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.
On what grounds is she forbidden to her Yavam who is a Kasher Kohen?

(b) The Tana also includes a Kohen Hedyot who married a widow who has a brother who is a Kohen Gadol.
How do we initially try to explain the Tana mentioning 'married', when she would be equally forbidden to the Kohen Gadol had his brother just betrothed her?

(c) On what grounds do we reject this answer?

(a) Why can we not 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)?

(b) Then why *does* he mention 'married' (in the case of the Kohen Hedyot who married a widow who has a brother who is a Kohen Gadol)?

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.
What is the case? How is it possible to be a Sh'niyah to the one and not to the other?

(b) Do the other combinations apply to Sh'niyah as well?

(c) A Sh'niyah who marries her relative is entitled to neither a Kesubah nor Peiros.
What does Peiros mean? What does the husband normally give in exchange for Peiros?

(d) Seeing as her husband is not obligated to redeem her, why is he not obligated to return them?

(a) It is obvious that she is not entitled to Mezonos as long as they are living together, seeing as her husband is obligated to divorce her.
So what does the Tana mean when he says that she does not receive Mezonos?

(b) How do we reconcile this with the (prevailing) opinion that anyone who feeds a woman whilst her husband is away loses his money?

(c) Neither does she receive 'B'la'os'.
What are B'la'os?

(d) What is the status of their children?

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 is a widow anyway.
How do we initially attempt to solve it?

(b) On what grounds do we refute the contention that our Tana holds 'Nisu'in ha'Rishonim Mapilim'?

(c) We ultimately answer that in this case, the Tana certainly mentioned Almanah because of the Seifa.
To which case in the Seifa (where she is forbidden to both her husband and to the Yavam) does this refer?

(a) According to Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan (78a.), when a Mitzri marries a Mitzris, we always go after the mother. What will then be the Din, 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? In which case will their wives be ...

1. ... permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their Yevamin?
2. ... forbidden to their husbands and permitted to their Yevamin?

(b) In which case, would they be permitted to both their husbands and their Yevamin?

(c) They would be forbidden to both, if they were Ayloniyos.
In the case when the Sheini married a Yisre'eilis who was an Aylonis, on what grounds would she be forbidden ...

1. ... to her husband?
2. ... to her Yavam?

(d) Then why does the Tana not insert the case of Mitzri and Mitzris in our Mishnah, together with the Chayvei La'avin and the Sh'niyos?

(a) On what grounds do we query the answer that P'tzu'a Daka is considered a Shiyur?

(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.
On what grounds do we query this? Why might the Tana find it necessary to mention the latter case, in spite of the fact that he has already mentioned the former?

(c) And why does he need 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 (see Tosfos DH 've'Kamashma Lan')?

(d) So from which superfluous case do we ultimately learn that P'tzu'a Daka is considered a Shiyur (thereby justifying the omission the case of a Mitzri who was married to two Mitzri'os)?

(a) What do we try to prove from the case in our Mishnah 'Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah'?

(b) Why do we initially think that Kesheirah must mean a Kohenes who is Kesheirah li'Kehunah?

(c) On what grounds do we initially reject the explanation that 'Kesheirah' means Kesheirah le'Kahal? Why can 'Yesh Lo Ach Kasher' not mean Kasher le'Kahal?

(d) So how do we conclude this issue? What do 'Ach Kasher' and 'Kesheirah' respectively, mean?

(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'.
How does Ravin bar Nachman interpret this Beraisa?

(b) How does Rava answer the Kashya?

(c) But don't we know this already from Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and from the Beraisa of Rebbi Yishmael, who learn it from the Pasuk in Naso "Ish O Ishah Ki Ya'asu mi'Kol Chat'os ha'Adam", comparing women to men regarding all punishments?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk with regard to the prohibition of Tum'as Meis of Kohanim in Emor "Emor el ha'Kohanim *B'nei Aharon*"?

(b) If not from "Ish O Ishah", why would 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?

(c) According to the second Lashon, why do we need to learn from "Lo Yikachu" that women are included in the Isur? Why would we not learn it from "Ish ve'Ishah"?

Next daf