# dafyomi

lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE INTENTION REQUIRED FOR 'YIBUM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, the case is, he was sleeping.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that if he was sleeping 
          (when he did Yibum) he did not acquire her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, he (had Kishuy intending for his wife 
          and) fell and had Bi'ah with his Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Rabah taught that if one fell from the roof 
          onto a person, he pays four of the five payments of 
          damage. If he landed on his Yevamah and had Bi'ah, he 
          does not acquire her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> Rather, he was intending (had Kishuy) for his 
          wife, and his Yevamah grabbed his Ever and inserted it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Chiya discusses when they are both forced. 
          Where do we find this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He was intending for his wife, and Nochrim 
          grabbed him and inserted his Ever into his Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that such Bi'ah acquires a 
          Yevamah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa #1):</font></b> 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha' is the Mitzvah 
          (it is preferred to Chalitzah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Also, 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha', whether he is Shogeg or 
               Mezid, whether forced or willing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We already expounded this to teach that that 
          Yibum is the Mitzvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is learned from 'If he does not want'. This 
          implies that, if he wants, he should do Yibum. Our verse 
          teaches that he acquires whether he is Shogeg or Mezid...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha' - k'Darkah (normal 
          Bi'ah). 'V'Lokchah' - (he acquires even) Lo k'Darkah 
          (Bi'ah in the anus);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'V'Yibem' - Bi'ah fully acquires her, but money or a 
               document does not. 'V'Yibmah' - against her will.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Beraisa #1 expounded 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha' to 
          teach about Shogeg or Mezid... and Beraisa #2 expounds it 
          to teach about k'Darkah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Really, we learn k'Darkah from 'Lehakim Shem 
          l'Achiv', i.e. Bi'ah that can lead to children;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha' teaches about Shogeg or 
               Mezid...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one did Yibum while sleeping he did not 
          acquire her. 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha' - he must intend for 
          her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Whether he is awake or asleep (he 
          acquires her).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, it should say 'whether she is awake or 
          asleep.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Whether he is awake or asleep; 
          whether she is awake or asleep.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, he is dozing.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case of dozing?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> He is asleep but not (fully) 
               asleep, and awake but not awake. If one calls to 
               him, he responds, but cannot give an answer that 
               requires reasoning. When one reminds him (what he 
               heard), he remembers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> If one fell from the roof and had Bi'ah, he pays 
          four payments of damages. If she is his Yevamah, he did 
          not acquire her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He pays Nezek (decrease in her earning potential), 
               pain, sick leave, and medical costs, but not 
               embarrassment.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One pays for embarrassment only if he intended.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(u)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> If one intended to stick his Ever in the wall and 
          it landed in his Yevamah, he does not acquire her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he intended to stick it in an animal and it 
               landed in his Yevamah, he acquires her, since he 
               intended for a type of Bi'ah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'HA'ARA'AH' IS CONSIDERED LIKE 'BI'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Whether he did only Ha'ara'ah...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> We know that Ha'ara'ah is considered like Bi'ah 
          from 'V'Ish Asher Yishkav Es Ishah Davah...  Es Mekorah 
          He'erah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This discusses a Nidah. What is the source for 
          other Arayos?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We learn from Nidah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> We cannot learn from Nidah, because it 
               has a stringency. She is Metamei one who has Bi'ah 
               with her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> We learn from Eshes Ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'V'Ish Asher Yikach Es Eshes Achiv Nidah 
               Hi' - is his brother's wife always a Nidah?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, she is like a Nidah. Just like one 
               is liable for Nidah for Ha'ara'ah, also for Eshes 
               Ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We cannot learn (all Arayos) from Eshes Ach, 
          for this Isur can be increased. His brother can Mekadesh 
          1000 women! (We could learn similar Arayos, e.g. Eshes 
          Av.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, we learn from the sister of one's 
          father or mother - 'V'Ervas Achos Imcha va'Achos Avicha 
          Lo Segaleh... Es She'eiro He'erah.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We cannot learn (Arayos that come from 
          Kidushin) from there, for the Isur comes automatically 
          (without Kidushin)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> We cannot learn from any one of these three 
          sources. Perhaps we learn from two of them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #1:</font></b> Let us learn from Eshes Ach and an 
               aunt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Those are both forbidden because they are 
               kin!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #2:</font></b> Let us learn from Nidah and an aunt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> In both of those, the Isur comes 
               automatically!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> We learn from Nidah and Eshes Ach. One cannot 
          challenge this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika):</font></b> Neither of these 
          becomes permitted in the 'life' of the Oser (the cause of 
          the Isur, i.e. while Dam Nidah is flowing or while the 
          brother is alive). We cannot learn to Eshes Ish, who can 
          become permitted (through a Get) in her husband's 
          lifetime!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Criticism (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> This connotes that a Nidah 
          and Eshes Ach are forbidden in the life of the Oser, and 
          afterwards they are permitted. But a Nidah is Temei'ah 
          for seven days even after the blood stops, and Eshes Ach 
          is forbidden even after he dies (if he died with 
          children! Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika's objection is valid, 
          just his words are misleading - Ritva.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHY A MAN CANNOT DO YIBUM WHILE ASLEEP</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that if a Yavam has relations with his Yevamah while he is asleep, the Yibum does not take effect. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Yashen Lo Kanah) explains that 'a sleeping person is not a Bar Da'as (he has no mental competence) and his Kinyan is not a valid Kinyan.'
</p><p>
Why is this a valid reason for why a sleeping Yavam is not Koneh the Yevamah? There are other situations in which the Yavam performs an act of Bi'ah with the Yevamah but does not have intention to be Koneh her, and nevertheless the Yibum is valid. For example, when a man performs an act of Bi'ah inadvertently (b'Shogeg) or against his will (b'Ones), he does not have in mind to be Koneh the Yevamah and nevertheless he fulfills the Mitzvah of Yibum.
</p><p>
Also, the law is that when a Katan (minor) -- who does not have Da'as to make a Kinyan -- performs an act of Yibum, the Yibum takes effect (mid'Oraisa, according to Rashi and other Rishonim; see Insights to Yevamos 39:2). (Even if the Katan is not Koneh her mid'Oraisa, it is only because the Torah specifically excludes him from Yibum and not because he lacks Da'as.) (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Yashen, <b>RASHBA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> answers that Bi'as Shogeg and Bi'as Ones inherently differ from the Bi'ah of a sleeping person. In the cases of Bi'as Shogeg and Bi'as Ones, the Yavam is capable of having conscious intent at the moment of the act to be Koneh the Yevamah, but he chooses not to have in mind to be Koneh her. In contrast, a man who is sleeping is not capable of having any conscious intent altogether. (Rashi emphasizes this point when he adds the words, 'and his Kinyan is not a valid Kinyan' -- that is, he is <i>not capable</i> of making a Kinyan while he is asleep.)
</p><p>
Why, though, is a sleeping man different from a Katan? A Katan is also not capable of making a Kinyan, and yet he nevertheless is able to be Koneh a Yevamah. The Acharonim (see <b>YA'AVETZ</b>) answer that although a Katan might not be able to make an ordinary Kinyan, he certainly does have the ability of conscious thought and intent which can have Halachic ramifications (see Chulin 13b). The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> adds that there are times when even a Katan can make a Kinyan (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to Sanhedrin 69b). Accordingly, a Katan is not comparable to a sleeping person who is entirely incapable of making any type of Kinyan.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Yashen) and other Rishonim do not accept Rashi's reasoning. They explain that a sleeping person cannot be Koneh his Yevamah for a different reason. The Gemara later says that although a person does not need conscious intent, Da'as, to be Koneh a Yevamah, he does need intent to do an act of Bi'ah. A person who is sleeping has no intent whatsoever to do an act of Bi'ah. A Katan, however, can have intent to do Bi'ah even though he does not have Da'as, the ability to make a deliberate <i>decision</i> to effect a Kinyan.
</p><p>
(Rashi perhaps disagrees with this contention and maintains that even one who is asleep is capable of having intent to do Bi'ah; see Nidah 43a.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE SOURCE THAT 'BI'AH SHE'LO K'DARKAH' IS AN EFFECTIVE FORM OF YIBUM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara derives from several phrases in the verse (Devarim 25:5) that a person is Koneh his Yevamah with various types of Bi'ah -- such as Shogeg or Mezid, Ones or Ratzon, k'Darkah or she'Lo k'Darkah. The phrase, 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha' teaches that the act of Yibum takes effect whether it is done b'Shogeg or b'Mezid, b'Ones or b'Ratzon. The phrase 'u'Lekachah' teaches that he is Koneh the Yevamah even with an act of Lo k'Darkah.
</p><p>
The Gemara questions this teaching from a Beraisa which says that the phrase 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha' teaches that Bi'ah k'Darkah is Koneh. How, then, can the same phrase teach that the act of Yibum is Koneh whether it is done b'Shogeg or b'Mezid?
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? If the verse teaches that the Yavam is Koneh the Yevamah with Bi'ah whether it is done b'Shogeg or b'Mezid, then obviously the verse includes Bi'ah k'Darkah. Why would one have assumed that the verse refers to any type of Bi'ah other than Bi'ah k'Darkah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that the Gemara's question is that the laws of Bi'ah b'Shogeg and b'Mezid, and k'Darkah and she'Lo k'Darkah, cannot be derived unless there is a verse which teaches that the Yavam is Koneh the Yevamah with a normal Bi'ah k'Darkah. Only when there is a verse which teaches how Yibum is to be done in the first place (i.e. with Bi'ah) can another verse teach that this Bi'ah is effective when done in different ways, such as b'Shogeg and she'Lo k'Darkah.
</p><p>
The Gemara's question is that the phrase 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha' is the first verse which teaches how the Mitzvah of Yibum is to be done in the first place (with Bi'ah). How, then, can the same verse be used to teach that Bi'ah b'Shogeg also works? Bi'ah b'Shogeg must be derived from a different verse (such as 'u'Lekachah'), in which case there will be no additional source to teach that the Yavam is Koneh the Yevamah with Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah. That is the Gemara's question.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that there <i>is</i> a third verse -- 'l'Hakim l'Achiv Shem.' That verse teaches that Yibum is accomplished through Bi'ah (k'Darkah). The other two verses teach that the additional forms of Bi'ah (b'Shogeg and she'Lo k'Darkah) also accomplish Yibum.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> Rather, say that we 
          cannot learn from Nidah and Eshes Ach because the Oser 
          cannot permit them. A husband, who forbids his wife to 
          marry others, can permit her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (R. Yonah):</font></b> 'All these abominations' - the 
          Torah equates all Arayos to Nidah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like Ha'ara'ah is like Bi'ah regarding Nidah, 
               also regarding all Arayos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why did the Torah need to write Nidah 
          regarding Eshes Ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches Rav Huna's law:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Huna):</font></b> Where is a Yevamah hinted at in 
               the Torah?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Yevamah is explicit in the Torah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> Rather, where does the Torah hint that a 
               Yevamah is forbidden in the life of her husband?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This is logical. The Torah permits her after 
               he dies, implying that she is forbidden during his 
               lifetime!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps after he dies Yibum is a Mitzvah, 
               and in his lifetime it is optional!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Alternatively, perhaps she is forbidden during 
                    his lifetime due to a Mitzvas Aseh (Yibum 
                    should be after death, not before), and she is 
                    considered only Chayavei Aseh!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer - Question:</font></b> 'Es Eshes Achiv Nidah Hi' - is 
               Eshes Ach always a Nidah?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, she is like a Nidah. Even 
                    though she is permitted later, when she is 
                    forbidden, she is Chayavei Kerisos. Also Eshes 
                    Ach, even though she is permitted later, when 
                    she is forbidden, she is Chayavei Kerisos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did the Torah need to write Ha'ara'ah 
          regarding aunts?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches like Ravina asked:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Ravina):</font></b> If a man did Ha'ara'ah to a man, 
               what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This is obvious! Regarding Mishkav Zachar 
               it says 'like one lies with a woman' (in which 
               Ha'ara'ah is considered like Bi'ah)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> Rather, if a man did Ha'ara'ah to an 
               animal, what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> Since Ha'ara'ah is not needed 
               regarding aunts, since we know the law from R. 
               Yonah's Hekesh, we use it to teach about Ha'ara'ah 
               to an animal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Bestiality is Chayavei Misas Beis Din. Why is 
          it learned from the sister of parents, which is only 
          Chayavei Kerisus? Ha'ara'ah should have been written 
          regarding Chayavei Misos, and we would learn Chayavei 
          Misos from Chayavei Misos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since the entire verse (of aunts) is free to be 
          expounded, also this was written in it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE' ISUR 'OF' ACHOS AVIV</font></b>
'(a)	Question: What is expounded from this verse ('V'Ervas Achos 
     Imcha va'Achos Avicha')?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Ervas Achos Avicha' (this is a 
          different verse) - your father's paternal and maternal 
          sister are forbidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps only the paternal sister is 
               forbidden!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion #1:</font></b> Just like the Isur Achoso (his 
                    own sister) applies to paternal and maternal 
                    sisters, also here.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #2:</font></b> Or, perhaps we should learn from 
                    Dodaso (his father's brother's wife). That Isur 
                    applies only to a paternal brother!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Decision:</font></b> We should learn from the more similar 
                    case.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #1:</font></b> It is better to learn from 
                    Achoso, since this Isur comes by itself (like 
                    the Isur of aunts), but Dodaso is forbidden 
                    through Kidushin.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #2:</font></b> Or, we should learn from Dodaso, 
                    who is a relative of his father, rather than 
                    from his sister, who is his own relative!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'V'Ervas... va'Achos Avicha' (this verse is 
               extra) forbids both his paternal and maternal 
               sister.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  'V'Ervas Achos Imcha...' - both her paternal and maternal 
          sister.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did the Torah need to teach this about the 
          father's sister and the mother's sister?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> Had the Torah taught so only regarding 
          a father's sister, one might have thought that this is 
          because lineage comes through the father, but only the 
          paternal sister of a mother is forbidden;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had the Torah taught so only regarding a mother's 
               sister, one might have thought that this is because 
               there is no doubt about who is his mother, but since 
               we are not certain who is his father, only the 
               maternal sister is forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Tana knew that Dodaso applies only to the 
          wife of the father' paternal brother. What is his source?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> He learns from a Gezeirah Shavah 
          'Dodo-Dodo'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says here 'Ervas Dodo (his uncle)', like it says 
               in the Parashah of redeeming an Eved Ivri 'Dodo... 
               Yig'alenu'. Just like there it refers only to his 
               father's paternal brother, also here.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that there it refers to a 
          paternal brother?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'From his family' - only paternal relatives are 
          called family.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'ISUR' OF 'ACHOS ISHTO</font></b>
'(a)	Question (Mishnah): They told a man 'Your wife died' and he 
     married her paternal sister. They told him 'she (your new 
     wife) died', and he married her maternal sister. 'She died', 
     and he married her paternal sister. 'She died', and he married 
     her maternal sister.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In truth, all are alive. He is permitted to his 
               first, third and fifth wives. If he dies, Yibum or 
               Chalitzah of one of these three exempt the Tzaros. 
               He is forbidden to his second and fourth wives; 
               Yibum of either of them does not exempt the Tzaros.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he had Bi'ah with the second after the first 
               died, he is permitted to the second and fourth; 
               Yibum or Chalitzah of either of these exempt the 
               Tzaros; he is forbidden to the third and fifth.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> This shows that Achos Ishto is forbidden, 
               both paternal and maternal. What is the source for 
               this?
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'ISUR' OF 'ACHOS' 'ISHTO' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> We learn from Achoso. Just like one's paternal 
          and maternal sisters are forbidden, also both sisters of 
          one's wife are forbidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why don't we learn from Dodaso, that only 
               the paternal sister is forbidden?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is more reasonable to learn from Achoso, 
               since this Isur is due to himself, just like Achos 
               Ishto.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> It is better to learn from Dodaso, for 
               the Isur comes through Kidushin, just like Achos 
               Ishto!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, we learn from Eshes Ach, since this 
          Isur is due to himself and comes through Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source regarding Eshes Ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Ervas Eshes Achicha' is forbidden, for 
          paternal and maternal brothers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps it applies only to paternal 
               brothers!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion #1:</font></b> Just like the Isur Achoso 
                    applies to paternal and maternal sisters, also 
                    here.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #2:</font></b> Or, perhaps we should learn from 
                    Dodaso, and only the paternal brother is 
                    included!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Decision:</font></b> We should learn from the more similar 
                    case.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #1:</font></b> It is better to learn from 
                    Achoso (his own relative) and not from Dodaso, 
                    who is his father's relative.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #2:</font></b> Perhaps it is better to learn 
                    from Dodaso, since this also comes through 
                    Kidushin, and not from Achoso!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We include a maternal brother from 'Ervas 
               Achicha Hi' (the end of the verse; it is extra).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps only a paternal brother's wife is 
          forbidden, and the extra verse is needed to teach, when 
          he has children, she is forbidden in the life of his 
          brother and after his death!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If he has children, we already know that she is 
          forbidden after he dies. Since the Torah permits Yibum 
          when he has no children, we infer that when he has 
          children, she is forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion #1:</font></b> Perhaps when he has no children, she is 
          permitted to the Yavam and forbidden to all others. When 
          he has children, she is permitted to all!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion #2:</font></b> Perhaps when he has no children, Yibum is 
          a Mitzvah. When he has children, it is optional!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion #3:</font></b> Perhaps when he has no children, Yibum is 
          permitted. When he has children, it is forbidden, and the 
          Isur is derived from a Mitzvas Aseh and is only a 
          Chayavei Aseh!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> 'Ervas Achiv Gilah (Aririm Yihyu)' (this is 
          extra to teach about after the brother died. Aririm 
          (having no children) alludes to Kares.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps a maternal brother's wife is like a 
          paternal brother's wife, and is permitted after death!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> 'She is' - she remains forbidden.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXTRA MENTIONS OF 'KARES' AND 'ARIRI'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did the Torah mention Kares regarding a 
          sister (all Arayos are Chayavei Kerisos)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> This teaches R. Yochanan's law:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If one had Bi'ah with all the Arayos 
               b'Shogeg, he brings a Korban for each one.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Even though one is normally 
          lashed for Chayavei Lavin, Kares was written regarding 
          one's sister to teach that the punishment for Chayavei 
          Kerisus is Kares and not lashes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> From where does R. Yitzchak learn R. Yochanan's 
          law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> '<i>V'El Ishah</i> b'Tum'as Nidasah', obligates for 
          each woman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did the Torah write regarding Dodaso 'They 
          will be childless'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer - Contradiction:</font></b> It says 'They will be childless', 
          and it says 'They will die childless'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rabah):</font></b> If he has children (when he sinned), 
               he will bury them; if he had no children, he will 
               die childless.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  It was needed to write both:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had the Torah written only 'They will be childless', 
               one might have thought that children he had before 
               sinning will die, but not children after the sin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had the Torah written only 'They will die 
               childless', one might have thought that he will not 
               have children after the sin, but children born 
               before the sin will not die!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'HA'ARA'AH' IS CONSIDERED LIKE 'BI'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Ha'ara'ah is considered 
          like Bi'ah regarding Chayavei Lavin?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Regarding a Shifchah Charufah (a female slave 
          designated to a male slave) it says 'Shichvas Zera' (one 
          is liable only for a full Bi'ah, which can lead to) 
          semen. This implies that other Chayavei Lavin are liable 
          for Ha'ara'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps we should learn contrarily! Since the 
          Torah revealed that Chayavei Kerisus are liable for 
          Ha'ara'ah, Chayavei Lavin are liable only for full Bi'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If so, the Torah would not have needed 
          to teach that Shifchah Charufah is liable only for full 
          Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Ha'ara'ah is like Bi'ah 
          regarding Chayavei Lavin of Kehunah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah 'Kichah-Kichah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Ha'ara'ah is considered 
          like Bi'ah regarding Chayavei Aseh?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PUNISHMENT OF 'KARES' FOR 'ESHES ACHIV MIN HA'EM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the verse, 'Ervas Achicha Hi' (Vayikra 18:16), which teaches that one is Chayav Kares for having relations with 'Eshes Achiv' (one's brother's wife) even when he and his brother share only the same mother ('Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em').
