Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn that an Eved does not invalidate his grandmother who is a bas Kohen who married a Yisrael (who died), from eating Terumah - from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tih'yeh la'Adonehah" (from which we see that the Eved goes after his mother who is a Shifchah, and not after his father's lineage).

(b) From the Pasuk "ve'Zera *Ein Lah*" - we learn 'Ayin Alah', that even a Mamzer also feeds his mother who is a bas Kohen le'Yisrael, and invalidates his mother who is a bas Yisrael le'Kohen (should their respective fathers die).

(c) A grandchild invalidates and feeds - because it is logical to say that 'B'nei Banim Harei Heim ke'Banim' (see Sugya above 62b.).

(a) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether the author of our Mishnah (which declares the son of an Akum ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael a Mamzer) must be Rebbi Akiva - because Rebbi Akiva holds 'Yesh Mamzer mei'Chayvei La'avin'.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan replied - that even the Rabbanan will agree that the child of an Oved Kochavim and an Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael is a Mamzer, as Rav Dimi Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi quoted in the name of Rebbi.

(c) The Beraisa cites the words of the frustrated grandmother who blessed her son, whom she referred to as 'Kuza', but who cursed her grandson, whom she called 'Kada'. 'Kuza' (a small vessel) - referred to her lowly son, the Mamzer, whereas 'Kada' (a large, significant vessel) - to her grandson, the 'Kohen Gadol'.

3)

(a) The wives of Areilim and other Temei'im are permitted to eat Terumah?

(b) The wives of a P'tzu'a Daka and a K'rus Shafchah are forbidden to eat Terumah - because they become Chalalim through Bi'ah. (c) The latter may eat Terumah however - if no Bi'ah took place from the time that they became a P'tzu'a Daka and a K'rus Shafchah.

(a) Someone whose one Beitzah is crushed - is considered a P'tzu'a Daka.

(b) A K'rus Shafchah is not considered a P'sul Kahal - if even the slightest amount of flesh remains beyond the crown (the row of flesh that surrounds the Milah).

(a) Rebbi Eliezer derives the prohibition of an Areil to eat Terumah, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Toshav ve'Sachir" "Toshav ve'Sachir" (from Pesach). Rebbi Akiva derives it - from the Pasuk in Emor - "Ish *Ish* mi'Zera Aharon ve'Hu Tzaru'a O Zav", which comes to include an Areil, comparing him to a Tamei (about whom the Pasuk is speaking).

(b) We know that the Pasuk of "Ish Ish" refers to Terumah - because of the conclusion of the Pasuk "u'Va ha'Shemesh va'Taher, ve'Achar Yochal *min ha'Kod'shim*", which refers to Terumah (since regular Kodshim still requires the Tamei person to bring his Korbanos on the following day, where necessary).

(c) Were it not 'Mufneh' (superfluous), Rebbi Eliezer would not be able to learn his 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because it could be dismissed on the grounds that Pesach has a Chumra over Terumah - inasmuch as it is subject to Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.

(a) With regard to Terumah, "Toshav" implies an Eved that is Kanuy Kinyan Olam (until the Yovel), and "Sachir", one that is Kanuy Kinyan Shanim (for six years). The Torah did not really need to tell us that both a Kanuy Kinyan Olam and a Kanuy Kinyan Shanim are not permitted to eat Terumah - because once we know that a Toshav (who is a permanent Kinyan) cannot eat, it goes without saying that a Sachir (who is only a temporary one) is not able to.

(b) Nevertheless, the Torah found it necessary to write "Sachir" as well as "Toshav" - because, had it just written "Toshav", we would have translated it as a Kanuy Kinyan Shanim, and we would not have known that a Kanuy Kinyan Olam is not permitted to eat either. It is only after the Torah has written both, that we translate "Toshav" as Kanuy Kinyan Olam, and "Sachir" as Kanuy Kinyan Shanim.

7)

(a) "Toshav" and "Sachir" by Pesach cannot possibly refer to a Kanuy Kinyan Olam and a Kanuy Kinyan Shanim - because from the fact that they cannot eat Terumah, it is evident that their master does not acquire them fully (in the way that he does an Eved Ivri - see Tosfos DH 'Alma'). Consequently, the Torah could not possibly be informing us that they are Patur from the Korban Pesach, or that, because they are servants, they are restricted in any way.

(b) Despite the fact that it is only "Toshav ve'Sachir" that is written by Pesach which is Mufneh, and Rebbi Eliezer himself holds that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh on only one side, can nevertheless be refuted by a Kashya, this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is considered Mufneh on *both* sides - because, seeing as both "Toshav" and "Sachir" are Mufneh, we place one ('Im Eino Inyan' - since it is not needed by Pesach) by Terumah.

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina derives from "ve'*Chol Zar* Lo Yochal Kodesh" - that 'Zarus Amarti Lach, ve'Lo Aninus', to teach us that an Onan is permitted to eat Terumah.

(b) If not for this D'rashah - we would have forbidden a Kohen who is an Onan to eat Terumah, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Toshav ve'Sachir" "Toshav ve'Sachir".

(c) We know that an Onan is forbidden to eat the Pesach - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ma'aser Sheini, where it is written explicitly.

(d) And we preclude an Onan from "ve'*Chol Zar* ... ", and include an Areil from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (and not vice-versa) - because the P'sul of Arlus has more stringencies than that of Aninus (as we shell now see).

(a) Milah is more stringent than Aninus (in *four* respects): because it is lacking an act on one's body, because one is Chayav Kareis - because it is punishable by Kareis and because the Milah of one's sons and Avadim also prevent a person from eating it.

(b) Aninus is more stringent than Arlus (in *three*): because it can occur many times in a person's life, because it pertains to women as well as to men - and because there is nothing one can do to rectify it (until its duration passes).

(c) Rav maintains that, even if the Pesach would not have more stringencies, we would not learn Terumah from Pesach with regard to Aninus (rather than Orlah) - because Orlah is written *explicitly* by Pesach, whereas Aninus is only learnt from Ma'aser Sheini.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "u'Malta Oso, Oz Yochal *Bo*" - to preclude the eating of Terumah from the prohibition of Milas Zecharav va'Avadav (i.e. that a Kohen who has uncircumcised children or Avadim, may nevertheless eat Terumah).

(b) We would otherwise have applied the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Toshav ve'Sachir" "Toshav ve'Sachir" and forbidden it.

(c) It is not possible however, to Darshen "Kol Areil Lo Yochal *Bo*", in the same way, to permit an *Areil* to eat Terumah - because of "Toshav ve'Sachir" "Toshav ve'Sachir".

(d) We prefer to *preclude* Milas Zecharav va'Avadav from the prohibition of eating Terumah from "u'Malta Oso, Oz Yochal *Bo*", and to *include* that of an Areil from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', because the latter has more stringencies. Others say that, even if it did not, we would not switch them (to forbid Milas Zecharav va'Avadav to eat Terumah, and to permit an Areil) - because it would be illogical to permit someone who is himself an Areil to eat Terumah, and to forbid him to do so on the grounds that his children and Avadim are Areilim.

1. Arlus is more stringent than Milas Zecharav va'Avadav - inasmuch as it is lacking an act on one's own body and because it is punishable by Kareis.
2. Milas Zecharav va'Avadav is more stringent than Arlus - inasmuch as it can occur many times during one's life.