They both derive their ruling from a Kohen Gadol - the Tana Kama learns from the fact that just as he invalidates an Almanah (because their Bi'ah is a Bi'as Isur, so too, will a Mitzri Sheini invalidate the woman with whom he has Bi'ah; whereas Rebbi Yossi learns that the Kohen Gadol invalidates the Almanah, only because their child will be invalidated, too, whereas a Mitzri Sheini, whose child will be permitted, will not invalidate the woman either.

(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is even more lenient than Rebbi Yossi. According to him, whenever a Kohen is permitted to marry the daughter of someone who is Pasul, he is also permitted to marry his widow (because she is not a Chalalah) - precluding a Ger Amoni or Mo'avi from the prohibition, whose daughters are permitted (because of the D'rashah "Amoni" 've'Lo Amonis' ... ).

(d) According to Rebbi Yossi however - the widow of a Ger Amoni or Mo'avi is prohibited to a Kohen - since his son is also Pasul.

(a) O'nes, Mefateh and Shoteh have in common - the fact that they neither render a bas Kohen Pasul if they are Yisre'eilim; nor do they feed a bas Yisrael Terumah, should they be Kohanim.

(b) O'nes and Mefateh will invalidate too - by a P'sul Kehunah.

(c) We learned above that a fetus invalidates a bas Kohen to a Yisrael from eating Terumah, and does not feed a bas Yisrael to a Kohen Terumah. If a Yisrael raped a bas Kohen, she became pregnant and the fetus died in her womb - she is permitted to eat Terumah once more.

(d) The strength of the son is greater than that of the father - in a case when a Kohen had raped a bas Yisrael (in which case, she is not permitted to eat Terumah), and she falls pregnant and gives birth to a son or daughter, which now permits her to eat Terumah.

6)

(a) An Eved Kena'ani invalidates a bas Kohen from Terumah through Bi'ah - he does not however, invalidate his grandmother who is a bas Kohen, if he is her only offspring. The case would be - if a bas Kohen married a Yisrael, and they had a son who subsequently had relations with a Shifchah, and they too, had a son. That son will not invalidate his grandmother from eating Terumah, because he is an Eved. like his mother, and is not related to his father at all.

(b) If, by the same token, his grandmother is a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen - she is not permitted to eat Terumah on his account (for the same reason).

(c) If the daughter of a bas Yisrael to a Kohen or of a bas Kohen to a Yisrael 'marries' an Eved or a Nochri (see Tosfos DH 've'Niseis'), and they have a child - that child is a Mamzer.

(d) A Mamzer ...

1. ... feeds his grandmother who is a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen.
2. ... invalidates his grandmother who is a bas Kohen to a Yisrael.

8)

(a) Our Mishnah (which includes a Shoteh among the 'Ein Poslin u'Ma'achilin') supports the Beraisa, which exempts the wife of a Shoteh from both Yibum and Chalitzah - proving that a Shoteh cannot acquire.

(b) The Beraisa incorporates - a Katan together with a Shoteh.

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna explains the fact that, on the one hand, the Tana of our Mishnah holds that an Ubar invalidates his mother from eating Terumah, whilst on the other, he permits her to eat (after being raped by a Yisrael), without requiring her to wait three months in case she is pregnant - by explaining that Chazal did not contend with the possibility that a woman is pregnant with regard to eating Terumah, even though they *did* with regard to Yuchsin.

(b) He knows that Chazal contended with the pregnancy regarding Yuchsin - because of the Mishnah above (33b.) which requires the women who were inadvertently switched on their way to the Chupah to be separated for three months before returning to their husbands.

(c) He is forced to retract from this contention however, on account of a Beraisa - which rules that if a man gave his wife a Get which is valid only an hour before his death - she is forbidden to eat Terumah immediately (since we do not know when he is destined to die). So we see that Chazal did contend with the pregnancy even with regard to Terumah.

(d) When we explain that Rabah bar Rav Huna really differentiated between adultery and marriage we mean - that he only contended with the possibility of the woman being pregnant when she is married, but not when she committed adultery (because a woman who commits adultery, turns round, in order to destroy the Zera).

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna (who, as we just saw, is concerned about pregnancy, even with regard to Terumah, in the case of a married woman), explains - that the Beraisa which permits a bas Kohen le'Yisrael, whose husband died, to Tovel and eat Terumah that same evening, refers only to the forty days after her husband's death. This is because, even if she is pregnant, until forty days, the Zera is considered no more than water (and not an Ubar).

(b) He explains the Seifa of the Beraisa, which states that, the moment it becomes noticeable that she is pregnant, she is Pasul retroactively - to mean retroactively until forty days after the death of her husband (assuming that she continued to eat for more than forty days).

(c) In the case under discussion - the Yisrael married the bas Kohen and died on the same day.

(a) Even if both the man and the woman who are betrothed admit that he is the father of the baby to whom she gave birth, Rav maintains that the baby is a Mamzer - because just as she admitted having had relations with her betrothed, we must suspect that she may also have had relations with others, who are the majority, and from whom her child will be a Mamzer.

(b) According to Shmuel - the child is a Sh'suki (a Safek Mamzer).

(a) Rava establishes the Machlokes of Rav and Shmuel when there are rumors of her having had relations with other men too. The reason that Rav is more strict in this case, than by a married woman, where we simply ignore rumors of this nature, establishing the child after her husband - is because of the principle 'Rov Be'ilos Hilchos Achar ha'Ba'al' (one ascribes most Bi'os of a married woman to her husband).

(b) Rava's source that when there are no rumors, even Rav will agree that the child is not a Mamzer, lies in our Mishnah, which says 'Yaldah, Tochal' (which must be speaking when there is no rumor of her having committed adultery - because otherwise, why would the child, who is probably not a Kohen, feed her Terumah). Now if there, where the Kohen who raped her is forbidden to her just like everyone else, we nevertheless ascribe the child to him, then how much more so in our case, where she is permitted to her betrothed, should we ascribe the child to him.

(c) Abaye disagrees. According to him, even if there is no reason to suspect her of adultery with other men, Rav declares the child to be a Mamzer. And as for our Mishnah, where we ascribe the child to her betrothed - the Tana speaks when they were both (the sole inmates) in prison, in which case, he is the only man who could possibly be the father.

(a) In the second Lashon, Rava maintains that if we have reason to suspect that she committed adultery both with other men and with her betrothed, we will assume that the child is his - because, in that case, it is more likely that the child is that of her betrothed (see also Tosfos 70a. DH 'Aval').

(b) He establishes the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel - when there is a rumor that she committed adultery with others, but not with her betrothed.

(c) Rava proves in our Mishnah, that Rav will most certainly agree that, when there are rumors that she committed adultery both with other men and with her betrothed, we will assume the child to be his, and that he declares the child a Mamzer only when the rumors are confined to other men exclusively, from 'Yaldah Tochal' - because, if in our Mishnah, we ascribe the child to the man with whom she had relations (despite the fact that she is as much forbidden to him as she is to everyone else), then we should certainly ascribe the child to her betrothed, to whom she is permitted, rather than to others, to whom he is not).

(d) Abaye disagrees. According to him, even if the rumors incorporate the betrothed as well as others, Rav will declare the child a Mamzer. And as for our Mishnah, the Tana (who says 'Yaldah, Tochal') - speaks when there were no rumors at all (before the Bi'ah that we know took place).