</p><p>
However, that verse is written in the Parshah which discusses the Lo Ta'aseh of having relations with various Arayos (Parshas Acharei Mos); it does not openly prescribe the punishment of Kares for 'Eshes Achiv.' Consequently, it could be argued that the verse 'Ervas Achicha Hi' includes 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' only in the Lo Ta'aseh but not in the punishment of Kares.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (2a, DH Eshes Achiv) points out that the Mishnah in the beginning of Yevamos (2a) lists 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' as one of the Arayos which exempt a woman from Yibum, and the Gemara (3b) states that all of the Arayos which exempt a woman from Yibum are punishable with Kares. Accordingly, the Mishnah here supports the assertion of the Gemara when it says that 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' is Chayav Kares.
</p><p>
Tosfos asks that other sources imply that there is <i>no</i> Kares for 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em.' The Toras Kohanim (Kedoshim 11) and the Yerushalmi (Shabbos 7:2) state that the verse which discusses the punishment of Kares for the Isur of 'Eshes Achiv' (in Parshas Kedoshim) adds the words 'Nidah Hi' in order to teach that the Isur of 'Eshes Achiv' is punishable with Kares when it is similar to the Isur of Nidah; just as the Isur of Nidah has a Heter (she can become Tahor), so, too, the type of 'Eshes Achiv' for whom one is Chayav Kares is that which has a Heter, or 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Av' (the Heter being a situation of Yibum). This implies that only 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Av' -- and not 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' -- is included in the punishment of Kares.
</p><p>
Although the Toras Kohanim and Yerushalmi may disagree with the Gemara's interpretation of 'Nidah Hi,' they certainly cannot disagree with the Mishnah in the beginning of Yevamos which states that 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' is exempt from Yibum because it bears a punishment of Kares. How do the Toras Kohanim and the Yerushalmi understand the Mishnah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (2a) and the <b>RAMBAN</b> (54b) suggest that perhaps the Toras Kohanim means the same thing as the Gemara here says (on 54b). The Gemara derives that 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Av' -- in a case in which the brother was childless but <i>divorced</i> his wife -- is punishable with Kares despite the fact that the brother would have been <i>permitted</i> to marry the woman in a situation of Yibum (i.e. had her husband died childless). This is derived from the words 'Nidah Hi,' which imply that the verse applies to the type of 'Eshes Achiv' which has a possible Heter (she is like a Nidah who can become permitted). The Torah teaches that even 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Av' will sometimes bear a punishment of Kares.
</p><p>
Perhaps this is the intention of the Toras Kohanim as well. The Toras Kohanim does not mean that the verse refers <i>only</i> to 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Av,' but that the verse refers <i>even</i> to 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Av.' 'Nidah Hi' teaches that although the 'Eshes Ach' has a Heter (when the brother dies and his wife falls to Yibum), the Chiyuv Kares remains when the brother divorces his wife.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos here (2a) and in Kerisus (14b) rejects this explanation based on the wording of the Yerushalmi and the Toras Kohanim and suggests a different explanation. The Toras Kohanim and Yerushalmi do not mean to exempt 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' from Kares. Rather, they derive from the words 'Nidah Hi' that 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' is not punished with <i>Ariri</i>, whereas all of the other Arayos are punished with Ariri. (Although the verse mentions Ariri only with regard to 'Dodaso' (one's aunt) and 'Eshes Achiv,' the Hekesh of Rebbi Yonah -- which compares all of the Arayos to each other -- teaches, from 'Dodaso,' that all of the Arayos bear the punishment of Ariri.)
</p><p>
(Perhaps the logic behind this distinction is as follows. When the brother sins and lives with the widow of his brother (from his mother), he might have pure intentions to 'build the house' of his deceased brother by bearing children with his widow. Therefore, the Torah 'rewards' him measure for measure and does not punish him with the death of his children. -M. Kornfeld.)
</p><p>
Tosfos adds that this explanation is tenable only if Ariri and Kares are different punishments. Kares refers to 'early death' while Ariri adds the aspect of dying childless. This is not the view of <b>RASHI</b> here (DH Aririm).
</p><p>
If Kares and Ariri are different punishments, however, what is the Gemara's intention when it asks why does the Torah say 'Aririm Yamusu' in the verse of the Isur of 'Dodaso' (Vayikra 20:20; see <b>RASHASH</b> here)? The Torah must write 'Aririm' to teach the additional punishment of Ariri! The answer is that the Gemara wants to know why the verse says 'Aririm' <i>twice</i>, once in the verse of 'Dodaso' and a second time in the verse of 'Eshes Achiv' (Vayikra 20:21). The Torah could have mentioned 'Aririm' once, and the Hekesh of Rebbi Yonah would have taught that all of the other Arayos are also punishable with Ariri.
</p><p>
(c) A third possible approach (not mentioned by the Rishonim) is that the Yerushalmi actually maintains that 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' is exempt from Kares. The Yerushalmi maintains that although there is no Kares for 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em,' that relationship still exempts a person from Yibum because it is included in the Hekesh of Rebbi Yonah which teaches which women are exempt from Yibum (as Tosfos explains on 3b, DH Mah Achos). That Hekesh is written in Parshas Acharei Mos, where 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' <i>is</i> included (through the words 'Eshes Achicha Hi'), as the Gemara here concludes. (Although the verse which compares all of the Arayos with each other according to Rebbi Yonah (54b) specifically mentions Kares, 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' is exempt from Kares because, according to the Yerushalmi, another verse ('Nidah Hi') excludes 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' from Kares.)
</p><p>
The Acharonim adduce proof from another statement that the Yerushalmi indeed maintains that 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' is not punishable with Kares. The Mishnah in Kesuvos (29a) discusses which type of young woman (Na'arah) is entitled to receive reparation from a man who rapes her. One of the women mentioned in the Mishnah is 'Eshes Achiv... even though she is forbidden with an Isur Kares.' The Yerushalmi (cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> there, DH v'Al Eshes Achiv) asks how is it possible for a fine to be levied when a man rapes 'Eshes Achiv'? The rapist must pay a fine only when the Na'arah was a Besulah and was not married at the time of the rape (if she was married, the rapist is punished with Misah and not with a monetary fine). If the Na'arah was married to his brother but never had relations with him (and thus she is still a Besulah), and his brother died childless (and thus he is not punished with Misah for transgressing the Isur of 'Eshes Achiv'), the rapist is not prohibited to the Na'arah at all! On the contrary, he is obligated to do Yibum with her, and thus there should be neither a punishment of Kares nor a fine! The Yerushalmi answers that the Mishnah refers to a case in which the brother who died had children from another wife, and thus his wife (the Na'arah) does not fall to Yibum.
</p><p>
There seems to be a much more obvious answer to the Yerushalmi's question. The Mishnah simply may refer to an 'Eshes Achiv <i>Min ha'Em</i>'! Although her husband died childless, there is no obligation of Yibum with her (since the brothers do not share the same father), and thus the brother is obligated to pay a fine for raping her. Why does the Yerushalmi not suggest this answer? (<b>TOSFOS CHADASHIM</b> on the Mishnayos; this indeed is how the <b>RIF</b> in Kesuvos answers the Yerushalmi's question. See also <b>RASHASH</b> there.)
</p><p>
If the Yerushalmi maintains that 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' bears no punishment of Kares, then its question is easy to understand. The Mishnah cannot refer to 'Eshes Achiv Min ha'Em' because it clearly states that the 'Eshes Achiv' which it discusses is punishable with Kares.
<br>	
<br>(The <b>RIF</b> and others suggest that the 'Eshes Achiv' of the Mishnah may refer to his brother's <i>divorcee</i> and not his widow. Perhaps the Yerushalmi maintains that this cannot be the case of the Mishnah because only later (Kesuvos 38a) does the Mishnah there introduce the laws of raping a divorcee. Moreover, one Tana there maintains that there is no monetary penalty at all in the case of the rape of a divorcee. Although all of the commentaries (see Rashi there) equate the laws of a divorcee to those of a widow, it is possible that the Yerushalmi understands otherwise. The Yerushalmi may maintain that all of the Tana'im agree that there <i>is</i> a monetary penalty for a widow because she returns to her father's home after she is widowed; see the Mishnah in Nedarim 70a and 71a.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah 'Bi'ah-Bi'ah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that a Yevamah that has 
          Bi'ah with a stranger is liable for Ha'ara'ah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Amora'im (49b) argue about whether this is 
          Chayavei Lavin or Chayavei Aseh. In either case; we gave 
          the source above!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, how do we know Ha'ara'ah is like full 
          Bi'ah to acquire a Yevamah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah 'Bi'ah-Bi'ah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that Ha'ara'ah is like Bi'ah to 
          make Kidushin?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah, 'Kichah-Kichah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> The Torah writes 'Shichvas Zera' 
          regarding Shifchah Charufah, Eshes Ish, and Sotah. Why 
          are all of these needed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer - part 1:</font></b> We taught about Shifchah above;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 - part 2:</font></b> Regarding Eshes Ish, it excludes 
          Bi'ah with Ever Mes (without Kishuy).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like the opinion that exempts Bi'as 
          Arayos with Ever Mes. According to the opinion that Bi'ah 
          with a soft Ever are liable by Arayos, how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 - part 2:</font></b> It excludes Bi'ah with a married 
          woman who died;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that since she is still 
               considered 'She'er' after death, one is liable for 
               her. The verse teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer - part 3:</font></b> A Beraisa teaches why it says 'Shichvas 
          Zera' regarding a Sotah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Shichvas Zera' excludes something else.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does this refer to?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> It excludes one who warned 
               his wife against Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Rava):</font></b> It says '<i>Mishkevei</i> Ishah' 
               (plural, to include Lo k'Darkah)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> It exclude warning against 
               intimacy other than Bi'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Abaye):</font></b> Did the Torah really forbid mere 
               lewdness?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #3 (Abaye):</font></b> It excludes warning against 
               Neshikah (touching of the genitals).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This is like the opinion that Ha'ara'ah 
               is entrance of the crown (of the Ever). According to 
               the opinion that says that it is Neshikah, how can 
               we answer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense (of Answer #2):</font></b> Really, it excludes warning 
               against intimacy other than Bi'ah. One would have 
               thought that everything depends on the whims of the 
               husband, and he is insistent on this (so it is valid 
               warning). The verse teaches that this is not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT IS 'HA'ARA'AH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Ha'ara'ah is Neshikah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like one who puts his finger on his mouth. 
               Perforce, it will make some indentation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Torah is 
          Mechayev for full Bi'ah with a Shifchah Charufah. This is 
          entrance of the crown.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa):</font></b> He is liable only for a 
          Bi'ah of Miruk.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This is when he fully enters the Ever 
               (Tosfos; Rashi - he empties the Ever of its semen)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, he fully enters the crown.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> Ha'ara'ah is the entrance 
          of the crown.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Talmidim:</font></b> Rabah bar bar Chanah said otherwise in R. 
               Yochanan's name!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Dimi:</font></b> Either he is a liar, or I am!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravin, citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> Ha'ara'ah is the entrance of 
          the crown.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  He certainly disagrees with Rabah bar bar Chanah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Must we say that he disagrees with Shmuel?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No. From Neshikah until entrance of the crown he 
          calls Ha'ara'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> Ha'ara'ah is 
          the entrance of the crown. Full Bi'ah is literally full 
          Bi'ah. Less than this is only Neshikah, and one is exempt 
          for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  He disagrees with Shmuel.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH ASPECTS OF 'YIBUM' REQUIRE PROPER 'BI'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (Whether the Yavam was Shogeg or Mezid...) 
          whether he did Ha'ara'ah or full Bi'ah, he acquired her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Question:(If one did Yibum without intent,) regarding 
          what does he acquire?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> He acquires in all respects.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> He acquires only regarding what is 
          written in the Parashah, i.e. to inherit his brother and 
          to exempt her from Yibum (if he dies with children).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1:</font></b> If she fell to Yibum from Nisu'in, all agree 
          that she eats (Terumah), since she ate before. They argue 
          about when she fell from Kidushin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav says that she eats, since the Torah considers 
               Bi'as Shogeg like Mezid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Shmuel says, it is considered Bi'ah to make the 
               Yavam like the deceased husband, but not to make him 
               stronger!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  This is consistent with another teaching of Shmuel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> The Yavam permits her to eat (through 
               substandard Bi'ah) only if the deceased husband 
               permitted her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Kohen was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael 
          and he became deaf before Nisu'in, she does not eat. If 
          he died and she fell to Yibum to a deaf brother, she 
          eats. In this case the Yavam is stronger than the first 
          husband.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like Rav and unlike Shmuel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa means, if he did not do Nisu'in 
          before he became deaf, she does not eat. If he did 
          Nisu'in and then became deaf, she eats. If he died and 
          she fell to Yibum to a deaf brother, she eats.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does it say 'in this case...'? (Also a deaf 
          husband permits her!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If her husband was deaf from the beginning, he 
          would not permit her. The Yavam permits her even if he 
          was always deaf.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> If she fell to Yibum from Kidushin, all agree 
          that she does not eat, since she did not eat in the life 
          of her husband. They argue about when she fell from 
          Nisu'in;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav says that she eats, since she ate before.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Shmuel says, the Torah considers Bi'as Shogeg like 
               Mezid only regarding things written in the Parashah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Shmuel):</font></b> Whenever the deceased husband 
          permitted her to eat, the Yavam permits her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Shmuel taught that the Yavam permits her to 
          eat only with the kind of Bi'ah with which the husband 
          (when he did Chupah) permits her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Kohen was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael 
          and he became deaf before Nisu'in, she does not eat. If 
          he died and she fell to Yibum to a deaf brother, she 
          eats. In this case the Yavam is stronger than the first 
          husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav can answer like we answered for Shmuel in 
          Version #1.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is difficult for Shmuel in this version.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES THE WIFE OF A DEAF 'KOHEN' EAT 'TERUMAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Kohen was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael and he 
          became deaf before Nisu'in, she does not eat. If she 
          bears a son, she eats;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Noson says, if the son dies, she eats;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, she does not eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Noson's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> Since she already ate, she continues 
          to eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> According to this, if a Bas Yisrael 
          was married to a Kohen and he died, she should continue 
          to eat, since she once ate?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, since he died, his Kedushah leaves her. Here 
               also, when the son dies, his Kedushah leaves her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> R. Noson holds that Nisu'in when 
          he was deaf permits her to eat Terumah (if he was healthy 
          at the time of Kidushin). We do not decree lest she eat 
          even if he was deaf at the time of Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> If so, why did the Beraisa mention the 
          birth of a son?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This shows that Chachamim argue even in that 
          case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Noson should disagree with Chachamim in the 
          Reisha!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He waited until they finished saying their law, 
          then argued with them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, R. Noson's words should follow 
          Chachamim's!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  This is left difficult.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN A WOMAN BECOME A 'ZONAH' UNWILLINGLY?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, if one had Bi'ah with any Ervah...
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE RIGHT OF AN 'ARUSAH' TO EAT TERUMAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah records a dispute about whether a divorcee (Gerushah) who is now an Arusah (betrothed) to a Kohen may eat Terumah. Rebbi Meir maintains that she may not eat Terumah, while Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon rule that she may eat Terumah.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> gives two explanations for the case of the Mishnah. According to the first explanation, the Mishnah refers to a Bas Kohen who, until now, was entitled to eat Terumah because she returned to her father's home when she was divorced. The dispute is whether she may <i>continue</i> to eat Terumah or whether she becomes disqualified from eating Terumah once she becomes betrothed to a Kohen (to whom she, a Gerushah, is prohibited). According to this explanation, <i>all</i> Tana'im seem to agree that when the Arusah is not a Bas Kohen she may not <i>begin</i> to eat Terumah when she becomes engaged to a Kohen, since she is betrothed to a man to whom she is prohibited. (<b>RASHI</b> DH Kach Shamati)
</p><p>
Rashi, however, prefers his second explanation, according to which the Mishnah refers even to a Bas Yisrael, and the dispute is whether or not she may <i>begin</i> to eat Terumah as a result of her betrothal to the Kohen (to whom she, a Gerushah, is prohibited). (Although the Halachah is that a Bas Yisrael betrothed to a Kohen may not eat Terumah lest she give it to her family members, or lest the marriage is never consummated, the Chachamim once enacted that she may eat Terumah after twelve months of Erusin since, at that point, she begins to receive financial support from her future husband. According to this explanation of Rashi, the Mishnah was redacted at the time this enactment was in effect.)
</p><p>
Rashi cites support for the second explanation from the wording of the Beraisa which states that 'they may not <i>feed</i> Terumah to their wives (Ein Ma'achilin),' rather than 'they <i>invalidate</i> (Poslos) their wives from eating Terumah.' (The Gemara later (75a, 'b'Machlokes Shenuyah') also implies that a Bas Yisrael may <i>begin</i> to eat Terumah based on her marriage to a Kohen to whom she is prohibited.)
</p><p>
The Gemara presents Rebbi Meir's argument, a Kal v'Chomer which teaches that a Gerushah who is betrothed to a Kohen may not eat Terumah: if Kidushin with a man whom the woman is permitted to marry does not allow her to eat Terumah, certainly Kidushin with a man whom she is prohibited from marrying does not allow her to eat Terumah.
</p><p>
Rashi explains, according to the second approach, that the permissible Kidushin in Rebbi Meir's Kal v'Chomer refers to Kidushin with a Yisrael (a non-Kohen). Rebbi Meir argues that if a Bas Yisrael betrothed to a Yisrael may not eat Terumah, certainly a Bas Yisrael who is a divorcee who becomes betrothed to a Kohen (to whom she is prohibited) may not eat Terumah.
