Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rami bar Chama, the question of whether 'Yesh Chupah li'P'sulos' or not, is dependent upon the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir on the one hand, and Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon on the other.
How is that?

(b) Is he referring to Chupah with Kidushin, or Chupah without it?

(c) We reject Rami bar Chama's contention however.
Why might ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir agree that Chupah *does not invalidate* her from eating Terumah?
2. ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon agree that it *does*?

(a) The Beraisa which states '*Nis'u* ... Kesheiros u'Pesulos, *O* she'Nichnesu le'Chupah ve'Lo Niv'alu', Ochlos me'Shelo ve'Ochlos bi'Terumah', cannot be correct, because it is inconceivable that a Bi'ah Pesulah should permit her to eat Terumah.
How do we amend the Beraisa?

(b) What does Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say?

(c) We suggest that Rebbi Yishmael holds like Rebbi Meir (who holds that Kidushin Pesulin do not feed her - and that is why Chupah does not feed her either).
How do we refute the Kashya that, in that case, he ought to have said 'Kol she'Ein Bi'asah Ma'achilasah, Ein *Kaspah* Ma'achilasah' (rather than 'Ein *Chupasah* Ma'achilasah')?

(a) The Mishnah in Sotah states that a Sotah says 'Amen' twice to the oath that the Kohen makes on her behalf to incorporate the three cases: that she did not sin whilst she was betrothed to her husband, whilst she was married or a whilst she was a Shomeres Yavam.
Considering that a Shomeres Yavam is only a Chayvei La'avin, why does the Kohen incorporate that in the oath as well?

(b) Regarding the case of 'betrothed ... ', why can the Tana not be referring to a case ...

1. ... when they were not yet married at the time that she took the oath?
2. ... when they were already married, and he had already performed Bi'ah with her?

(c) Then in which case *is* the Tana speaking, according to Rav Sheishes?

(d) How does Rav Sheishes attempt to prove from here that 'Yesh Chupah li'P'sulos'?

(a) What does the Tana (of the Beraisa quoted by Rav Acha bar Chanina from the Darom) learn from the Pasuk in Naso "mi'Bal'adei Ishech"?

(b) What Kashya does Rava ask from there on Rav Sheishes (in the previous question)?

(c) How does Rami bar Chama answer this Kashya?

(d) We try to explain Shomeres Yavam in the Mishnah in Sotah in the same way.
What would then be the case?

5)

(a) We just established the case of Yevamah le'Shuk (in the Mishnah) when, after she became widowed, the Yavam first had relations with her, then warned her not to commit adultery, and finally married her with Chupah. What is the problem with saying that?

(b) There would be no problem according to Shmuel, only according to Rav. Why is that?

(c) What is wrong with establishing the Mishnah like Shmuel?

(a) So we establish the author of the Mishnah as being Beis Shamai, who say that Ma'nar is Koneh completely.
How does that answer the previous Kashya (ccording to Rashi's first Lashon)? Why will she then remain a Shomeres Yavam even after the Bi'ah?

(b) What would Beis Hillel say, if he performed Bi'ah after having made Ma'amar with her?

(c) Why does the Tana in Sotah find it necessary to list Arusah and Nesu'ah on the one hand, and Shomeres Yavam and Kenusah on the other? Are they not one and the same thing?

(a) According to Rashi's second Lashon, we establish the Mishnah like Beis Shamai, who maintains that Ma'amar is fully Koneh (without Bi'ah).
What happened to the principle of 'Kadmah Sh'chivas Ba'al le'Bo'el'?

(b) Rav Papa establishes the case of Arusah even if Chupah is not Koneh. He resolves the Mishnah according to a specific Tana.
What does that Tana say?

(c) The case of Arusah is now when he warned her not to commit adultery whilst they were betrothed, and, after she became a Sotah, he married her and took her to the Kohen (to drink the special water).
What is wrong with explaining that he warned her when they were betrothed, then, after he married her and was Bo'eil her, she became a Sotah?

9)

(a) Rebbi Chanina in the name of Rebbi Yochanan says that a Kohen who makes Ma'amar with his Yevamah when there is another brother, invalidates her from eating Terumah.
Why is that?

(b) On what grounds do we query this even according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir, who forbids an Almanah who is betrothed to a Kohen Gadol to eat Terumah, for this very reason?
2. ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, who permit it?

(c) What does Ravin quoting Rebbi Yochanan say ...

1. ... in this case?
2. ... in a case where the brother is a Chalal? Why is that?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue, according to Ravin, when the Yavam Kohen gave the Yevamah a Get.
What is the reason of ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan, who says that even according to Rebbi Meir, she is permitted to eat Terumah?
2. ... Resh Lakish, who says that even according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, she is forbidden?

(b) What is the difference, according to Resh Lakish, between this case, and that of 'Chozeres' (a woman who returns to her father's house on account of the Get), who is permitted to eat Terumah?

Next daf