Previous daf

1)

(a) One of the four cases of a woman who is permitted to her husband but forbidden to her Yavam, is that of a Chalal who married a Kesheirah, who is forbidden to her Yavam who is a Kasher Kohen - because when she married the Chalal, she herself became a Chalalah.

(b) The Tana also includes a Kohen Hedyot who married a widow, and who has a brother who is a Kohen Gadol. Initially, we try to explain the Tana mentioning 'married' (when she would be equally forbidden to the Kohen Gadol had his brother just betrothed her) - on the grounds that had he only betrothed her, the prohibition would only be a La'av (of "Almanah Lo Yikach") which the Mitzvah of Yibum would override; whereas now that he married her there is also an Asei (of "Ki Im Besulah mei'Amav Yikach Ishah"), and the Asei of Yibum cannot override a La'av and an Asei.

(c) We reject this answer however - on the basis of the various cases in the Sugya which are only a La'av (such as Mamzeres to a Yisrael), yet the Asei of Yibum does not override it (as we learned above on Daf 20a. from "ve'Alsah Yevimto ha'Sha'rah" - see Maharshal).

(a) Neither can we answer that the Tana mentioned 'married' because of the Seifa (that a Kohen Gadol who marries an Almanah and who has a brother who is ... a Kohen Hedyot, is forbidden to both) - because, in that case, the Tana should rather have mentioned 'betrothed', because of the Metzi'asa 'Kohen Gadol she'Kidesh es ha'Almanah ve'Yesh Lo Ach Kohen Hedyot' (who would be forbidden to the Yavam if she had been married to the Kohen Gadol - because she would be a Chalalah).

(b) In fact, he mentions 'married' (in the case of the Kohen Hedyot who married a widow who has a brother who is a Kohen Gadol) - because of the case that he brings right next to it: 'Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah ve'Yesh Lo Ach Kasher' (who is forbidden to the Yavam only because the Chalal actually married her).

4)

(a) If the Yevamah is a Sh'niyah to the husband but not to the Yavam, she is forbidden to her husband but permitted to the Yavam, which is possible - if they are paternal brothers but not maternal ones (and his wife is a Sh'niyah through his mother (e.g. his mother's mother).

(b) All the combinations are applicable to Sh'niyah.

(c) A Sh'niyah who marries her relative is entitled to neither a Kesubah nor Peiros. Peiros - means the fruit of Nichsei mi'Lug that he ate. Normally, the husband is permitted to eat Peiros in exchange for his obligation to redeem her should she be captured.

(d) Despite the fact that her husband is not obligated to redeem her, he is nevertheless not obligated to return them - because Chazal issued a K'nas on all the Tena'ei Kesubah (the obligations that they instituted on the husband) like on the Kesubah itself.

(a) It is obvious that the Sh'ni'yah is not entitled to receive Mezonos as long as they are living together, seeing as her husband is obligated to divorce her. When the Tana says that she does not receive Mezonos - he means that if her husband went overseas and she borrowed money for Mezonos, her husband will not be required to reimburse the lender.

(b) The (prevailing) opinion that anyone who feeds a woman whilst her husband is away loses his money - refers to a case when the lender did so of his own accord without being asked. But should the wife borrow money from him, he may claim the loan from her, and she then retrieves the money from her husband.

(c) Neither does she receive 'Bela'os' - the worn out clothes of Nichsei mi'Lug and Nichsei Tzon Barzel that she brought into the marriage.

(d) The children however - are Kasher.

6)

(a) We also have a problem why in the opening case in the Mishnah ('a Kohen Hedyot who married a widow who has a brother who is a Kohen Gadol'), the Tana needs to mention that she was a widow, seeing as, when the Kohen dies, she becomes a widow anyway. Initially, we suggest - that this Tana holds 'Nisu'in ha'Rishonim Mapilin', in which case, had she been a Besulah when the Kohen Hedyot married her, she would be permitted to his brother the Kohen Gadol when her husband died.

(b) We refute the contention that our Tana holds 'Nisu'in ha'Rishonim Mapilin' - on the basis of the case of a Chalal who married a Kesheirah, whom the Tana nevertheless forbids to the Yavam who is a Kasher Kohen.

(c) We ultimately answer that in this case, the Tana certainly mentioned *Almanah* on account of the Seifa. This refers to the case - 'Kohen Gadol she'Nasa es ha'Almanah ve'Yesh Lo Ach ... Kohen Hedyot', to whom she is Asur only because when the Kohen Gadol married her, she was an Almanah and through the marriage, she became a Chalalah.

(a) According to Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan (78a.), when a Mitzri marries a Mitzris, we always go after the mother. Consequently, in the context of our Mishnah, if a Mitzri Rishonah is married both to a Mitzris Rishonah and a Mitzris Sh'niyah, who both have sons who get married, their wives will be ...

1. ... permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their Yevamin - if they marry the same level (the Sheini married a Sheinis, and the Sh'lishi, a Yisre'eilis).
2. ... forbidden to their husbands and permitted to their Yevamin - if they married different levels (the Sheini, a Yisre'eilis, and the Sh'lishi, a Sheinis).

(b) They would both be permitted to both their husbands and their Yevamin - if each of them married Giyoros (who are permitted both a Yisrael and to a Mitzri Sheini).

(c) And they would be forbidden to both, if each of them married an Aylonis. In the case when the Sheini married a Yisre'eilis who was an Aylonis, she would be forbidden ...

1. ... to her husband - because she is a Yisre'eilis.
2. ... to her Yavam - because of the La'av "Asher Teiled" 'P'rat le'Aylonis'.

(d) The Tana does not insert the case of Mitzri and Mitzris in our Mishnah, together with the Chayvei La'avin and the Sh'niyos - because he omits the case of P'tzu'a Daka anyway, and it is quite in order for a Tana to omit *two* cases from a Mishnah (provided he does not omit *one*).

(a) We query the answer that P'tzu'a Daka is considered a Shiyur - on the grounds that the Mishnah has no reason to mention it in the first place, seeing as it has already mentioned Chayvei La'avin.

(b) We reply that the Tana also repeats different kinds of Chayvei La'avin, such as Kohen Hedyot she'Nasa Almanah and Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah. We query this however - on the grounds that it might be necessary to mention Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah (even after having mentioned Kohen Hedyot she'Nasa Almanah), in order to teach us Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's Din, that Kesheiros are permitted to marry Pesulim (a Kasher Kohenes to marry a Chalal).

(c) And he needs to mention the Din of Yisrael she'Nasa bas Yisrael ve'Yesh Lo Ach Mamzer after having mentioned Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah ve'Yesh Lo Ach Kasher - to teach us that even when the La'av that forbids her to her husband is one that applies to everyone, she is nevertheless permitted to the Yavam (see Tosfos DH 've'Kamashma Lan').

(d) We ultimately learn that P'tzu'a Daka is considered a Shiyur (thereby justifying the omission of the case of a Mitzri who was married to two Mitzriyos) - from the case of Yisrael she'Nasa Mamzeres ve'Yesh Lo Ach Yisrael, which is entirely superfluous, in which case the Tana could also have inserted the case of P'tzu'a Daka.

(a) We try to prove from the case in our Mishnah 'Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah' - that 'Lo Huzharu Kesheiros le'Hinasei li'P'sulin' (like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav), because we think that 'Kesheirah' refers to a Kasher Kohenes.

(b) We initially think that 'Kesheirah' *must* mean a Kohenes Kesheirah li'Kehunah - because, as the Gemara says in Pesachim, a Kohen should, if possible, marry a Kohenes.

(c) We initially reject the explanation that 'Kesheirah' means Kesheirah le'Kahal, because, in that case 'Yesh Lo Ach Kasher' will also mean Kasher le'Kahal. But that cannot be - because it would imply that the deceased brother was Pasul le'Kahal, which is not the case. In fact, he was a Chalal, in which case he was Pasul li'Kehunah (not le'Kahal), and his brother is Kasher li'Kehunah.

(d) Nevertheless, we conclude - there is no reason why 'Ach Kasher' should not mean Kasher li'Kehunah, and 'Kesheirah', Kesheirah le'Kahal. Consequently, we remain with no proof for Rav Yehudah Amar Rav.

(a) Ravin bar Nachman queries Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (who permits Kesheiros to marry P'sulim) from the Beraisa "Lo Yikachu" 'Melamed she'ha'Ishah Muzheres al Yedei ha'Ish' - which he interprets to mean that a Kesheirah is forbidden to marry a Pasul in the same way as a Kasher is forbidden to marry a Pesulah.

(b) Rava answers - that what the Beraisa means is that whenever the Kohen is warned not to marry the woman (i.e. a Kasher not to marry a Pesulah), then she is equally forbidden to marry him.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and the Beraisa of Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk "Ish O Ishah Ki Ya'asu mi'Kol Chat'os ha'Adam", that the Torah is comparing women to men regarding all punishments - with regard to a La'av which applies to everybody; The Beraisa of "Lo Yikachu" comes to extend that principle even to La'avin which only apply to some people (such as La'avin of Kehunah).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk with regard to the prohibition of Tum'as Meis of Kohanim "Emor el ha'Kohanim *B'nei Aharon*" - that women are not included in the La'av prohibiting Kohanim from becoming Tamei Meis ("B'nei Aharon" 've'Lo B'nos Aharon').

(b) Even without the Derashah of "Ish O Ishah", we have thought that women are included in the Din of Tum'ah (despite the fact that it is a La'av that is confined to Kohanim - from the Derashah of "Lo Yikachu".

(c) According to the second Lashon, we need to learn from "Lo Yikachu" that women are included in the Isur. We would not have learnt it from "Ish ve'Ishah" - because the Torah precludes women from Tum'as Kohanim (from "B'nei Aharon" 've'Lo B'nos Aharon').