</p><p>
Rashi's second explanation of the Gemara is very difficult to understand.
</p><p>
How can Rebbi Meir posit that since a Yisrael does not enable his Arusah, to whom he is permitted, to eat Terumah, certainly a Kohen does not enable his Arusah, who is a Gerushah and to whom he is prohibited, to eat Terumah? There is absolutely no reason why a Yisrael should enable his Arusah to eat Terumah in the first place. Betrothal or marriage to a Yisrael <i>never</i> enables the Arusah to eat Terumah; as non-Kohanim, neither he nor she has any rights to eat Terumah. Rebbi Meir's logic has no basis whatsoever.
</p><p>
Because of this question, all of the Rishonim favor Rashi's first explanation, according to which the Mishnah discusses a <i>Bas Kohen</i> who becomes betrothed to a Kohen. According to that explanation, Rebbi Meir's Kal v'Chomer is based on the case of a <i>Bas Kohen</i> who becomes betrothed to a Yisrael.
</p><p>
Moreover, <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> asks that even according to Rashi's second explanation, the Mishnah does not discuss <i>only</i> a Bas Yisrael who becomes betrothed to a Kohen. It also discusses a Bas Kohen who becomes betrothed to a Kohen. Rebbi Meir teaches two Halachos: the first is that a Bas <i>Yisrael</i> who is a Gerushah who becomes betrothed to a Kohen does not become entitled to eat Terumah, and the second is that a Bas <i>Kohen</i> who is a Gerushah who becomes betrothed to a Kohen becomes <i>disqualified</i> from eating Terumah (which she was permitted to eat until the Erusin).
</p><p>
Why, then, does Rebbi Meir derive the Kal v'Chomer from a Bas <i>Yisrael</i> betrothed to a Yisrael? That Kal v'Chomer proves only that a Bas Yisrael who is a Gerushah does not become <i>entitled</i> to eat Terumah when she becomes betrothed to a Kohen. It does not prove Rebbi Meir's second teaching, that a Bas <i>Kohen</i> who is a Gerushah becomes <i>disqualified</i> from eating Terumah. Rebbi Meir should have derived the Kal v'Chomer from a <i>Bas Kohen</i> betrothed to a Yisrael, who not only does not obtain any rights to eat Terumah but also <i>loses</i> her rights to eat Terumah. That Kal v'Chomer proves both teachings of Rebbi Meir -- that the Bas Kohen <i>loses</i> her right to Terumah through her betrothal to a Kohen to whom she is prohibited, and that a Bas Yisrael certainly may not <i>begin</i> to eat Terumah on the bases of her betrothal to a Kohen to whom she is prohibited.
</p><p>

<b>ANSWER:</b> These strong questions on Rashi's second explanation may be resolved as follows:
</p><p>
According to Rashi's second explanation, Rebbi Meir does not find it necessary to prove that a Bas Kohen betrothed to a Kohen to whom she is prohibited loses her 'rights of Kehunah' which allowed her to eat Terumah until now; this is obvious. Similarly, it should be obvious that a Bas Yisrael does not <i>gain</i> the 'rights of Kehunah' (to eat Terumah) by virtue of her betrothal to such a Kohen. Why, then, does Rebbi Meir find it necessary to prove that a Bas Yisrael does not begin to eat Terumah based on her betrothal to a Kohen to whom she is prohibited?
</p><p>
Rebbi Meir's logic may be understood as follows. A man may eat Terumah only if he is a Kohen, and an unmarried woman may eat Terumah only if she is the daughter of a Kohen. A man who is not a Kohen and a woman who is not a Bas Kohen are prohibited by the Torah from eating Terumah because they have the status of a Zar, a non-Kohen.
</p><p>
However, when a woman becomes married, she enters the domain of her husband through the Kinyan of Kidushin. As the 'Kinyan' of her husband, does she retain the positive status of a Zar, or, as a 'Kinyan,' does she not have the status of a Zar, since a Kinyan is not considered to have its own, individual identity? A person has the status of a Zar only when he eats food by virtue of his own, independent power. Accordingly, when a Bas Yisrael becomes betrothed to a Yisrael and she attains the status of his 'Kinyan,' she might <i>lose</i> her status as a Zar since she no longer has her own, independent identity. One might have thought that since she is not a Zar, she <i>is</i> entitled to eat Terumah! (That is, if a Kohen gives her his Terumah, she may eat it. Obviously, she may not eat Terumah that was not yet given to a Kohen, because such Terumah is the collective property of all Kohanim and is not hers to take.)
</p><p>
Despite this logic, the Torah does not grant a woman the right to eat Terumah when she becomes married to a Yisrael; she does not lose her status of a Zar. Rather, she assumes the status of her husband; his 'Zarus' prevents her from eating Terumah (even though she is only an Arusah and not a Nesu'ah). (His 'Zarus' also prevents his other possessions, such as his servants and animals, from eating Terumah; see <b>TOSFOS</b> to 66b, DH Lo Ya'achilenah, and <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>.)
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rebbi Meir's Kal v'Chomer may be read as follows. When a Bas Yisrael becomes betrothed to a Yisrael (to whom she is permitted), the fact that she is a Kinyan and loses the status of a Zar does not permit her to eat Terumah, since she is subsumed by her husband's 'Zarus,' or <i>lack</i> of Kehunah. If that is the case with a Bas Yisrael who marries a Yisrael, then when a Gerushah becomes betrothed to a Kohen to whom she is forbidden (because she is 'Mishtameres l'Bi'ah Pesulah,' a prohibited relationship is pending), certainly she should not be permitted to eat Terumah. The prohibited relationship makes her a 'pending Zonah' (or Chalalah); it <i>disqualifies</i> her from Kehunah and <i>prevents</i> her from eating Terumah.
</p><p>
This approach answers Rebbi Akiva Eiger's question as well. Rebbi Meir deliberately derives his Kal v'Chomer from the case of a Bas Yisrael betrothed to a Yisrael and not from the case of a Bas Kohen betrothed to a Yisrael. A Bas Kohen who becomes the 'Kinyan' of another person certainly loses her own rights to eat Terumah. This is obvious and needs no proof. However, one might have thought that although she loses her own rights to eat Terumah, she (and a Bas Yisrael who becomes the Arusah of a Kohen) nevertheless does not become a 'Zarah' since her husband is not a Zar. Hence, perhaps she may eat Terumah since she is married to a Kohen.
</p><p>
Rebbi Meir proves that this is not true from the Kal v'Chomer. If an Arusah's relationship with her 'Zar' husband is strong enough to make her a 'Zarah' and prohibit her from eating Terumah, certainly such a relationship is strong enough to cause her to become a 'pending Zonah' (which disqualifies her from Terumah because of the <i>Aveirah</i>) and to disqualify her from eating Terumah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Amram citing Rav Sheshes):</font></b> If a Yisrael's wife was 
          raped, even though she is permitted to her husband, she 
          is disqualified to Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, one who has Bi'ah with any 
          Ervah (...disqualifies her. We do not distinguish between 
          different kinds of Bi'ah.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why does it say 'Similarly'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> We do not distinguish whether he was 
               Shogeg or Mezid, willing or forced. In all cases, 
               she is disqualified!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #1 (and Answer #2):</font></b> No, 'similarly' refers to 
          Ha'ara'ah (it is considered like full Bi'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> For which cases was this taught?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It cannot refer to Arayos, for this would this 
               connote that Ha'ara'ah of Arayos is learned from a 
               Yevamah. But the Torah taught about Ha'ara'ah of 
               Arayos, and Yevamah is learned from Arayos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #2 (and Answer #3):</font></b> Rather, similarly one is 
          liable for Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah with Arayos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Torah taught about Lo k'Darkah of Arayos 
          (and Yevamah is learned from Arayos)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #3 (and Answer #4):</font></b> Rather, similarly one is 
          liable for Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah with Chayavei Lavin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1:</font></b> (Rabah): If a Kohen's wife was raped, her 
          husband is lashed for Bi'ah with her (after this), since 
          she is a Zonah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is he lashed for Zonah, but not for Tum'ah 
          ('Acharei Asher Hutama'ah')?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, he is lashed <i>even</i> for Zonah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Zeira - Beraisa):</font></b> If a married woman 'was 
          not grabbed' she is forbidden. This implies that had she 
          been forced, she would be permitted. In another case even 
          if she was forced, she is forbidden, i.e. a Kohen's wife.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This is a Lav derived from an Aseh, it 
               is like a Mitzvas Aseh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> The rule is, a married woman who was 
          Mezaneh becomes a Zonah. The Torah revealed that if a 
          Yisrael's wife 'was not grabbed' she is forbidden, but if 
          she was forced, she is permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding a Kohen's wife, the rule remains (even if 
               she was forced).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> (Rabah): If a Kohen's wife was raped, her 
          husband is lashed for Bi'ah with her, for Tum'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He is lashed for Tum'ah, but not for Zonah. This 
               shows that she does not become a Zonah when forced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Zeira - Beraisa):</font></b> If a married woman 'was 
          not grabbed' she is forbidden. This implies that had she 
          been forced, she would be permitted. In another case even 
          if she was forced, she is forbidden, i.e. a Kohen's wife.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This is a Lav derived from an Aseh, it 
               is like a Mitzvas Aseh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> The rule is, a married woman who was 
          Mezaneh is forbidden due to Acharei Asher Hutama'ah. The 
          Torah revealed that if a Yisrael's wife 'was not grabbed' 
          she is forbidden, but if she was forced, she is 
          permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding a Kohen's wife, the rule remains.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN A WOMAN EAT 'TERUMAH' EVEN THOUGH SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO HER HUSBAND?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (We adopt Rashi's preferred explanation, DH 
          Almanah) A widow Mekudeshes to a Kohen Gadol or a 
          divorcee or Chalutzah Mekudeshes to a regular Kohen may 
          not eat Terumah (even if she is a Bas Kohen, for she is 
          awaiting forbidden Bi'ah);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit (even if she is a Bas 
          Yisrael, if the time for Nisu'in came but Nisu'in was not 
          yet done).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If they were widowed or divorced from Nisu'in, they are 
          disqualified. If they were widowed or divorced from 
          Kidushin, they are Kesheros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> Kidushin of Heter (a Bas 
          Yisrael to a Yisrael) does not permit a woman to eat 
          Terumah, all the more so Kidushei Isur does not!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim:</font></b> No. Permitted Kidushin (to a Yisrael) never 
          permits eating Terumah (even after Nisu'in). You cannot 
          learn to Kidushei Isur (to a Kohen), which permits eating 
          Terumah (when she is permitted to him)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Oshaya):</font></b> If a Kohen Petzu'a Daka (his private parts 
          were crushed) was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael, R. Meir argues 
          with R. Elazar and R. Shimon about whether or not she may 
          eat Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir forbids a woman (Arusah) awaiting Bi'ah 
               forbidden mid'Oraisa to eat Terumah. Here also, she 
               may not eat;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit a woman awaiting 
               Bi'ah forbidden mid'Oraisa to eat Terumah. Here 
               also, she may eat.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN A WOMAN EAT 'TERUMAH' IF SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO HER HUSBAND?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is not necessarily true!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In our Mishnah, R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit her 
               to eat because her husband can permit other women to 
               eat Terumah. Here, her husband (a Petzu'a Daka) 
               cannot permit any woman to eat!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Also here, he permits a convert's 
               daughter to eat (she may marry a Petzu'a Daka)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> R. Yochanan asked R. Oshaya this (whether 
               or not she may eat), and he never settled it! 
               (Tosfos - the Gemara settles this below. Rashi 
               connotes that R. Oshaya himself never settled it, 
               therefore we cannot use this to defend R. Oshaya.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> Here also, a Petzu'a Daka permits his 
          wife to eat, if he married her before becoming a Petzu'a 
          Daka, and did not have Bi'ah with her after becoming a 
          Petzu'a Daka.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> He permits his Kena'ani slaves to eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Abaye did not answer as Rava, because we learn marriage 
          laws from marriage laws, not from laws of slaves;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Rava did not answer like Abaye, for there is different, 
          for she already ate.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye holds that the fact that she already ate is 
               immaterial.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support:</font></b> If you will not say so, a Bas Yisrael 
               widowed from a Kohen should continue to eat, because 
               she already ate!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Rava):</font></b> There is different, since his 
               Kinyan lapses when he dies. Here, she is still 
               married to the Petzu'a Daka!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'PETZU'A' 'DAKA' MARRIED TO A CONVERT'S DAUGHTER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If a Bas Ger married a Petzu'a 
          Daka, may she eat Terumah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Oshaya was silent.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Later, another great man came and asked a different 
          matter, and R. Oshaya answered his question.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who was this great man?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It was Reish Lakish.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yehudah Nesi'ah:</font></b> Is R. Yochanan not a great man (why 
          didn't you answer him)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Oshaya:</font></b> He asked me a question that needs no answer!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he asks according to R. Yehudah, even if a Kohen 
               (who became a Petzu'a Daka) loses his Kedushah 
               (special marriage Isurim), she does not eat!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he retains his Kedushah, she does not eat, 
                    since R. Yehudah says that a male convert's 
                    daughter is like a Chalal's daughter, and is 
                    forbidden to a Kohen.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> (And even) if he loses his Kedushah she does 
                    not eat, since (R. Yehudah says that) converts 
                    are considered Kehal (the congregation of) 
                    Hash-m, so she may not marry a Petzu'a Daka.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he asks according to R. Yosi, even if he retains 
               his Kedushah, she may eat!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  If he loses his Kedushah she may eat, since R. 
                    Yosi holds that converts are not Kehal Hash-m, 
                    so she may marry a Petzu'a Daka; (Note: we 
                    switched the order of these two lines for 
                    clarity. The Gemara's 'first' side (which we 
                    put second) also relies on 'Lo Ikri Kehal' for 
                    the Heter - see Tosfos DH d'Ha.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> (And even) if he retains his Kedushah she may 
                    eat, since R. Yosi holds that even the daughter 
                    of two converts is permitted to Kehunah.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Rather, he asked according to the following Tana:</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Eliezer ben Yakov):</font></b> A Bas Ger may not 
               marry a Kohen unless her mother is a Bas Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan asked whether being a Bas Yisrael's 
               daughter adds (only) Kashrus (to Kehunah), and 
               therefore she may eat;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Or, perhaps (also) Kedushah is added (she is 
                    called Kehal Hash-m, and is forbidden to a 
                    Petzu'a Daka), and she does not eat?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (to R. Yochanan's question - R. Acha's Beraisa):</font></b> 
          We learn that a Bas Ger married to a Petzu'a Daka may eat 
          Terumah from 'When a Kohen acquires a person... he will 
          eat';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Like whom is this Beraisa?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It is unlike R. Yehudah, who holds that even if 
                    the Kohen loses his Kedushah, she does not eat!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> It is unlike R. Yosi. He holds that even if he 
                    retains his Kedushah, she may eat, so we would 
                    not need a verse to teach this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is like R. Eliezer ben Yakov. This shows 
               that Kashrus is added, and she eats.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'EIN CHUPAH L'PESULOS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether 'Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos' (Rav) or 'Ein Chupah l'Pesulos' (Shmuel). Is the Chupah which a Kohen performs with a Bas Kohen who is not permitted to marry a Kohen (such as a divorcee) considered a valid Chupah such that it terminates her rights to eat Terumah?
</p><p>
The Gemara's discussion seems unnecessary. It should be obvious that such a Chupah disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah. The Mishnah records a dispute among Tana'im whether <i>Erusin</i> (betrothal) with a woman who is Pesulah l'Kehunah disqualifies her from eating Terumah. According to Rebbi Meir who maintains that Erusin disqualifies her from eating Terumah, Chupah certainly should disqualify her since Chupah follows Erusin.
</p><p>
It is unlikely that Shmuel permits the woman to eat Terumah only according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon (in the Mishnah) who permit an Arusah to eat Terumah. If that is his intent, Rami bar Chama (at the end of the page) should say simply, 'Ein Chupah l'Pesulos,' like Shmuel. Instead, Rami bar Chama says, 'Just as the Tana'im of the Mishnah argue with regard to Erusin, they argue with regard to 'Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos.'' His words imply that according to Shmuel <i>all</i> of the Tana'im in the Mishnah agree that 'Ein Chupah l'Pesulos.'
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Yesh Chupah) explains that the case in which Rav and Shmuel disagree is a Chupah <i>without</i> Kidushin (the word 'Kidushin' is synonymous with 'Erusin'). <b>TOSFOS</b> elucidates and says that Rashi means that the Gemara here follows the opinion of Rav Huna in Kidushin (5a) who says that Chupah may be performed as a form of Kidushin, like 'Kesef' and 'Shtar.' Why, though, does it have less of an effect on the woman than an ordinary act of Erusin? According to Shmuel, Chupah works to accomplish Kidushin by demonstrating 'Kiruv Bi'ah' -- it shows that the man is beginning to bring the woman into his home and to feel comfortable with her. Accordingly, Chupah can work only with a woman to whom he is permitted. Chupah with a woman to whom he is prohibited accomplishes nothing because it cannot serve as a sign of 'Kiruv Bi'ah,' as Bi'ah is prohibited.
</p><p>
When the Gemara later (58a) applies Shmuel's ruling to a case of a Chupah done <i>after</i> Kidushin, it does so only because Shmuel maintains that Chupah cannot accomplish Nisu'in with a woman who is Pesulah l'Kehunah (for the same reason it cannot accomplish Erusin with such a woman). Even though she entered the Chupah, the act is meaningless and is as if nothing was done. When the Gemara here discusses whether or not such a Chupah disqualifies her from eating Terumah, it must refer to a Chupah done in order to effect Kidushin (for, otherwise, the Erusin already disqualified her from Terumah), but the same question would apply to a Chupah done after Kidushin (does such a Chupah give her the status of a Nesu'ah or not?).
</p><p>
(b) The words of Rashi, however, imply a different intent. Rashi later (58a, DH l'Rebbi Meir) cites the opinion which disagrees with Rav Huna in Kidushin. Rashi writes that Chupah cannot be Koneh a woman at all without an act of Kidushei Kesef, Shtar, or Bi'ah, even when the woman is permitted to marry the man and is not Pesulah. The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RITVA</b> also assert that Rashi does <i>not</i> mean to explain the Gemara according to the opinion that Chupah effects Kidushin, but only according to the opinion that Chupah effects Nisu'in. This is also the understanding of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Terumos 7:21).
</p><p>
The Rishonim, however, question Rashi's explanation. How can a Chupah which precedes Kidushin disqualify the woman? Such a Chupah is meaningless and accomplishes nothing! The Rashba answers that even though Chupah cannot be Koneh in place of Kidushin, the Chachamim enacted (perhaps as a penalty; see Ritva) that she becomes prohibited from eating Terumah since she has brought herself closer to Bi'ah Pesulah. (The Ritva, who considers this suggestion as well, rejects it on logical grounds.)
