Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua argue over the reason for not giving a Kohenes Terumah in the granary. According to one of them, it is because her husband may have divorced her, in which case she is a Zarah. What does the other one say?

(b) One difference between the two answers is when the granary is close to the town (so that everyone knows about the marital status of the Kohanos who arrive there for their Terumah), but when it is ill-frequented (so that the suspicion of Yichud remains).
What is the other difference?

(a) One of the only two Kohanim who do not receive Terumah at all is a Kohen who is Tamei.
What is the difference between him and an Areil, to whom one *does* send (because he is an A'nus), considering that a Tamei person is A'nus, too?

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa, after stating that one does not give an Eved or a woman a portion of Terumah in the granary, goes on to discuss an occasion that one does.
What is he referring to?

(c) Why, in that case, does he give precedence to a woman?

(d) For the same reason, Rava used to deal with the Din Torah of a woman before that of a man.
On what grounds would he initially give precedence to the Din Torah of a man?

(a) Our Mishnah, discussing the Din of the ben Kohen and the ben Eved who became mixed-up, speaks about 'Higdilu ha'Ta'aruvos, ve'Shichreru Zeh es Zeh'.
On what grounds do we object to this Lashon?

(b) How do we amend it?

(a) What are the two distinctions between the Minchah of a Yisrael and of a Kohen?

(b) Why is a Kemitzah not taken from the Minchah of a Kohen?

(c) Then what does the Tana of our Mishnah mean when he writes 'Nosnin Alav Chumrei Kohanim ve'Chumrei Yisre'eilim'?

(d) What do they then do with the bulk of the Minchah?

(a) What is the problem with burning the bulk of the Minchah?

(b) We answer according to Rebbi Elazar.
What does Rebbi Elazar learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'El ha'Mizbei'ach Lo Ya'alu le'Rei'ach Nicho'ach"?

(c) But the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Elazar. So we deal with our problem by establishing the case like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.
According to him, what does one do with the Minchas Chotei of a Kohen (and with the Minchah in our case)?

(d) The Rabbanan (Rebbi Shimon) disagree with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon by the Minchas Chotei of a Kohen.
What do they say ...

1. ... there?
2. ... in our case?

(a) Seven months after remarrying (within three months of losing her husband - which will be discussed later), a woman bore a son.
What is the obligation vis-a-vis Yibum with regard to her other sons from both marriages in the event of that son's death?

(b) What about that son performing Yibum with their wives, should they die?

(c) What will be the Din regarding Yibum if he has brothers from both fathers but not from his mother.
What does he do in the event of one of them dying?

(d) And what do they do if he dies?

7)

(a) If one of the husbands was a Kohen and the other one a Yisrael, then all the Dinim of the previous Mishnah will apply here too.
Should one of them die, will he be ...

1. ... obligated to practice the laws of Aninus? What does this entail?
2. ... permitted to bury him?

(b) The same will apply with regard to *them* should *he* die. Neither does he inherit them.
Why not?

(c) Do *they* inherit *him*?

(d) He is Patur for striking or cursing either of them. On the other hand, he serves in the Mashmar of both of them, but without receiving a portion of the Korbanos.
Under which circumstances *will* he receive a portion?

(a) What does Shmuel learn from the Pasuk in Pinchas (regarding the Kehunah) "ve'Haysah Lo u'le'Zar'o *Acharav*"?

(b) Does this also incorporate a prohibition to marry a Kasher Jewess?

(c) Why can Shmuel not mean 'Meshaskin Oso mi'Nechsei Aviv'?

(d) Then how does he explain the Pasuk in Lech-Lecha "Liheyos Lecha l'Elokim u'le'Zar'acha *Acharecha*" (said to Avraham, who was not a Kohen)?

(a) How will Shmuel reconcile his statement with the Beraisa (quoted above on 37a. - with regard to a child that is born to a Yavam who performed Yibum within three months of the death of his brother) 'Safek ben Tish'ah le'Rishon, ben Shiv'ah le'Acharon, Rishon Ra'uy Lihyos Kohen Gadol'?

(b) Why does the Tana not even invalidate him Lechatchilah?

(a) Our Mishnah speaks about a woman who married within three months of losing her husband and who bore a child who was a Safek. Presuming that her first husband *died*, how would we explain 'Hu Onein Aleihem', seeing as the first husband died many years earlier?

(b) Since it is impossible to explain the Seifa 've'Heim Onenim Alav' in a case when his mother's first husband *died*, how do we initially establish it?

(a) If our Mishnah speaks when her first husband divorced her, what problem will we have with the Seifa 'Hu Ein Mitamei Lahem'?

(b) So we establish the Mishnah when she had not married the first man, but had relations first, with one of them and then with the other (or even if she married the second one - see Maharsha).
What does the Tana then mean when he writes 'Mi she'Lo Shahasah Achar *Ba'alah*' (implying that she lost her husband)?

(c) What is now the problem with Shmuel from the Seifa 'Oleh be'Mishmaro shel Zeh ve'Shel Zeh'?

(d) How does Rav Sh'maya establish the Mishnah to answer the Kashya on Shmuel?

(a) Establishing the case by a Mema'enes however, sleaves us with a Kashya from Rav Bibi's Beraisa 'Shalosh Nashim Meshamshos be'Moch ... " (quoted above 12b.).
What are the three age groups discussed by the Tana, and how does that present us with a problem?

(b) We finally establish our Mishnah like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel.
What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel learn from the Pasuk in Naso (regarding a Sotah) ...

1. ... "ve'Hi Lo Nispasah"?
2. ... the word "ve'Hi"?

(c) So how do we finally establish the case of 'Mi she'Lo Shahasah Achar Ba'alah Sh'loshah Chodashim'?

Next daf