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi maintains that an act of Chupah accomplishes something even when it is done before Kidushin: if a proper Kidushin is later done, the act of Chupah done before Kidushin suffices and it is unnecessary to do another act of Chupah <i>after</i> Kidushin (as cited in the name of Rashi by the <b>HAGAHOS MORDECHAI</b>, Kidushin #546). Rashi alludes to this view in Kidushin (10b, DH Heichi Dami), as the <b>RASHASH</b> mentions.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the Gemara's question applies to a case of Chupah done before Kidushin. The Gemara is in doubt whether such a Chupah with a woman who is Pesulah is <i>more</i> of a cause (than Erusin with a Pesulah) to disqualify her from eating Terumah, because the act of Chupah brings her closer to the Bi'ah which will disqualify her from Terumah. On the other hand, Chupah done before Kidushin might be <i>less</i> of a reason to disqualify her from Terumah because it does not accomplish a 'Kinyan' by itself (without Kidushin), as opposed to Kidushin which <i>is</i> a Kinyan by itself. (When Rashi later discusses the opinion of Rav Sheshes (58a, DH u'Shema Minah), he also alludes to the possibility that Chupah with a Pesulah does not disqualify her from eating Terumah because it cannot create Nisu'in at all when the woman is not permitted to the husband, as Tosfos suggests (see (a) above).)
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that the Gemara refers to a Chupah performed after Erusin. The reason why Shmuel says that even Rebbi Meir permits her to eat Terumah is that he refers to a case in which the woman was <i>widowed or divorced</i> after the Chupah but before the Bi'ah. The Mishnah says that when a woman is divorced as an Arusah (after Erusin and before Nisu'in), even Rebbi Meir agrees that she may continue to eat Terumah. When a woman is divorced as a Nesu'ah (after Nisu'in), even Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon agree that she may <i>not</i> continue to eat Terumah. The dispute between Rav and Shmuel is whether a divorce after the Chupah (but before Bi'ah) is equivalent to a divorce during Erusin or to a divorce during Nisu'in. Rami bar Chama compromises and says that according to Rebbi Meir (who is more stringent) it is like a divorce from Nisu'in, but according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon (who are more lenient) it is like a divorce from Erusin.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'CHUPAH' OF A 'PESULAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos (Chupah takes effect even if 
          she is forbidden to him. Rashi - even though Bi'ah is 
          Asur, Chupah makes Kidushin (like Rav Huna, Kidushin 5a). 
          Tosfos - Rav teaches that Chupah after Kidushin 
          disqualifies her, even without Bi'ah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Ein Chupah l'Pesulos (it does not take effect).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Rav admits regarding a girl under three years 
          and a day. Since Bi'ah with her is not considered Bi'ah, 
          Chupah does not take effect on her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support	(Rava- Mishnah):</font></b> The following apply to a girl 
          (at least) three years and one day:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One can Mekadesh her through Bi'ah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She is acquired to her Yavam through Yibum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> One who has Bi'ah with her is liable for Eshes Ish 
               (if she is married);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> (If she is Nidah,) one who has Bi'ah with her 
               becomes Tamei (due to Bo'el Nidah), and he is 
               Metamei a Mishkav (a Keli made to sit on it) under 
               him (even if he does not touch it) to be (a Rishon 
               l'Tum'ah,) like a Keli above a Zav;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> If she is married to a Kohen, she may eat Terumah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> If a man has Bi'as Isur with her, he disqualifies 
               her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> If she is three years and one day, Bi'ah 
               disqualifies her, so also Chupah does. If she is 
               younger, Bi'ah does not disqualify her, so neither 
               does Chupah.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'CHUPAH' OF 'PESULOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos depends on the 
          dispute between R. Meir and R. Elazar and R. Shimon:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir holds that Kidushin disqualifies, so also 
               Chupah disqualifies;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar and R. Shimon hold that Kidushin does not 
               disqualify, so neither does Chupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This is not necessarily true!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps R. Meir says that Kidushin disqualifies, 
               since it acquires. Chupah does not acquire!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Perhaps R. Elazar and R. Shimon say that Kidushin 
               does not disqualify because it is not close to 
               Bi'ah. Chupah is close to Bi'ah, so it disqualifies!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Rather, the following Tana'im argue about this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a woman married (a Kohen), whether she is 
          Kosher or Pasul (to Kehunah), or if she had Chupah 
          without Bi'ah, she is fed by her husband and she may eat 
          Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'She had Chupah (without Bi'ah)' implies 
               that (the Reisha,) 'she was married' means with 
               Bi'ah. (But this cannot be, for then she could not 
               eat Terumah!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Seifa explains the Reisha, that 'She was 
               married' means Chupah without Bi'ah, and she eats 
               Terumah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yishmael, the son of R. Yochanan ben Berokah 
               says, Chupah permits a girl to eat Terumah only if 
               Bi'ah permits her to eat Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection::</font></b> Perhaps they do not argue about Yesh Chupah 
          l'Pesulos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps R. Yishmael holds like R. Meir, 
               that she does not eat during Kidushin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> If so, why does he say that Chupah 
               permits a girl to eat only if Bi'ah permits her? He 
               should say that (Kidushin) money permits a girl only 
               if Bi'ah permits her!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Since the first Tana discussed Chupah, also 
               R. Yishmael did.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Amram):</font></b> Rav Sheshes taught that Yesh Chupah 
          l'Pesulos, and a Mishnah supports this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> (A Sotah answers) 'Amen', that I was not 
               Mezaneh when Mekudeshes, married, Shomeres Yavam 
               (when awaiting Yibum), or after Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case of Mekudeshes?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> He warned her and took her to drink 
               during Eirusin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> An Arusah does not drink!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> An Arusah or a Shomeres Yavam does 
                    not drink or receive her Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, he warned her and she was 
               secluded during Eirusin, and he took her to drink 
               after Nisu'in.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> (It was forbidden to have Nisu'in with 
               her after seclusion, so) the water would not test 
               her!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'The man will be clean from sin' - 
                    the water tests her only if her husband is 
                    clean from sin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #3:</font></b> Rather, he warned her and she was 
               secluded during Eirusin, and he had Chupah without 
               Bi'ah. This teaches that Chupah takes effect on 
               Pesulos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> The Mishnah cannot be correct!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Other than your husband' - the water 
               tests her only if her husband had Bi'ah with her 
               before the adulterer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> Her husband had Bi'ah with 
          her during Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The corresponding case of a Shomeres Yavam is 
          when the Yavam had Bi'ah with her in her father's house 
          (i.e. while awaiting Yibum). If so she is not called 
          Shomeres Yavam. She is a full wife!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) SUMMARY: HOW A SHOMERES YAVAM BECOMES A SOTAH</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara cites proof from the Mishnah in Sotah for Rav's opinion that 'Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos' -- the Chupah which a Kohen performs with a Bas Kohen who is not permitted to marry a Kohen (such as a divorcee) is considered a valid Chupah and terminates her rights to eat Terumah (see previous Insight). The Mishnah (Sotah 18a) discusses the oath of a Sotah, a woman suspected of adultery. The woman takes this oath when she drinks the 'Mei Sotah,' the special water which determines whether or not she was disloyal to her husband.
</p><p>
The Mishnah there says that she takes an oath that she did not sin at any stage of her marriage, while she was an 'Arusah, Nesu'ah, Shomeres Yavam, or Kenusah.' When, though, does she drink the Mei Sotah? The Mishnah cannot mean that she drinks the Mei Sotah when she is an Arusah, because an Arusah accused of adultery does not drink the Mei Sotah, as the Mishnah later states (Sotah 23b). Rather, the Mishnah must refer to a case in which her husband warned her ('Kinuy') not to isolate herself with another man while she was an Arusah, and she violated his warning and isolated herself with that man (Stirah). She then entered the Chupah with her husband and became a Nesu'ah (fully married). Her husband can obligate her to drink the Mei Sotah now because she is a Nesu'ah, even though his act of Nisu'in (Chupah) with her was an act of Nisu'in with a Pesulah (a woman he may not marry), since she was prohibited to him from the time of the Stirah. Accordingly, the Mishnah in Sotah is proof that 'Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos,' as Rav says.
</p><p>
The Gemara adds that an Arusah can become a Sotah only if she lived with her husband during Erusin before she sinned, because one of the conditions necessary for a woman to become a Sotah is that her husband must have had relations with her before the adulterer.
</p><p>
The Gemara challenges the proof from the Mishnah. The Mishnah is problematic in any case because it also states that a Sotah must take an oath that she did not sin while she was a Shomeres Yavam. It is not possible for a woman to have sinned while she was a Shomeres Yavam. Hence, no proof can be cited from that Mishnah. 
</p><p>
The Gemara does not explain <i>why</i> it is not possible for a woman to be a Sotah while she is a Shomeres Yavam. <b>RASHI</b> (58b) presents two ways to understand the Gemara's statement. Rashi's words, however, are terse and need clarification. How does each approach understand the Gemara, and what is the differences between the two approaches? 
</p><p>
In order to answer these questions, some words of introduction are necessary:
</p><p>
The Mishnah in Sotah (18a) states that a woman can become a Sotah for a suspected sin which she may have committed as an Arusah or Shomeres Yavam. This Mishnah, however, contradicts another Mishnah there (23b) which states that an Arusah and Shomeres Yavam are not eligible to drink the Mei Sotah. 
</p><p>
The Gemara here answers that the first Mishnah (which states that an Arusah <i>can</i> become a Sotah) must refer to a case in which her husband warned her ('Kinuy') not to isolate herself with another man while she was an Arusah, and she violated his warning and isolated herself with that man (Stirah). After the Nisu'in (when she becomes fully married), her husband can obligate her to drink the Mei Sotah.
</p><p>
The Gemara addresses two problems with this answer: 
</p><p>
A woman can become a Sotah only if she had relations with her husband before she sinned. If she violated his warning against Stirah when she was an Arusah or Shomeres Yavam, she did not yet have the opportunity to live with her husband and thus she should not be able to become a Sotah.
</p><p>
Moreover, in order to change her status from an Arusah or Shomeres Yavam to a Nesu'ah, the husband must perform Nisu'in with her through an act of Bi'ah. However, if she violated his warning against Stirah when she was an Arusah, she is prohibited to him. A man who has prohibited relations with his wife after her Stirah (when he is no longer 'Menukeh me'Avon,' or 'clean of any wrongdoing' himself) cannot obligate his wife to drink the Mei Sotah.
</p><p>
These two problems may be expressed as two basic questions: How is it possible that the husband had relations with his Arusah <i>before</i> the adulterer did, and how is it possible that he had relations (to make her his wife through Nisu'in) <i>after</i> the adulterer did?
</p><p>
The Gemara resolves these two questions in a straightforward manner. The Gemara explains that the husband had relations with his Arusah <i>before</i> the adulterer -- he lived with her illicitly ('l'Shem Z'nus') when she was still in her father's home. As for how it was possible for the husband to have relations with her <i>after</i> the adulterer did, indeed it was not possible; he did <i>not</i> have relations with her after the adulterer did. In order to effect Nisu'in and make her a Nesu'ah, Bi'ah is not necessary. Chupah without Bi'ah also constitutes a valid Nisu'in, even when the Chupah is performed with a woman to whom he is prohibited (this is the proof for Rav that 'Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos').
</p><p>
However, the Gemara does not resolve its questions about how a Shomeres Yavam could become a Sotah. It is at this point that Rashi offers two different explanations for the Gemara's question.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI'S FIRST EXPLANATION</b>. Rashi explains that the Gemara seeks to clarify how the Shomeres Yavam could have had relations with the Yavam <i>before</i> the woman's Stirah. If she lived with the Yavam, she became his wife through Yibum and was no longer a Shomeres Yavam at the time of the Stirah. The Gemara suggests that perhaps the Bi'ah was done b'Shogeg or b'Ones; such a Bi'ah is not a valid form of Yibum to create Nisu'in (according to Shmuel) but only to create Erusin, and thus it is still possible to call her a Shomeres Yavam.
</p><p>
This answer does not suffice according to Rav (who says that a Bi'ah done b'Shogeg or b'Ones is valid in all respects), and thus the Gemara suggests another answer. The Gemara says that the Mishnah expresses the view of Beis Shamai and refers to a case in which the Yavam did Ma'amar. After Ma'amar, a Bi'ah done b'Shogeg or b'Ones is not a valid form of Yibum even according to Rav (as the Gemara mentions earlier on 29b). The Yavam's act of Ma'amar transforms the bond of Zikah into an Erusin-like bond which must culminate in Nisu'in. A Bi'ah done b'Shogeg or b'Ones during an Erusin-like bond cannot accomplish Nisu'in.
</p><p>
This explanation is problematic in two ways.
</p><p>
1. This approach does not address the Gemara's second question concerning a Shomeres Yavam: how can the Yavam perform Nisu'in (Yibum) with the Yevamah after her Stirah and yet remain 'Menukeh me'Avon'? Bi'ah is the only way to marry her in this case (Yibum), but if he does Bi'ah he will not be 'Menukeh me'Avon.'
</p><p>
(One might argue that after Bi'ah is done b'Shogeg, a Shomeres Yavam can become a Sotah even without having done Yibum, since a partial Kinyan has been made. However, that partial Kinyan resembles Erusin, and a woman cannot become a Sotah during Erusin. Moreover, the Gemara in Sotah (24b) implies that a Shomeres Yavam cannot become a Sotah even after such a Bi'ah.)
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH d'Kavasah) answers that the Mishnah in Sotah (18a) cited by the Gemara here expresses the opinion of Rebbi Yoshiyah (see Sotah 24b) who maintains that a Shomeres Yavam <i>may</i> drink the Mei Sotah even before she becomes a Nesu'ah. According to Rebbi Yoshiyah, it is not necessary for the Yavam to do Yibum with her before she may drink the Mei Sotah.
</p><p>
2. Another problem is that according to this explanation, the Gemara takes sides on an issue which was left unresolved earlier (29b): can Ma'amar (according to Beis Shamai) transform the Zikah into an Erusin-like bond and prevent Bi'as Shogeg from completing the Yibum? If the Gemara here decides that Ma'amar <i>does</i> transform the Zikah into an Erusin-like bond, it should have concluded as such earlier.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI'S SECOND EXPLANATION</b>. Rashi explains that the Gemara addresses the second question: how can the Yavam marry the Shomeres Yavam through Yibum? A woman is eligible to drink the Mei Sotah only as a Nesu'ah. However, if the Yavam makes her his Nesu'ah by doing Bi'as Yibum with her, he is no longer 'Menukeh me'Avon.' The Gemara does not address the first question, how the husband is able to do Bi'ah with the Yevamah before the adulterer, because the Gemara understands that the Bi'ah which the <i>original</i> brother did with his wife (before he died) suffices to fulfill the condition that the 'husband's Bi'ah precede the adulterer's.'
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that according to Shmuel, the Yavam did Bi'ah b'Shogeg or b'Ones. (This does not mean that <i>after</i> the Stirah he did Bi'ah b'Shogeg or b'Ones and that he is 'Menukeh me'Avon' because his act -- although prohibited -- was done b'Ones. If this were the case, the Gemara would not need to continue. Even according to Rav who maintains that Bi'as Ones constitutes a valid act of Yibum, the same explanation may be given to explain how the woman becomes a Nesu'ah while the Yavam remains 'Menukeh me'Avon.' Although she drinks the Mei Sotah when she is a Nesu'ah, the Mishnah calls her a 'Shomeres Yavam' because the Kinuy and Stirah occurred while she was a Shomeres Yavam, as the Gemara suggests later (58b) with regard to an Arusah. Since the Gemara does not consider this an appropriate answer for the opinion of Rav, this answer must be understood in a manner similar to Rashi's first explanation, as follows.)
</p><p>
The Gemara means that the Yavam did Bi'ah b'Shogeg or b'Ones <i>before</i> the woman became a Sotah. Since she is not fully acquired by the Yavam with a Bi'as Shogeg or Ones (according to Shmuel), she still is called a 'Shomeres Yavam.' On the other hand, she <i>can</i> become a Sotah after a Bi'as Shogeg or Ones even though she still is a Yevamah, since she can be called 'Tachas Ishech,' in a state of matrimony, to a certain degree.
</p><p>
This explanation resolves the first problem with the first explanation of Rashi. According to this approach, the Gemara here clearly argues with the Gemara in Sotah (24b). The Gemara there says that a Yevamah cannot become a Sotah, even if Bi'as Shogeg or Mezid was done (this is the view of Rebbi Yonasan, who disagrees with Rebbi Yoshiyah as cited above). However, the Gemara there also states that the Bi'ah which the original brother did with his wife (before he died) does <i>not</i> suffice to fulfill the condition that the 'husband's Bi'ah precede the adulterer's.' It was this point which forces the Gemara there to conclude that after Bi'as Shogeg u'Mezid the Yevamah still cannot become a Sotah. Since the Gemara here disagrees in that respect, it is able to conclude that after Bi'as Shogeg u'Mezid the woman <i>is</i> able to become a Sotah and <i>is</i> considered 'Tachas Ishech.' (This approach also provides an answer to TOSFOS' questions on Rashi in Kidushin 27b, DH Hachi Garsinan.)
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that even according to Rav, there is a way for the Yavam to be Koneh the Yevamah only partially, so that she is 'Tachas Ishech' but not yet in the category of a Nesu'ah. This is accomplished through Ma'amar, according to Beis Shamai. Ma'amar with a Yevamah achieves a Kinyan similar to Nisu'in, as it gives the Yevamah the status of 'Tachas Ishech.' However, Ma'amar does not complete the Nisu'in until it is followed by Chupah, and thus she is still called a 'Shomeres Yavam.'
</p><p>
This explanation also resolves the second problem with Rashi's first explanation. The Gemara is not taking sides in the question of whether <i>Bi'as Shogeg u'Mezid after Ma'amar</i> is a valid Yibum. The Gemara here refers to Ma'amar which is <i>not</i> followed by Bi'as Shogeg u'Mezid; such a Bi'ah certainly does not serve to be Koneh a Yevamah completely (just as Erusin without Chupah does not serve to be Koneh a woman completely; see Rashi and Tosfos, 29b).
</p><p>
(This explanation leaves one matter unresolved. Rashi earlier (29b) writes that Ma'amar with a Yevamah is only a Kinyan <i>d'Rabanan</i>, even according to Beis Shamai. If Ma'amar is only mid'Rabanan, then mid'Oraisa she is not really a Nesu'ah after Ma'amar. How, then, can she drink the Mei Sotah after Ma'amar? According to Rashi's first explanation, since Bi'ah was done with the Ma'amar, it certainly effects a complete Kinyan mid'Oraisa and thus the Yevamah can become a Sotah. According to the second explanation, however, since Ma'amar was done without Bi'ah, why should the Yevamah be able to drink the Mei Sotah if, mid'Oraisa, she is not a Nesu'ah?)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav said that Bi'ah (without intent for Yibum) 
               acquires in all respects; Shmuel said that it 
               acquires only for what is written in the Parashah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This Mishnah was brought to support Rav. He cannot 
               explain why it calls her Shomeres Yavam!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The case is, he gave her a Ma'amar. The 
          Mishnah is like Beis Shamai, who say that a Ma'amar fully 
          acquires.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, that is the same as Arusah (the 
               Mishnah listed them as separate cases)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Counter-question:</font></b> You must admit that 'married' 
                    and 'after Yibum' are the same!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> You must say that 'married' refers to 
                    his own wife, and 'after Yibum' refers to his 
                    brother's wife;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Similarly, 'Arusah' refers to his own wife, 
               and 'Shomeres Yavam' to his brother's wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Papa):</font></b> The Tana of our Mishnah is the Tana 
          of the following Beraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> We do not warn an Arusah in order to make 
               her drink during Eirusin, but we warn her to make 
               her drink after Nisu'in.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> The oath (that she 
          was not Mezaneh at any of these times) includes the 
          period of Eirusin through Gilgul. (Once she must swear 
          about the seclusion after Nisu'in, we make her swear also 
          about during Eirusin.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT DISQUALIFIES A 'YEVAMAH' FROM EATING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chanina citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If Reuven gave a Ma'amar 
          to his Yevamah, and he has a brother, even if he and she 
          are Kohanim, he disqualifies her from Terumah. (She is 
          like one awaiting forbidden Bi'ah, i.e. with Reuven's 
          brother.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> According to whom is this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #1:</font></b> It is like R. Meir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> R. Meir forbids a woman awaiting Bi'ah 
               forbidden mid'Oraisa. We have no source when the 
               Bi'ah is Asur mid'Rabanan!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #2:</font></b> It is like R. Elazar and R. Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> They permit a woman awaiting Bi'ah 
               forbidden mid'Oraisa, all the more so, if the Bi'ah 
               is forbidden mid'Rabanan!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravin):</font></b> Rather, if he gave to her a Ma'amar, all (R. 
          Yochanan and Reish Lakish) permit her to eat. If he has a 
          brother that is a Chalal, all forbid her to eat;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about when he gave to her a Get - R. 
               Yochanan permits her to eat, and Reish Lakish 
               forbids.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan permits, for even R. Meir forbids only 
               when she is forbidden mid'Oraisa. When the Isur is 
               mid'Rabanan, even he permits!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish forbids, for even R. Elazar and R. 
               Shimon permit only when the husband can permit 
               others to eat. Here, he cannot permit (a woman to 
               whom he gave a Get) to eat!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> He permits a Bas Kohen (whom he divorced) 
               to return to eat Terumah in her father's house!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That is because she is detached from him and 
               close to her father. A Yevamah is tied to the Yavam!
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN 'ARUSAH' WHO BECAME FORBIDDEN TO A 'KOHEN' 'GADOL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she was widowed or divorced...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Chiya bar Yosef):</font></b> If a Kohen Gadol was 
          Mekadesh a minor and she became a Bogeres, may he make 
          Nisu'in?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Does it depends on (the time of) Nisu'in (he may not 
               marry a Bogeres)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, does it depend on Kidushin (then, she was 
               permitted)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel - Mishnah):</font></b> If she was widowed or divorced 
          from Nisu'in, she is Pesulah. If she was widowed or 
          divorced from Eirusin, she is Kesherah (the Pesul depends 
          on Nisu'in).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Clarification of question (R. Chiya):</font></b> I did not ask if he 
          makes her a Chalalah (disqualified from Kehunah). Only 
          Bi'ah does that!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'V'Hu Ishah bi'Vsuleha <i>Yikach</i>' - does this refer 
               to Kidushin or Nisu'in?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel - Mishnah):</font></b> If a Kohen was Mekadesh a 
          widow and was appointed Kohen Gadol, he may marry her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> That case is different. 'Yikach Ishah' permits 
          it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The same verse permits if she became a Bogeres 
          during Eirusin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The verse permits only one case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why should it permit when he was appointed 
          Kohen Gadol, and not when she became a Bogeres?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In the latter case, her body changed. In the 
          former case, it did not.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHOM A 'KOHEN' 'GADOL' MAY MARRY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Kohen Gadol may not marry a widow, whether 
          from Eirusin or Nisu'in;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  He may not marry a Bogeres;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  He may not marry a Mukas Etz (one who lost her Besulim 
          (tokens of virginity) through an accident, not through 
          Bi'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> 'Almanah... Lo Yikach' - whether from 
          Kidushin or Nisu'in.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that we learn from Tamar. 
          She was widowed from Nisu'in and she was called Almanah. 
          Perhaps also the Almanah forbidden to a Kohen Gadol is 
          only from Nisu'in!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why don't we learn that way?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Presumably, a widow resembles a divorcee (which 
          is written adjacent to it). A divorcee is forbidden even 
          from Eirusin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He may not marry a Bogeres.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> 'He will take a woman bi'Vsuleha' - 
          this excludes a Bogeres, whose Besulim are depleted;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit a Bogeres.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Meir says, 'Besulah' connotes having some 
          Besulim. 'Besulehah' connotes having all of them. 
          'Bi'Vsulehah' connotes virginity in the place of normal 
          Bi'ah, but not necessarily in the place of Lo k'Darkah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar and R. Shimon say that 'Besulah' connotes 
               all the Besulim. Besulehah connotes even some. 
               Bi'Vsulehah mandates virginity even in the place of 
               Lo k'Darkah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah disqualifies a woman from a 
          Kohen (Gadol).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> 'She will be a wife <i>to him</i> 
          (the man who raped her)' - a woman permitted to him. This 
          excludes a widow to a Kohen Gadol, and a divorcee or 
          Chalutzah to a regular Kohen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> If a Kohen Gadol raped her k'Darkah, 
               even if she is not a widow she is forbidden to him 
               since she is not a virgin!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Conclusion:</font></b> We must say that he raped her Lo 
               k'Darkah. She is forbidden to him because she is a 
               widow, but not because she is not a virgin!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'BI'AH SHE'LO K'DARKAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses the view of Rav who maintains that a woman who has relations 'she'Lo k'Darkah' becomes Pesulah l'Kehunah, disqualified from marrying the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara questions his view from a Beraisa which implies that she does <i>not</i> become Pesulah l'Kehunah. The Gemara answers that whether she becomes disqualified to a Kohen Gadol depends on the argument between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar (mentioned on 59a). Rav rules like Rebbi Elazar who is more stringent and maintains that Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah disqualifies her from marrying the Kohen Gadol.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that if Rav rules like Rebbi Elazar, why does he say that she may not marry a Kohen Gadol because she is a Be'ulah? According to Rebbi Elazar, any Bi'ah with a man with whom she is not married ('Panuy ha'Ba Al ha'Penuyah') renders a woman a Zonah. Consequently, this woman also may not marry an ordinary Kohen because she is a <i>Zonah</i>.
</p><p>
There are two difficulties with this Gemara.
</p><p>
(a) Why does the Gemara assume that Rav rules specifically like Rebbi Elazar? Rebbi Elazar is not the only Tana who is stringent with regard to Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah; Rebbi Shimon is also of that opinion! The Gemara should say that Rav rules like <i>Rebbi Shimon</i>, and it would have no question that the woman is Pesulah because she is a Zonah since Rebbi Shimon does not maintain that Bi'ah out of wedlock renders a woman a Zonah.
</p><p>
(b) Why does the Gemara challenge the ruling of <i>Rav</i>, who says that the woman is disqualified from marrying a Kohen Gadol because she is a <i>Be'ulah</i> but not because she is a <i>Zonah</i>? The Gemara should pose this question directly to Rebbi Elazar himself! Rebbi Elazar says that a verse teaches that Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah renders a woman a Be'ulah and thus disqualifies her from marrying a Kohen Gadol. Why does Rebbi Elazar need a special verse to teach this? Such a woman is already Pesulah because she is a <i>Zonah</i>!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Rishonim suggest several answers to the first question. 
</p><p>
1. The <b>RASHBA</b> (here and in Teshuvos 1:1231) answers that the Gemara prefers to say that Rav rules like <i>both</i> Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, rather than to say that he rules like only one of them (Rebbi Shimon). For this reason, the Gemara goes out of its way to explain Rav's ruling according to Rebbi Elazar.
</p><p>
2. The <b>RASHBA</b> (Teshuvos ibid.) adds that if Rav follows the view of Rebbi Shimon, his statement here teaches nothing new, other than that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Shimon. Therefore, the Gemara assumes that Rav follows the view of Rebbi Elazar, in which case Rav indeed teaches something new. He teaches that although an act of Bi'ah out of wedlock renders a woman a Zonah, nevertheless there are types of Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah which do <i>not</i> render her a Zonah (such as Bi'ah with a Behemah, or Bi'ah with a Mema'enes, as the Gemara concludes).
</p><p>
3. The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> suggests that the Gemara would not gain anything by saying that Rav rules like Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Elazar that a Bi'ah out of wedlock renders a woman a Zonah, as is evident from the Gemara in Sanhedrin (51a).
</p><p>
(b) Why does the Gemara not ask its question on Rebbi Elazar himself? The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that Rebbi Elazar interprets the verse to mean that <i>besides</i> the Isur of Zonah, an additional Isur -- Be'ulah -- disqualifies her from marrying a Kohen Gadol. The verse teaches merely that there is an additional Isur. Rav's statement, on the other hand, implies that the <i>only</i> reason she is disqualified from marrying a Kohen Gadol is that she is a Be'ulah (since he mentions only that she is forbidden because she is a Be'ulah and he does not mention that she is forbidden because she is a Zonah).
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is like R. Meir. Rav rules like R. 
          Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Elazar, she is even a Zonah 
          (and forbidden to any Kohen)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Elazar):</font></b> If a bachelor had Bi'ah with a single 
               girl not l'Shem Kidushin, he makes her a Zonah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The case is, she had Bi'ah with an 
          animal. She is not a virgin, but is not a Zonah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> This is unreasonable!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she is not a virgin, she is also a Zonah! If she 
               is a virgin, she is not a Zonah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> She is Asur to a Kohen Gadol because she 
               is a Mukas Etz in the place of Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If Mukas Etz applies there, every girl is 
               a Mukas Etz due to rocks (used to clean herself 
               after defecating)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(u)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Zeira):</font></b> She did Mi'un.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DISQUALIFICATIONS TO A 'KOHEN' 'GADOL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Simi bar Chiya):</font></b> A girl that had Bi'ah with an 
          animal is Kesherah to Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If she had Bi'ah with one who is not a 
          man, even though she is liable to be stoned, she is 
          Kesherah to Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> A case occurred in Heisalo in which a dog had 
          Bi'ah with a girl. Rebbi permitted her to a Kohen 
          (Gadol).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Shmuel):</font></b> There was no Kohen Gadol in Rebbi's 
          day! Rather, he said that she is fit for a Kohen Gadol.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava mi'Parzika):</font></b> What is the source that Zenus 
          does not apply to animals?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> 'The hire of a harlot, or what is 
          traded for a dog, (both of them may not be offered for a 
          Korban)';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> One may offer the hire of a dog (for 
               bestiality), or what is traded for a Zonah. 'Both of 
               them' are forbidden, not all four combinations.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A Kohen Gadol may not marry a woman he himself 
          raped or enticed. If he married her, he is married;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  He may not marry a woman raped or enticed by another man.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, if he married her, the child 
          is a Chalal;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say that the child is Kosher.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHOM A 'KOHEN' 'GADOL' MAY MARRY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Kohen Gadol married (a woman he himself 
          raped or enticed), he is married.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> He must divorce her with a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says 'he is (i.e. may remain) 
          married'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> (If an enticer does not 
          marry the girl, he pays a fine.) He is married regarding 
          exemption from the fine (but he must divorce her).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Rav and R. Yochanan say that he may 
          not marry a Bogeres or Mukas Etz. If he married one of 
          them, he is married!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He may stay married because any girl he marries will 
               eventually become a Bogeres and Mukas Etz anyway.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Here also he should be allowed to stay married, for 
               any girl he marries will eventually have Bi'ah with 
               him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  This question is left difficult.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> He may not marry a woman raped or enticed by 
          another man;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  If he married her, R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that the son 
          is a Chalal;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, he is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1:</font></b> (Rav): The Halachah follows R. Eliezer ben 
          Yakov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Question (Rav):</font></b> What is the reason of R. 
          Eliezer ben Yakov?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> He holds like R. Elazar (who says that a 
          woman becomes a Zonah for Zenus).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This cannot be!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We hold that the teachings of R. Eliezer ben Yakov 
               are Kav (few; R. Chananel - 102, the Gematriya of 
               Kav) and clean (the Halachah always follows him).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow R. Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  This is left difficult.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds that a 
          Chalal results from Chayavei Aseh. Chachamim say that it 
          does not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer ben Yakov learns from 'A widow, divorcee, 
               Chalalah or Zonah, these he will not marry, but 
               rather a virgin... he will not profane his seed'. 
               All these Isurim profane his seed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, the word 'these' interrupts. Only 
               Isurim listed before this word profane his seed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, 'these' excludes a Nidah 
               (she does not profane his seed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Like whom is the following?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> A Chalal results from these, but not from 
               a Nidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is like R. Eliezer ben Yakov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Eliezer ben Yakov, the word 
          'these' should have been written at the end (since all 
          the Isurim mentioned make a Chalal)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b></b>  This is left difficult.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN DOES A 'KOHEN' BECOME 'TAMEI' FOR HIS SISTER?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yehudah):</font></b> A Kohen makes himself 
          Tamei to bury his sister if she was Mekudeshes;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi and R. Shimon say that he does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If she was raped or enticed, all agree he does not 
          Metamei himself for her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, if she is a Mukas Etz he does not Metamei 
          himself, for a Kohen is Metamei himself for a sister only 
          if she was permitted to a Kohen Gadol.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  All say that he is Metamei himself for a Bogeres.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason of R. Meir and R. Yehudah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'To his virgin sister' excludes one who was raped 
          or enticed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We should exclude even a Mukas Etz!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Asher Lo <i>Haysah</i> l'Ish' - one whose 
               Havayah (loss of virginity) was through a man. This 
               excludes a Mukas Etz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  'That is close' includes an Arusah. 'To him' includes a 
          Bogeres.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why must a verse include Bogeres? R. Meir holds 
          that 'Besulah' includes one who has even some Besulim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought a Gezeirah Shavah 
          'Besulah-Besulah' from there (Rashi - a virgin that is 
          raped; Tosfos - from a girl fit for a Kohen Gadol) 
          teaches that she must be a Na'arah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The verse teaches that we do not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do R. Yosi and R. Shimon learn?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'To his virgin sister' excludes one who was raped 
          or enticed and a Mukas Etz;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'That was not (married)' excludes an Arusah; 'that 
               is close' includes an Arusah who was divorced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'To him' includes a Bogeres.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How can 'That is close' include an Arusah 
               who was divorced? R. Shimon says that he is Metamei 
               himself for a sister only if she may marry a Kohen 
               Gadol!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MAY A KOHEN GADOL REMAIN MARRIED TO A 'BE'ULAS ATZMO'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav and Rebbi Yochanan rule that a Kohen Gadol may not marry a 'Bogeres' or 'Mukas Etz,' but if he does marry her, b'Di'eved he does not have to divorce her. He may remain married to her because even if he would have married her before she became a Bogeres or Mukas Etz, the physical change in her body would have occurred in any case after he married her ('Sofah Liheyos Bogeres Tachtav...'). Therefore, when he married her after the physical change occurred, b'Di'eved he may remain married to her.
</p><p>
The logic for why the Torah does not prohibit him from living with a woman who is a Bogeres or Mukas Etz whether she became such before the Kohen married her or after seems to be as follows. If the Torah would prohibit him from marrying a Bogeres and Mukas Etz, the Kohen Gadol would never be able to remain married -- since every woman becomes a Bogeres and Mukas Etz after marriage. It must be that the Torah prohibits only the <i>act of marrying</i> such a woman in the first place; the Torah does not prohibit him from <i>remaining</i> married once he is already married to her. Even if the marriage was initially done in a prohibited manner, the Kohen Gadol transgresses no Isur by staying married.
</p><p>
The Gemara suggests that the same Halachah should apply to a woman who is a 'Be'ulas Atzmo,' with whom the Kohen himself committed an act of Bi'ah before marriage. He is not permitted to marry her, but if he transgresses that Isur and marries her anyway, b'Di'eved he should be permitted to stay married to her just as he is permitted to stay married to a Bogeres and Mukas Etz. Why does Rav Huna in the name of Rav (end of 59b) rule that a Kohen Gadol may <i>not</i> remain married to a woman who is a Be'ulas Atzmo?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Sofah Liheyos) explains that the logic of 'Sofah Liheyos...' applies to a woman with whom <i>the Kohen Gadol himself</i> performed an act of Bi'ah, because he eventually will do Bi'ah with her anyway. That is, the Gemara applies the logic of 'Sofah Liheyos' to a woman with whom <i>he</i> did Bi'ah, but not to a woman with whom another man did Bi'ah. This indeed is implicit from the wording of the Beraisa (59b) which says that only a woman who is an 'Anusas <i>Atzmo</i>' may remain married to the Kohen Gadol, implying that if she did Bi'ah with any other man, she may not remain married to the Kohen Gadol.
</p><p>
If the logic of 'Sofah Liheyos' applies to a woman with whom the Kohen Gadol himself did Bi'ah before marriage and permits him to remain married to her, then what difference does it make whether she had Bi'ah with the Kohen Gadol himself or with another man? In either case she eventually will become a Be'ulah after marriage, and thus the logic of 'Sofah Liheyos' should permit the Kohen Gadol to remain married to her.
</p><p>
Moreover, the Rishonim (<b>RIF</b>, <b>RAMBAM</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>) state that the Halachah follows the view of Rav Huna in the name of Rav, that a Kohen Gadol must divorce a woman who was a Be'ulas Atzmo, even though they also rule that a Kohen Gadol <i>may</i> remain married to a Bogeres and Mukas Etz! The reason for this (as the Rashba points out) is that the Gemara does not conclude with a 'Teyuvta' on Rav's ruling but only with a 'Kashya.' This implies that there indeed is a way to resolve the Gemara's question even though the Gemara itself leaves it unanswered. What is the reason for why a Kohen Gadol may remain married to a Bogeres or Mukas Etz but not to a Be'ulas Atzmo?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) A woman who loses her Besulim as a result of reaching Bagrus before marriage loses it in the same way she would lose it if she reaches Bagrus after marriage. The Torah, therefore, cannot prohibit a Kohen Gadol from marrying a Bogeres who loses her Besulim before marriage if it does not prohibit him from remaining married to her when she loses her Besulim after marriage. The same logic applies to a Mukas Etz. A woman who became a Mukas Etz and lost her Besulim before marriage is no different from a woman who became a Mukas Etz after marriage; it is not possible for her to be more prohibited to the Kohen than a woman who loses her Besulim after marriage, as there is nothing different or unique about becoming a Mukas Etz before marriage that should not apply after marriage (when the husband removes the Besulim through Bi'ah).
</p><p>
However, the Isur of marrying a Be'ulah is not related to the actual removal of the Besulim. Rather, the very fact that she has the status of a <i>Be'ulah</i> -- that there was an act of Bi'ah performed with her -- prohibits her to the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara here proposes that there is a difference between a Be'ulas Atzmo (a woman with whom her husband did Bi'ah prior to the marriage) and a Be'ulah who did Bi'ah with another man. The Torah prohibits a Kohen Gadol from marrying a Be'ulah who did Bi'ah with another man because the logic of 'Sofah Liheyos Be'ulah Tachtav' cannot apply; the Bi'ah which she eventually will do with her husband will not be the same -- it will be less disgraceful, since it will be his and not another man's, and thus what will happen after the marriage is not identical to what happened before the marriage. Accordingly, the Bi'ah she did with another man before marriage renders her unfit to remain married to a Kohen Gadol.
</p><p>
This logic also explains the view of Rav Huna in the name of Rav that a Kohen must divorce a Be'ulas Atzmo and may not remain married to her. Why does the logic of 'Sofah Liheyos' not apply in such a case? Rav maintains that the Bi'ah that occurs after marriage is a Bi'ah of 'Ishus,' <i>marriage</i>. Such a Bi'ah is not detestable and is thus unlike a Bi'ah without Ishus (even with the same man who eventually marries her). Therefore, the case of a Be'ulas Atzmo cannot be compared to the cases of Bogeres and Mukas Etz.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A KOHEN GADOL WHO MARRIES A WOMAN WHOM HE WAS 'MEFATEH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that according to Rav Huna, a Kohen Gadol who marries an 'Anusas Atzmo,' a woman whom he raped, may not remain married to her. However, even though he is required to terminate the marriage, the marriage is considered valid with regard to his exemption from paying a fine to a woman whom he was Mefateh. The Torah gives a man the option of marrying the woman he was Mefateh or paying a fine (Shemos 22:16). By marrying the woman he was Mefateh, the Kohen Gadol exempts himself from the fine even though he is not permitted to marry her or to remain married to her.
</p><p>
The wording of the Beraisa implies that this Halachah applies only to the prohibition against marrying a Be'ulah. If the Kohen Gadol marries a woman who is forbidden to him because of a different Isur (for example, he was Mefateh a woman who was widowed during Erusin (an Almanah) and is not a Be'ulah), he must divorce her <i>and</i> pay the fine even though he married her.
</p><p>
What is unique about the Isur of Be'ulah that, by transgressing the Isur and marrying a Be'ulah whom he was Mefateh, the Kohen Gadol is exempt from paying the fine of a Mefateh?
<br> 
<br>(a) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> to 55b; see also the note of <b>REBBI SHLOMO EIGER</b> in Chidushei Rebbi Akiva Eiger to Kesuvos 30a) writes that a woman who is 'Be'ulas Atzmo' is not prohibited to a Kohen Gadol mid'Oraisa but only mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
According to Rabeinu Tam, the reason why the Chachamim were lenient in a case in which the Kohen Gadol married his Mefutah who is Be'ulas Atzmo and exempted him from the fine is clear -- she is prohibited to him only mid'Rabanan. (Although he is not exempt from the fine when he marries a woman prohibited because of any other Isur d'Rabanan (such as Sheniyos l'Arayos), the Isur against marrying a Be'ulas Atzmo is a weaker Isur in that the Isur d'Oraisa against marrying a Be'ulah is only an Isur Aseh, and thus the Chachamim were more lenient in the case of a Be'ulas Atzmo.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (59a, DH Ileima) disagrees with Rabeinu Tam and says that the Isur against marrying a 'Be'ulas Atzmo' is mid'Oraisa. However, Tosfos (60a, DH she'Eino Meshalem) suggests that the Isur against <i>remaining</i> married to his Be'ulas Atzmo may be mid'Rabanan, even according to Rav Huna in the name of Rav who says that the Kohen must divorce her.
</p><p>
According to the view of Tosfos, the reason why the Chachamim were more lenient in the case of a Kohen Gadol who marries his Be'ulas Atzmo is clear. The Chachamim exempted the Kohen from the fine since the Isur against remaining married to a Be'ulas Atzmo is only mid'Rabanan. In contrast, the Chachamim did not exempt him from the fine when he marries a woman to whom he is prohibited to remain married <i>mid'Oraisa</i> (such as an Almanah).
</p><p>
(c) However, <b>TOSFOS</b> later (60a) expresses doubt about whether the Isur to <i>remain</i> married is only mid'Rabanan. Tosfos writes that it is possible that both the Isur to marry her and the Isur to remain married to her are mid'Oraisa. Why, then, should the Kohen be exempt from a fine when he marries a Be'ulas Atzmo whom he was Mefateh?
</p><p>
It must be that mid'Oraisa he is actually exempt from the fine when he marries <i>any</i> woman to whom he is prohibited, even though he is required to divorce her. In the case of Be'ulas Atzmo, the Chachamim were lenient and did not require him to pay the fine since the Isur against marrying such a woman is only an Isur Aseh which is 'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol' (it applies only to a Kohen Gadol). Even though he is also exempt mid'Oraisa from the fine when he marries an Almanah, the Chachamim nevertheless required him to pay it.
</p><p>
Moreover, perhaps the Chachamim were lenient in the case of Be'ulas Atzmo because people are not aware of the Isur against marrying a Be'ulas Atzmo. Since the Kohen Gadol probably did not know that he was prohibited from marrying her, the Chachamim did not require him to pay the fine.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This case is different. The Torah said 
               'close' to include it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We should say that 'close' also includes 
               Mukas Etz!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It comes to include one case, not two.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why do we say that it includes an Arusah 
               who was divorced, and not a Mukas Etz?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> A physical act happened to the latter, but 
               not to the former.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yosi did not say the law of Mukas Etz with 
          his partner (R. Shimon), so he must hold like R. Meir. 
          How does he expound?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'That was not to a man', includes a Mukas Etz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> He already used that verse (to exclude an 
          Arusah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'Was not' excludes an Arusah. 'To a man' includes 
          a Mukas Etz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  'To him' includes a Bogeres.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Shimon said (regarding a Kohen Gadol) that 
          'Besulah' connotes having all the Besulim! (Tosfos 
          Yeshanim - he should learn from here that Besulah 
          connotes even some Besulim, for a Bogeres is included!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He learned that from our verse;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since the Torah needed to write 'To him' to include 
               a Bogeres, we infer that 'Besulah' connotes all the 
               Besulim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ARE ANY CONVERTS PERMITTED TO A 'KOHEN'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> A girl who converted before three 
          years old may marry a Kohen. (Moshe told the soldiers who 
          defeated Midyan) 'Keep alive for yourselves all Taf 
          (young girls) who did not had Bi'ah.' Pinchas (a Kohen) 
          was among those who were permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim:</font></b> No. 'Keep alive for yourselves' for slaves (it 
          does not discuss marriage).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, even girls above three should be kept 
          alive!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer - Question:</font></b> 'Kill every <i>Ishah</i> who had Bi'ah with 
          a man' implies that we keep alive (mature) women who did 
          not have Bi'ah, and Taf even if they had Bi'ah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction:</font></b> 'And all Taf who did not have Bi'ah, 
               keep alive for yourselves' implies that if they did 
               have Bi'ah, they are killed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> Both verses obligate killing any 
               female old enough to have Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Every Ishah who had Bi'ah with a man' 
          refers to women old enough to have Bi'ah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps it means that actually had Bi'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It also says 'And all Taf that did not have 
          Bi'ah' (implying that we do not distinguish among older 
          women). This shows that the Torah discusses being fit for 
          Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How did they know which girls were fit for 
          Bi'ah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Huna bar Bizna):</font></b> They passed the girls in 
          front of the Tzitz (an ornament of the Kohen Gadol). A 
          girl's face would turn green only if she was fit for 
          Bi'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The face turning green is a sign of 
               sin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'Among the dwellers of Yavesh Gil'ad were found 
          400 virgin Na'aros that did not have Bi'ah' - how did 
          they know?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Kahana):</font></b> They sat each on a barrel of wine. 
          The smell of the wine would pass through (to the mouth) 
          only if she was not a Besulah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't they pass them in front of the 
          Tzitz?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Kahana brei d'Rav Noson):</font></b> The Tzitz is 
          'L'Ratzon Lahem', not for punishments.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, it should not have been used by the 
          captured Midianites!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> 'Lahem (for Yisrael)' it is not for 
          punishments. For Nochrim, it is even for punishments.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yakov bar Idi):</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi said that the 
          Halachah follows R. Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Zeira:</font></b> Did you hear this explicitly, or did you 
               derive it?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How could this be derived?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi said that protests 
                    were made (about the primary family of Kohanim) 
                    in a city in Eretz Yisrael. Rebbi sent R. 
                    Rumnus to check; he found a girl that converted 
                    before three. Rebbi permitted her to Kehunah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yakov bar Idi:</font></b> I heard it explicitly.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Had it been derived, what objection could 
               be raised?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Perhaps once she was married, we would be 
               lenient.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Rav and R. Yochanan):</font></b> A Kohen Gadol may not 
               marry a Bogeres or Mukas Etz. If he married her, he 
               is married.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> That is no support. There, whomever he 
               will marry is destined to become a Bogeres and a 
               non-virgin during the marriage. A Kohen's wife is 
               not destined to become a Zonah during the marriage! 
               (Therefore, we could derive the Halachah from the 
               episode.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  Rav Safra derived the Halachah (from the episode), asked 
          the question, and answered like we did.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b></b>  A Kohen married a girl who converted before three years.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak:</font></b> Why did you marry her?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The Kohen:</font></b> R. Yakov bar Idi said that R. Yehoshua 
               ben Levi said that the Halachah follows R. Shimon 
               bar Yochai!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak:</font></b> Divorce her, or I will 
               remove (your reliance on) R. Yakov bar Idi from you 
               (i.e. I will excommunicate you, and you will be 
               forced to divorce her)!
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'TUM'AH' OF 'NOCHRIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> The graves of Nochrim do not have 
          Tum'as Ohel (they do not Metamei what towers above them. 
          Regarding Tum'as Ohel it says 'Adam Ki Yamus b'Ohel', 
          and) it says 'You are my flock... you are Adam';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> You (Yisrael) are called Adam, but Nochrim are not 
               called Adam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'V'Nefesh Adam Shishah Asar Elef' (captives 
          were taken from Midyan)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'Adam' to distinguish from the animals.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> '(Ninveh) has more than 120,000 Adam...'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It says Adam to distinguish from the animals.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'Whoever killed a soul (in the war against 
          Midyan) and touched a Mes will make himself Tahor' (this 
          shows that a dead Nochri is Metamei)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Perhaps a Yisrael died.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim do not accept this answer, for it says 
               'V'Lo Nifkad Mimenu Ish';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon holds that this means that no one stumbled 
               in sin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Ravina):</font></b> R. Shimon says that Nochrim are 
          excluded from Tum'as Ohel. They are not excluded from 
          Tum'ah of carrying or touching!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN CAN A 'KOHEN' 'GADOL' MARRY A WIDOW?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Kohen was Mekadesh a widow and then was 
          appointed to be Kohen Gadol, he may marry her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A case occurred, Yehoshua ben Gamla was Mekadesh Marsa 
          Bas Baisus. The king appointed him to be Kohen Gadol, and 
          he married her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If a Yevamah fell to a Kohen, and he was appointed to be 
          Kohen Gadol, even if he had given her a Ma'amar, he may 
          not do Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the source that if a Kohen was 
          Mekadesh a widow, then was appointed Kohen Gadol, he may 
          marry her?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'He will take a wife'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, this should also permit him to do 
          Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> ' He will take a <i>wife</i>', not a Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A case occurred, Yehoshua ben Gamla...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> It says that the king appointed him. He was 
          not appointed (by the Kohanim and Sanhedrin)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> This was the scheme of Resha'im!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Asi):</font></b> Marsa bas Baisus bribed King Yanai with a 
               Tarkav (about six liters) of gold coins so he would 
               appoint R. Yehoshua ben Gamla to be Kohen Gadol.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the Kohen Gadol's brother died, the Kohen 
          Gadol does Chalitzah, not Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Inference:</font></b> The Mishnah does not distinguish if 
          she was widowed from Eirusin or Nisu'in!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, from Nisu'in she is forbidden to him 
          by a Lav (a widow) and an Aseh (non-virgin). The Mitzvas 
          Aseh of Yibum does not override a Lav and Aseh;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But if she was widowed from Eirusin, the Aseh of 
               Yibum should override the Lav of a widow!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, it does. Chachamim decreed against 
          the first Bi'ah (Yibum), lest he come to do a second act 
          (which is forbidden).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY A 'KOHEN' MARRY AN 'AILONIS'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A regular Kohen may not marry an Ailonis, 
          unless he already has a wife and children;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, even if he has a wife and children he 
          may not marry her, since she is a Zonah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say that only a convert, freed slave, or one 
          who had Bi'as Zenus is a Zonah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Reish Galusa) Question:</font></b> Why can't a Kohen marry 
          an Ailonis?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> He must fulfill Peru u'Rvu (having 
          children).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Reish Galusa):</font></b> Also Yisraelim have this 
          Mitzvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> It mentions Kohanim due to the Seifa. 
          R. Yehudah says, even if he has a wife and children he 
          may not marry her, since she is a Zonah;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: 'TUM'AH' OF GRAVES OF NOCHRIM</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara cites a dispute among Tana'im about whether or not the graves of Nochrim are Metamei with Tum'as Ohel. Rebbi Shimon maintains that they are not Metamei b'Ohel, and the Chachamim maintain that they are. The Gemara concludes that even if they are not Metamei b'Ohel (as Rebbi Shimon says), they nevertheless are Metamei with Tum'as Maga u'Masa (by touching or carrying).
</p><p>
The Gemara's discussion has practical Halachic relevance for Kohanim today, since Kohanim are prohibited from becoming Tamei with Tum'as Mes. May Kohanim walk over graves of Nochrim or enter a cemetery of Nochrim?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 1:13) rules like Rebbi Shimon that graves of Nochrim are not Metamei b'Ohel. (The Rambam in <b>TESHUVOS PE'ER HA'DOR</b> #57 implies that even according to the <i>Chachamim</i> graves of Nochrim are not Metamei b'Ohel but only b'Maga u'Masa. According to Rebbi Shimon, they are not Metamei even b'Maga u'Masa. This also seems to be the view of the <b>SEFER YERE'IM</b> #322. According to this understanding of the Gemara, the Rambam rules like the Chachamim when he says that graves of Nochrim are not Metamei b'Ohel but only b'Maga u'Masa.)
</p><p>
However, <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH mi'Maga), the <b>ROSH</b> (Teshuvos 30:1), and other Rishonim here understand the Gemara in its straightforward sense and rule like the Chachamim that graves of Nochrim are Metamei b'Ohel. For this reason, the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> and <b>REMA</b> (YD 372:2) write that a Kohen nowadays should be stringent and not walk over graves of Nochrim. (<b>TESHUVOS V'SHAV HA'KOHEN</b> #75 is even more stringent and rules that a Kohen is forbidden, according to the letter of the law, from walking over graves of Nochrim, and it is not merely a stringency, since the majority of Rishonim rule that graves of Nochrim are Metamei b'Ohel.)
</p><p>
(b) Another issue affects the practical applications of this Halachah. The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Nezirus 5:16) rules that if a Kohen or Nazir is <i>already</i> Tamei with Tum'as Mes, he is not liable for touching another corpse. (The <b>ROSH</b> (Hilchos Tum'as Kohanim #6) cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who rules similarly that if a Kohen touches a corpse on a certain day, and on the <i>same day</i> he touches another corpse, he is not punished for touching the second corpse since that act does not extend the number of days which he must remain Tamei before Haza'ah.) The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (YD 339) points out that this appears to be the opinion of <b>RASHI</b> in Nazir as well. The <b>RA'AVAD</b> concludes that since all Kohanim today are already Tamei with Tum'as Mes, they are not liable for becoming Tamei with Tum'as Mes again. 
</p><p>
Although the Rambam and Tosfos disagree and maintain that a Kohen who is already Tamei is still obligated to observe the prohibition against becoming Tamei, the <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Avel 3:5) suggests that a Kohen should be permitted to walk over graves of Nochrim because of a Sfek Sfeika. The first Safek is that some Poskim rule that a Nochri is not Metamei b'Ohel. The second Safek is that even if a Nochri is Metamei b'Ohel, some Poskim rule that a Kohen is not obligated today to avoid contact with Tum'ah. The <b>DAGUL MEREVAVAH</b> (YD 372) cites this view as the Halachah. However, in a note added later, the Dagul Merevavah retracts this opinion and says that even the Ra'avad does not <i>permit</i> a Kohen who is Tamei to touch a corpse. Rather, he merely rules that there is no punishment (Malkus) if a Kohen does so. The Chasam Sofer (ibid.), however, disagrees with the Dagul Merevavah and says that, at worst, the prohibition according to the Ra'avad is an Isur d'Rabanan, and therefore there <i>is</i> a Sfek Sfeika which permits a Kohen to walk into a cemetery of Nochrim.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (in <b>ADERES ELIYAHU</b>, Parshas Chukas) as cited by the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 1:13) presents a novel ruling. The Vilna Ga'on asserts that even if the grave of a Nochri is not Metamei b'Ohel, it is Metamei b'Maga whether one touches it directly or whether one merely touches the gravestone or any object that rests directly above the body. The reason for this is as follows.
</p><p>
According to the laws of Tum'as Ohel, when there is less than a Tefach between the object of Tum'ah and the covering above it, the Tum'ah penetrates through the covering and rises. This Halachah is called 'Tum'ah Retzutzah.' The Vilna Ga'on rules that touching the covering through which the Tum'ah penetrates is the same as touching the source of the Tum'ah itself (the corpse). Similarly, walking over (and touching) the grave of a Nochri is like touching the corpse itself (unless, of course, there is a Tefach of space between the top of the corpse and the roof of the coffin or object above the corpse). Accordingly, a Kohen is forbidden from touching the grave of a Nochri.
</p><p>
The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> points out that this approach resolves a number of problematic statements in the Gemara. One such statement is that of the Yerushalmi (cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> to 12a, DH she'Iber). The Yerushalmi relates that it happened once that all of the Kohanim in the Beis ha'Mikdash became Tamei when the skull of a Nochri (Aravnah ha'Yevusi, the previous owner of the land on which the Mizbe'ach was erected) was unearthed beneath the Mizbe'ach. The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 1:13) asks that according to those who rule like Rebbi Shimon, the skull should not have made anyone Tamei because no one touched it and it is not Metamei b'Ohel. According to the Vilna Ga'on's approach, the reason why the skull was Metamei the Kohanim is clear. The Kohanim touched the Mizbe'ach which rested on top of the Nochri's skull, and thus they became Tamei with Tum'as Maga.
</p><p>
Based on the view of the Vilna Ga'on, the Or Same'ach concludes that a G-d-fearing Kohen should be careful not to touch even the top of the grave of a Nochri. (The Rogatchover Ga'on, in <b>TESHUVOS TZAFNAS PANE'ACH</b> (Warsaw) #256, also discusses this issue and concludes that 'Tum'ah Retzutzah' does not apply to the grave of a Nochri.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Zonah is forbidden only to Kohanim, not to 
               Yisraelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Yehudah's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> 'They ate and were not satiated, they 
          were Mezaneh and did not spread (progeny)' - any Bi'ah 
          that (is with a woman who) cannot procreate is Zenus.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'KOHEN' MAY NOT MARRY A MINOR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> A Kohen may not marry a minor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Chisda (to Rabah):</font></b> Investigate this law, for Rav Huna 
          will ask you about it tonight.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Explanation #1 (Rabah):</font></b> R. Eliezer holds like R. Meir and 
          as R. Yehudah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He holds like R. Meir, who is concerned for the 
               minority (perhaps she is an Ailonis);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He holds like R. Yehudah, who says that an Ailonis 
               is a Zonah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1:</font></b> R. Eliezer does not hold like R. Meir!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> A male or female minor may not 
               do Chalitzah nor Yibum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Chachamim):</font></b> We agree that they may not do 
               Chalitzah, for it says 'Ish (an adult)', and we 
               equate her to him. Why can't they do Yibum?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Meir):</font></b> If they do Yibum and we find that 
               he is a Seris or she is an Ailonis, they 
               transgressed Ervah (there was no Mitzvah of Yibum to 
               permit Eshes Ach).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> A girl that is a minor may 
               do Yibum, but not Chalitzah. (This shows that he is 
               not concerned lest she is an Ailonis!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #2:</font></b> R. Eliezer does not hold like R. Yehudah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> A Zonah is like her name (an 
               adulteress);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, she is a woman open to have Bi'ah 
               with anyone;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Masya ben Charash says, even if her husband was 
               taking her to drink (Sotah water) and he had Bi'ah 
               with her on the way, she becomes a Zonah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, a Zonah is an Ailonis;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that a Zonah is only a convert, a 
               freed slave, or one who had Bi'as Zenus;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar says, if two singles had Bi'ah without 
               intent for Kidushin, she becomes a Zonah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Explanation #2 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> R. Eliezer forbids a 
          Kohen <i>Gadol</i> to marry a minor;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The marriage takes effect when she becomes a 
               Bogeres, and then she is not a (full) Besulah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> If her father was Mekadesh her, the 
          marriage takes effect immediately! If she married herself 
          off, also Chachamim would forbid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Explanation #3 (Rava):</font></b> Really, R. Eliezer discusses a 
          regular Kohen. We are concerned lest she be enticed to 
          Zenus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This concern also applies to a Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Enticement of a minor is considered Ones. This 
          does not forbid a Yisrael's wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Explanation #4 (Rav Papa):</font></b> R. Eliezer discusses a Kohen 
          Gadol. He holds like the following Tana:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'Besulah' must be a 
               minor!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> '(He will take an) Ishah' (an adult).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'Ishah' must be a Bogeres!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Besulah'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Resolution:</font></b> She is not a minor, but she is not yet a 
               Bogeres (she is in the six months of Na'arus).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Explanation #5 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> R. Eliezer 
          holds like the following Tana:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Besulah' refers only to a Na'arah, like 
               it says, 'Veha'Na'arah Yafah Me'od Besulah'. (Ramban 
               - Seder Olam says that Rivkah was three at the time. 
               Rav Nachman holds that she was 14, like the Sifri. 
               We must say that she brought two hairs less than six 
               months before this.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Elazar):</font></b> If two singles had Bi'ah without 
          intent for Kidushin, she becomes a Zonah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Amram):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow R. Elazar.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'MITZVAH' OF HAVING CHILDREN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> A man may not neglect having 
          children unless he has children. He must have (at least) 
          two sons;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel say, he must have a male and a female - 'Male 
          and female He created them.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Version #1:</font></b> If he has children he may neglect 
          having children, but he should have a wife. This supports 
          Rav Nachman;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Even if a man has many children, he 
               may not remain single - 'It is not good that man be 
               alone.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Inference:</font></b> If he has children, he may 
          neglect having children and having a wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This refutes Rav Nachman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No. If he lacks children, he must marry a woman 
          who can bear children. If he has children, he may marry a 
          woman who cannot bear children.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One should sell a Sefer Torah to marry a 
               childbearing woman only if he lacks children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> He must have two sons.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Beis Shamai's source?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They learn from Moshe - 'Moshe's children were 
          Gershom and Eliezer'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel learn from the creation of the world 
               (Adam and Chavah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why don't Beis Shamai learn from Creation?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We do not learn about something possible (the 
          Mitzvah of Peru u'Rvu) from something impossible (it was 
          essential to have a male and a female at creation).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE MITZVAH OF PIRYAH V'RIVYAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree about the fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. Beis Shamai maintains that one fulfills the Mitzvah only when he has two sons. Beis Hillel maintains that one fulfills the Mitzvah when he has one son and one daughter (see Chart). Beis Hillel derives his view from Creation, when Hash-m created the world with one male and one female, Adam and Chavah. Beis Shamai argues that 'we may not derive that which is possible from that which is not possible' ('Ein Danin Efshar mi'she'Iy Efshar'). The world had to be created with one man and one woman (and not with two men) in order for mankind to propagate. The world could not have been created in any other way.
</p><p>
The Gemara implies that Beis Hillel maintains that we <i>may</i> derive 'that which is possible from that which is not possible.' However, the Gemara earlier (46a) states that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Akiva who rules that we may <i>not</i> derive Halachos in such a manner. It is unreasonable to suggest that Rebbi Akiva argues with Beis Hillel in this regard. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that the number of children one needs in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah <i>may</i> be derived in such a manner, 'Efshar mi'she'Iy Efshar,' because there is a <i>logical basis</i> to say that one fulfills the Mitzvah with one son and one daughter. Such propagation provides replacement for the past generation and enables the world to continue to be populated.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> writes that when no other source teaches the details of a Halachah, those details may be derived 'Efshar' from 'Iy Efshar.' In the case of Piryah v'Rivyah, according to Beis Hillel there is no other source from which to derive the details, because Beis Hillel maintains that the details cannot be derived from Moshe Rabeinu as the Gemara describes. (See also <b>TOSFOS CHAD MI'KAMAI</b>.)
</p><p>
(c) Perhaps deriving the number of children needed to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah from the creation of Adam and Chavah is not considered 'Efshar' from 'Iy Efshar.' This is because it <i>was</i> possible for Hash-m to create two males. Had the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah required that one have two sons, Hash-m would have created the world with <i>two males</i> and <i>one female</i> in order to teach that one must have two sons in order to fulfill the Mitzvah. (He would have created a female only for the sake of propagating the world.) Since Hash-m did <i>not</i> create the world in that manner, but rather He created one male and one female, it must be that one fulfills the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah with one son and one daughter.
</p><p>
Beis Shamai -- who asserts that deriving the Halachah from Creation is considered deriving 'Efshar' from 'Iy Efshar' -- maintains that Hash-m created the world with the <i>number</i> of souls which a person must bear in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. Hash-m, therefore, created the world with only two persons. He could not have created two males, since the world could not have been populated from only two males. Beis Hillel maintains that since Hash-m did not create another male at Creation, we may derive from there that the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah is fulfilled with a son and a daughter. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MOSHE'S DECISIONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why don't Beis Hillel learn from Moshe?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Moshe himself decided to cease having children.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Moshe made three decisions on his own, 
               and Hash-m agreed with him: he separated from his 
               wife, he broke the Luchos, and he added a day (to 
               the days of preparation for Matan Torah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did he separate from his wife?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He made a Kal va'Chomer. Yisrael spoke with 
          Hash-m once, and they were commanded to refrain from 
          Bi'ah beforehand. Hash-m speaks with me at all times, all 
          the more so I should refrain!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Hash-m agreed to this - 'Tell them to return to 
               their tents, and you (Moshe) remain here with Me'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did he break the Luchos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He made a Kal va'Chomer. Korban Pesach is one of 
          613 Mitzvos, and 'Any apostate may not eat from it'. All 
          the more so, the entire Torah may not be given to 
          Yisrael, who are serving idolatry!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Hash-m agreed to this;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> 'ASHeR Shibarta' - YiSHaR Kochacha 
               (you should be strengthened) for breaking them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did Moshe add a day to the preparation for 
          Matan Torah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He expounded - 'Sanctify today and tomorrow' - 
          today should be like tomorrow;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like tomorrow is a full day of separation 
               including the night, also today (the first day of 
               separation) includes the night. Since the night had 
               already passed when Hash-m said this (Yom Revi'i), 
               'today' (the first day of separation) must refer to 
               Yom Chamishi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Hash-m agreed to this. He did not put His presence on 
          Mount Sinai until Shabbos.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'MITZVAH' OF HAVING CHILDREN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1 - R. Noson):</font></b> Beis Shamai say that one must 
          have two sons and two daughters. Beis Hillel require one 
          of each.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> According to R. Noson, Beis Shamai learn from 
          'Va'Tosef Laledes Es Achiv Es Hevel' (each 'Es' alludes 
          to a sister) - Hevel and his sister and Kayin and his 
          sister;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'Hash-m gave to me other seed in place of 
               Hevel' (to fulfill the obligation).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that Adam merely thanked Hash-m.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #2 - R. Noson):</font></b> Beis Shamai require one male and 
          one female. Beis Hillel require a male or a female.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> According to R. Noson, Beis Hillel learn from 'Lo 
          Sohu Vera'ah Lasheves Yetzarah' - one child fulfills 
          Sheves (populates the world).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If a Nochri had children and then 
          converted, he fulfilled Peru u'Rvu (the Mitzvah to have 
          children);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Reish Lakish says, he has not fulfilled it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan says that he fulfilled Peru u'Rvu 
               because he had children;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish says that he did not fulfill it, 
               because a convert is like a newborn.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  They argued similarly elsewhere:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If A Nochri had children and then 
               converted, his first son born after conversion is 
               not considered a Bechor, for he has previous sons;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish says, he is a Bechor, since a firstborn 
               Nochri has no special law of inheritance.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  It was necessary for R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish to 
          argue in both cases.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had they argued only in the first case, one might 
               have thought that R. Yochanan argues only there, 
               because Piryah v'Rivyah also applies to Nochrim, but 
               regarding inheritance, he would admit to Reish 
               Lakish;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had they argued only in the second case, one would 
               say that Reish Lakish argues only there, but 
               regarding Piryah v'Rivyah, he would admit to R. 
               Yochanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Bradach Bladan ben Bladan...' 
          (this shows that they have lineage)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (Reish Lakish): While they are Nochrim they have 
          lineage. When they convert, they lose it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> All agree that a slave has no lineage. 'Shevu 
          Lachem Po Im ha'Chamor' - ('Im' connotes equality, and it 
          can be read 'Am', suggesting) a nation similar to a 
          donkey. (This verse was said to Eliezer (a slave) and 
          Yishmael, the son of a Shifchah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'To Tziva (the slave of Mefivoshes) were 15 
          <i>Banim</i> and 20 slaves'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> This does not connote 
          lineage any more than 'Par Ben Bakar' (a bull born to 
          cattle).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, the same applies to Nochrim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Regarding Nochrim, it specifies the names of 
          the son and the father. Regarding slaves, it does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Elsewhere, a Nochri is traced to his father 
          and grandfather - 'Ben Hadad ben Tavrimum ben Chaziyon.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH DESCENDANTS COUNT FOR THE 'MITZVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If a man had children and they died, he 
          fulfilled Peru u'Rvu;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan says, he did not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna holds like Rav Asi:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Asi):</font></b>  'Ki Ru'ach mi'Lefanai Ya'atof  (souls in 
               front of Me delay)' - (Mashi'ach) the son of David 
               will not come until all Neshamos in 'Guf' (a 
               treasury) are completed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan says that he was not Yotzei, for he did not 
          fulfil 'Lasheves Yetzarah' he did not help populate the 
          world).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE STUDENTS OF REBBI AKIVA WHO SURVIVED</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara relates that all of the Talmidim of Rebbi Akiva died during one period from Pesach to Shavuos. The world became desolate ('Shamem') of Torah until Rebbi Akiva reared five new Talmidim -- Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yosi, Rebbi Shimon, and Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua -- who sustained the world with their Torah-learning.
</p><p>
When the Gemara in Sanhedrin (14a) describes the Mesirus Nefesh of Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava, it lists the same five Tana'im as those for whom Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava risked his life to grant them Semichah before he was killed by the Romans. Rav Avya there adds the name of Rebbi Nechemyah to the list. In the Midrash's account of the story of the Talmidim of Rebbi Akiva, Rebbi Nechemyah's name is included in the list of Rebbi Akiva's Talmidim, while Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua's name is omitted (Koheles Rabah 11:6, Bereishis Rabah 61:3). (The Midrash also adds two other Talmidim who apparently were secondary to the first five.)
</p><p>
<b>RAV YITZCHAK ISAAC CHAVER</b> (in a manuscript quoted by Rav Moshe Shapiro shlit'a) finds an allusion to these five Talmidim in a verse in Parshas Balak. When Bil'am sought to curse the Jewish people, he took Balak to 'Rosh ha'Pe'or that overlooks the plains of the Yeshimon' (Bamidbar 23:28). Rashi explains that Bil'am brought Balak to that place because it was there that the Jewish people were destined to be punished for their sin at Pe'or (Bamidbar 25:3). Rav Yitzchak Isaac Chaver explains that the word 'Yeshimon' alludes to another time at which the Jewish people would suffer -- the time at which the Talmidim of Rebbi Akiva died. At that time, the only ones who would survive to perpetuate the Torah in the world would be the five Talmidim whose names form the abbreviation, 'Yeshimon' -- Rebbi <i>Y</i>ehudah, Rebbi <i>Sh</i>imon, Rebbi <i>Y</i>osi, Rebbi <i>M</i>eir, and Rebbi <i>N</i>echemyah. ('Yeshimon' is spelled with two Yuds and no Vav. The word 'Yeshimon' itself is related to the word, 'Shamem,' 'desolate,' which the Gemara here uses to describe the desolate state of the world until these Talmidim learned Torah from Rebbi Akiva.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE MITZVAH TO BE WITH ONE'S WIFE BEFORE A TRIP</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that before a man departs on a trip, he must be with his wife ('Lifkod Es Ishto'). The Gemara adds that this obligation applies even when she is 'Samuch la'Vestah,' near the time at which she expects to become a Nidah. One who fulfills this obligation is assured that '... you will visit your home and you will not sin' (Iyov 5:24).
</p><p>
The Gemara in Nidah (63b) teaches that a man must separate from his wife when she is 'Samuch la'Vestah.' Why, then, is he obligated to be with his wife before he departs on a trip when she is 'Samuch la'Vestah'?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RITVA</b> explain that the prohibition to be with one's wife when she is 'Samuch la'Vestah' is mid'Rabanan, and the obligation to be with her when he departs on a trip is also mid'Rabanan. The Rabanan have the right to override their own enactment where they see fit to do so. This appears to be the opinion of <b>RASHI</b> here as well.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> in Shevuos (18b) suggests that even if the prohibition to be with one's wife when she is 'Samuch la'Vestah' is mid'Oraisa, the Torah itself teaches that a man is permitted to be with his wife immediately before he departs on a trip and the prohibition of 'Samuch la'Vestah' does not apply. The verse concludes with the assurance, 'And you will not sin'; since he fulfills his obligation to be with his wife for the purpose of a Mitzvah, he is assured that his wife will not become a Nidah at that moment even though she is 'Samuch la'Vestah.'
</p><p>
(c) The <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> here and the <b>RITVA</b> (in the name of the <b>RAMAH</b>) in Shevuos explain that when the Gemara says that a man must be with his wife before he departs on a trip even when she is 'Samuch la'Vestah,' it does not refer to the same state of 'Samuch la'Vestah' as the Gemara in Nidah. The Gemara here means 'close to the time when she will go <i>to the Mikvah</i>,' and not close to the time when she plans to experience her menstrual flow. 'Samuch la'Vestah' here refers to a woman who is already a Nidah at the time her husband plans to depart. The Gemara teaches that if she is close to the time of her Tevilah when he plans to depart (within twelve hours), he should wait for her to become Tahor so that he may be with her before he departs.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, the following words of the Gemara are understood. The Gemara says that one who departs on a trip for the purpose of a Mitzvah is not obligated to be with his wife because 'he might become distracted [from his trip for a Mitzvah].' According to the Nimukei Yosef's explanation, this means that he should not delay his trip in order to wait for his wife's Tevilah, because by delaying he might lose the opportunity to do the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
(d) Other Rishonim explain that the requirement of 'Lifkod Es Ishto' does not refer to marital relations at all. Rather, it refers to other signs of affection. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Chayav) in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b> explains that the Gemara means that before a man departs on a trip, he must go home and talk affectionately to his wife and formally take leave of her.
</p><p>
The Gemara, however, says that this should be done even 'Samuch la'Vestah,' even when it is close to the time she expects to become a Nidah. If 'Lifkod Es Ishto' means merely that he must take leave of her, why may he not do so even when she is an actual Nidah?
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> here explains that when a man departs on a trip, his wife's desire for him is stronger than usual. Speaking affectionately to her before he leaves may lead to intimacy, and thus he may not speak affectionately to her if she is a Nidah but only if she is 'Samuch la'Vestah.'
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> explains that the Girsa of the Gemara, 'even if his wife is Samuch la'Vestah,' is incorrect and should read instead, 'even if his wife is a Nidah.' The Gemara teaches that he indeed should take leave of her even if she is a Nidah.
</p><p>
(e) The <b>RASHBA</b> (Toras ha'Bayis 7:2) explains that when the Gemara says that one should 'visit' ('Lifkod') his wife before he departs on a trip, it refers to 'Divrei Hergel,' showing strong signs of affection (such as Chibuk v'Nishuk) which are normally prohibited when his wife is 'Samuch la'Vestah.' Since such strong signs of affection are prohibited only mid'Rabanan, the Rabanan permitted them when he is going on a trip. (Of course, when his wife is an actual Nidah all such signs of affection are prohibited.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 184:10) rules in accordance with the Gemara. The <b>REMA</b> cites the first two opinions ((a) and (b) above) which permit relations with one's wife even when she is 'Samuch la'Vestah.' The Rema adds, however, that 'ha'Machmir Tavo Alav Berachah' -- it is better to be stringent and to refrain from relations, and instead to show signs of affection as Tosfos (d) writes. The <b>SHACH</b> there (#27) adds that even Chibuk v'Nishuk is permitted, as the Rashba (e) writes. The Rema also cites the opinion of the Nimukei Yosef (c) that if his wife is a Nidah but will immerse herself within twelve hours from the time he wants to depart, he should delay his trip in order to be with her after the Tevilah.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) MARRYING ONE'S NIECE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that a man who marries 'Bas Achoso' (the daughter of his sister) is rewarded with the assurance, 'Then you will call, and Hash-m will answer; you will cry out, and He will say, 'Here I am'' (Yeshayah 58:9).
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara apply this assurance specifically to one who marries his <i>sister's</i> daughter, and not his <i>brother's</i> daughter ('Bas Achiv'), when both are his nieces and are related to him in the same way?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 2:14) writes that one who marries his sister's daughter is praiseworthy, <i>and the same applies</i> to one who marries his brother's daughter. Why does the Gemara specify only 'Bas Achoso'? <b>TOSFOS</b> quotes the <b>RASHBAM</b> who explains that the Gemara mentions 'Bas Achoso' simply because it is more common for one to marry the daughter of his sister, since one's sister tends to entreat him to marry her daughter more than his brother does. Since it is more common for such a request to occur, the Gemara says that one who concedes to that request will be blessed.
</p><p>
The <b>CHIDA</b> (Birkei Yosef EH 2:5) quotes a similar explanation in the name of <b>RABEINU TUDRUS</b> (a Rishon who wrote a commentary on Yevamos). He says that the Gemara refers to marrying his sister's daughter because it wants to encourage a man to help his sister when she is poor (such as when she is a widow). One's brother, in contrast, earns money himself and does not need to have his daughter marry her uncle.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> suggests that it indeed is preferable to marry the daughter of one's sister because it is natural for a man to love his sister more than he loves his brother, and thus the marriage with her daughter will be more successful.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> mentions a similar idea in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who points out that children tend to resemble the brother of their mother (Bava Basra 110a). Therefore, a man's sister's daughter is likely to be more similar to her uncle, and the marriage will fare better.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> later (99a, DH Safek) quotes the <b>RIVAN</b> who says that not only is it preferable for one to marry the daughter of his sister, but it is <i>improper</i> to marry the daughter of his brother. When one marries the daughter of his brother, he risks annulling the Mitzvah of Yibum; if he dies childless, his brother's daughter falls to her father for Yibum, and he obviously cannot do Yibum with her.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>REMA</b> (EH 2:6 and 15:25) cites both opinions with regard to whether one is encouraged to marry specifically 'Bas Achoso' or also to marry 'Bas Achiv.'
</p><p>
However, <b>RABEINU YEHUDAH HE'CHASID</b> writes in his will (#22) that a person should <i>not</i> marry the daughter of his brother <i>or</i> sister. The <b>NODA B'YEHUDAH</b> (EH 2:79) and others wonder why Rabeinu Yehudah he'Chasid says such a thing which contradicts the Gemara and all of the Poskim, who clearly state that marrying one's niece is a commendable act.
</p><p>
<b>RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS</b> (in 'Mekor Chesed,' his footnotes to Sefer Chasidim) quotes the <b>EVEN HA'ROSHAH</b> (#31) who explains that the Sefer Chasidim is consistent with his reasoning elsewhere (#488), where he writes that a 'Chasid,' a righteous person, who marries the daughter of his sister is praiseworthy. If, however, the uncle is not righteous and he seeks to marry his niece only because he is physically attracted to her, he should <i>not</i> marry her.
</p><p>
The Even ha'Roshah adds that, biologically, a significantly higher incidence of genetic defects is present in births produced from unions between close relatives. Therefore, when one marries his sister's daughter with pure intentions, Hash-m will protect him and ensure that his offspring will be healthy. If, however, he marries her with impure intentions, his fate will be left to the natural course and he will face a higher risk of genetic defects in his offspring. Rabeinu Yehudah he'Chasid advises against marrying one's niece because nowadays it is rare for a person to act with such pure intentions.
</p><p>
This may be the intention of the Gemara when it applies the verse, 'Then you will call, and Hash-m will answer,' to one who marries his niece. When one marries his niece, it indeed is necessary for him to 'call out to Hash-m' and pray that He protect them from having a child with defects. If he married her with pure intentions, 'Hash-m will answer' his prayer.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Grandchildren are like children (a 
          living grandchild substitutes in place of his deceased 
          parent).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No. No substitute is needed for a deceased child. 
          The Beraisa teaches that grandchildren join with children 
          to fulfill the required number of boys and girls.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Grandchildren are like as children. 
          If a child died, or was found to be a Seris, his father 
          did not fulfill Peru u'Rvu.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  This refutes Rav Huna.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Grandchildren are like children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> This refers to a son of a son, or a daughter of 
          a daughter, and all the more so a son of a daughter, but 
          not a daughter of a son.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Also a daughter of a son fulfils 
          'Lasheves Yetzarah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  Both agree that we cannot count two grandchildren from 
          one child.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is not so! Rabanan told Rav Sheshes to 
          remarry and have children, and he answered, 'The sons of 
          my daughter are (like) sons'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He rejected them (with a false answer. He didn't 
          remarry because) he became sterile from Rav Huna's class 
          (it was very long, and Rav Sheshes did not leave to 
          urinate when he needed to.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabah):</font></b> What is the source that grandchildren 
          are like children? (Rashi - he asks about sons of 
          daughters. It is clear that sons of sons are like sons.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We learn from 'The daughters are my 
               daughters, the sons are my sons'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection - Question:</font></b> How will we explain 'The flock 
               is my flock'? (They are not considered Lavan's 
               children!)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, it 'is my flock', i.e. that you 
                    acquired from me. Similarly, 'they are my 
                    children', i.e. that you acquired from me!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, we learn from 'Chetzron fathered Seguv 
          from Machir's daughter', 'Rulers came from Machir' and 
          'Yehudah is my ruler'. (Even though the paternal lineage 
          of all rulers is from Yehudah, some are attributed to 
          Machir, because his daughter's son is like his son.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>SHOULD ONE REMARRY IN HIS OLD AGE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah is unlike R. Yehoshua.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua):</font></b> If a man married in his 
               youth, he should marry in his old age. If he had 
               children in his youth, he should have children in 
               his old age - 'Seed your seed in the morning, and do 
               not withhold in the evening, for you do not know 
               which will be better.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, if a man learned Torah in his youth, 
               he should learn in his old age. If he had Talmidim 
               in his youth, he should have Talmidim in his old age 
               - 'Seed your seed...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva had 12,000 pairs of Talmidim, from Gavas to 
          Antiferus. They all died in one period, because they did 
          not act with honor to each other. The world was desolate 
          until R. Akiva went to our teachers in the south, R. 
          Meir, R. Yehudah, R. Yosi, R. Shimon and R. Elazar ben 
          Shamu'a, and taught them. They stood up the Torah at that 
          time.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> All 24,000 Talmidim died between Pesach and 
          Shavuos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chama bar Aba):</font></b> They all died an evil death.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is that?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It is croup.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Masnah):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Tanchum):</font></b> A single man dwells without joy, Berachah 
          or good;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He lacks joy, for it says 'You will rejoice, you and 
               your household.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He lacks Berachah, for it says 'To put Berachah on 
               your household.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He lacks good, for it says 'It is not good that man 
               be alone.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  In Eretz Yisrael, they say that he lacks Torah and a 
          wall;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He lacks Torah, for it says 'If my helpmate is not 
               with me, Torah is cast from me'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He lacks a wall, for it says 'A female will surround 
               a man.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava bar Ula):</font></b> He lacks Shalom, for it says '... Shalom 
          is your tent...'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE MUST BE INTIMATE WITH HIS WIFE AT THE PROPER TIMES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> If one knows that his wife fears 
          Heaven but does not fulfill Onah (Bi'ah in the proper 
          time), he is called a sinner - 'V'Yodata Ki Shalom 
          Ohalecha u'Fokadta Navcha v'Lo Secheta'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> A man must be with his wife 
          before he goes on a trip - 'V'Yodata Ki Shalom Ohalecha 
          (u'Fokadta Navcha)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We know this from 'Your desire is to your 
          husband', that a woman desires her husband when he goes 
          away (therefore he must be with her)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> R. Yehoshua teaching is needed for 
          Samuch l'Vestah (shortly before she is due to become 
          Nidah. Rashi - Bi'ah is forbidden mid'Rabanan Samuch 
          l'Vestah, except for one who is going away. Tosfos - 
          Samuch l'Vestah is always forbidden, mid'Oraisa! R. 
          Yehoshua obligates intimacy, but not necessarily Bi'ah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How long before is forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> It is the entire night or daytime in which 
          her Veses falls.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  This only applies to an optional trip. If he is leaving 
          to do a Mitzvah he need not be with her, lest this 
          distract him from the Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'V'Yodata Ki Shalom Ohalecha' applies to one 
          who loves his wife as himself and honors her more than 
          himself, guides his sons and daughters in the straight 
          path, and marries them off shortly before adulthood.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  'Then you will call and Hash-m will answer; you will 
          call, and He will say 'I am here'' applies to one who 
          loves his neighbors, draws his relatives close, marries 
          his sister's daughter, and lends a poor man when he needs 
          it.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WITHOUT A WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> One without a wife is not called Adam - 
          'Male and female he created them, and he called their 
          name Adam'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> One without land is not called Adam - '... 
          And the land he gave to Bnei Adam'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (R. Elazar) Question:</font></b> How do we explain 'I 
          will make for him a <i>helper</i> against him'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> If he merits, she helps him. If not, 
          she is against him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Contradiction (R. Elazar):</font></b> It is written 
          'k'Negdo' (without a Yud, which allows us to read Nagdaso 
          (she lashes him)), but we read (k'Negdo, which tolerates 
          a Yud, i.e. as if it said) 'Kenigdo' (she lashes him)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Resolution:</font></b> If he merits, she is k'Negdo (an appropriate 
          companion or helper). If not, she lashes him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yosi):</font></b> 'I will make for him a helper' - how 
          does a woman help a man?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Eliyahu):</font></b> A man brings (home) wheat and flax, but 
          he does not chew wheat and wear flax! We see, she 
          enlightens his eyes and stands him on his feet!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'This time, a bone from my bones, flesh from 
          my flesh' - this teaches that Adam came to every animal, 
          but his mind was not settled until he came to Chavah. 
          (Gur Aryeh - he considered each animal as a possible 
          mate. He did not have relations with them.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>FARMING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'V'NiVReCHu (will be blessed) through you 
          all families of the earth' - Hash-m told Avraham 'I have 
          two BReCHos (graftings) to graft onto you - Rus the 
          Moabite and Na'amah the Amonite;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'All families of the earth' - even families which 
               dwell in the ground are only blessed because of 
               Yisrael; (Ya'avetz, Torah Temimah - this alludes to 
               those who do not dwell in house, e.g. cavemen.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'All nations of the land' - even ships which come 
               from Galya to Aspamya are only blessed on account of 
               Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> In the future, all craftsmen will become 
          farmers - 'All oarsmen will descend from their ships and 
          all ship captains will stand on the ground.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> There is no lower profession than farming. 
          It says 'They will descend'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar saw a farmer plowing his field widthwise. 
               He told him, 'Even if you will also plow lengthwise, 
               business is more profitable.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Rav went among the sheaves; the wind was blowing them. 
          'As much as you can wave, business is more profitable.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> One who has 100 Zuz invested in business, can 
          afford meat and wine every day. One with 100 Zuz of land 
          will eat salt and fodder. Further, he must sleep on his 
          land, and comes to quarrels.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Plant your own food, rather than buy it. Even 
          though the price is the same, what you grow will be 
          blessed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Sell what is in your house, and do not wax poor;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This applies to things like carpets. Do not sell 
               your cloak, lest you not find another one that fits.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Seal a hole, rather than rebuild the wall. Plaster, but 
          do not rebuild your house, for anyone that builds is in 
          danger.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Be quick to buy land, but do not rush to marry a woman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Marry a woman below your standing; pick a friend above 
          your level.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar bar Avina):</font></b> Punishments only come to the world 
          because of Yisrael -  'I cut off nations, made desolate 
          their towers, and destroyed their markets'. 'But you 
          should fear me, learn a lesson from this!'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN EVIL WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Chiya (to Rav):</font></b> Hash-m should save you from something 
          worse than death.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav):</font></b> Is there such a thing?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> Yes! 'I find a wife harsher than death.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Rav's wife used to pain him. If he would ask her to make 
          lentils, she would make legumes, and vice-versa. When 
          Rav's son Chiya grew up, he told his mother the opposite 
          of what Rav requested.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav:</font></b> Your mother has improved (she fulfills my 
               request)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chiya:</font></b> I switched your request.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav:</font></b> This is as people say, you will learn from your 
               children! However, you should not do so - 'They 
               trained their tongues to speak falsely...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya's wife used to pain him. When he would find 
          something (that she would like), he would wrap it in his 
          turban and bring it for her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav:</font></b> Why do you do this? She pains you! (Rav wanted 
               to learn how R. Chiya was able to return good in 
               place of evil.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chiya:</font></b> It suffices for us that our wives raise 
               our children and save us from sin.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE VOCATION OF THE FUTURE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Elazar states that in the future, those who have professions ('Ba'alei Umniyos') will leave their work (specifically, sea-traders) and toil on the ground in agriculture as the verse says, 'They will descend from their boats -- all who hold the oar, rowers, all sailors; they will stand on the ground' (Yechezkel 27:29).
</p><p>
Why will everyone leave their vocations and till the soil instead?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>IYUN YAKOV</b> explains that Rebbi Elazar is consistent with his view in Sanhedrin (98a), where he says that the ultimate sign of the advent of the final Ge'ulah will be the tremendous agricultural productivity of Eretz Yisrael. In the Gemara here, Rebbi Elazar says that when the final Ge'ulah arrives, even those who work in crafts and commerce (vocations far more profitable than farming) will leave their professions in order to work in farming because farming will become much more profitable than all other professions due to the abundant productivity of Eretz Yisrael.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ETZ YOSEF</b> in the Ein Yakov points out that in Rebbi Elazar's following statement, he says that there is no <i>lower</i> form of work than tilling the soil. However, Rebbi Elazar says earlier that 'any person who does not own land is not a man,' implying that working the land is a <i>good</i> form of livelihood.
</p><p>
The Etz Yosef explains that it is <i>because</i> working the land is a lowly profession and reaps only modest returns that one should own and work the land. Working the land helps a person develop the attribute of modesty and enables him to reach a high level of Bitachon, trust in Hash-m. (See <b>TOSFOS</b> to Shabbos 31a, DH Emunas.) A farmer cannot fall into the trap of believing that his profits are the results of his personal efforts and labor, as members of other professions tend to think. He realizes that the growth of the produce depends entirely on Hash-m. Moreover, because his profit margin is modest, he learns to be satisfied with simple, basic foods. 
</p><p>
In the future, when all people will recognize that the purpose of life in this world is not to amass material wealth but to serve Hash-m, they will turn to working the ground in order to attain faith in Hash-m and to realize that He provides for everyone.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> writes in the name of his son that the Gemara alludes to the two primary revolutions in international economics -- the transportation revolution and the industrial revolution. The advent of the steam engine and the railroad (and, in more recent times, the automobile and airplane) brought about the transportation revolution and effectively brought an end to the primacy of sea-travel. The industrial revolution minimized the number of professional laborers by enabling a large quantity of a single product to be made by a machine, thereby replacing human laborers at many stages in the manufacturing process.
<br> 
<br><br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah taught to his son (Rav Yitzchak) 'I find a 
          wife harsher than death'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yitzchak:</font></b> Who exemplifies this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yehudah:</font></b> Your mother does.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav Yehudah also taught to his son that a 
          person finds peace of mind only from his first wife - 
          'Rejoice in the wife of your youth'. He told Rav Yitzchak 
          that his mother exemplifies this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> She instigates, but she is easily appeased.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the case of an evil wife?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> She prepares the food, and a mouth (of 
          curses).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> She prepares the food, and turns her 
          back. (Rashi - she does not eat with him. Tzitz Eliezer - 
          the Rambam explains that this is a euphemism for 
          withdrawing at the time of Bi'ah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chama bar Chanina):</font></b> When a person marries a wife, his 
          sins MisPaKekin (are plugged up and do not prosecute 
          against him) - 'Motza Ishah Motza Tov v'YiFaK Ratzon 
          me'Hashem.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  In Eretz Yisrael, when a man married they would say to 
          him 'Motza or Motzei';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Motza - 'One who found a wife, found good';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Motzei - 'I find the wife worse than death.' (Chasam 
               Sofer - the message is that even if she will pain 
               him, he found good, for wives raise children 
               (enabling him to learn) and save their husbands from 
               sin.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> It is a Mitzvah to divorce an evil wife - 
          'Divorce the scoffer, expel quarrels and disgrace.' 
          (Chasam Sofer - Rav and R. Chiya did not divorce their 
          wives because they were righteous in other respects.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The solution for an evil wife with a large 
          Kesuvah is to marry a Tzarah, like people say, 'another 
          woman, and not a thorn'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> An evil wife is as bad as a day of hail and wind 
          - 'The drip annoys on a day of hail, and a quarrelsome 
          wife is as bad.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> See how good is a good wife, and how bad is a 
          evil wife:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If 'One who found a wife, found good' discusses a 
               good wife, the verse praises her;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the verse refers to Torah, this shows that a 
                    good wife is a parable for Torah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If 'I find the wife worse than death' discusses an 
               evil wife, the verse disparages her;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If it refers to Gehinom, this shows that an 
                    evil wife is a parable for Gehinom!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> 'Behold I bring an evil you cannot escape' 
          refers to an evil wife with a large Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> 'Hash-m put me in the hands of one from 
          whom I cannot get up' - this is an evil wife with a large 
          Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In Eretz Yisrael they say that this is one who must 
               buy (for he does not grow) his food.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>PUNISHMENTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chanan bar Rava):</font></b> 'Your sons and daughters are given 
          to another nation' - this is the wife of the father.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1 (Rav Chanan bar Rava):</font></b> 'With Naval (a 
          repulsive) nation I will anger them' refers to an evil 
          wife with a large Kesuvah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2 (R. Elazar):</font></b> It refers to Tzedukim - 'The 
          Naval said in his heart, there is not Hash-m'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #3 (Beraisa):</font></b> These are the people of Barberiya 
          and Tartenai, who walk unclothed in the market. There is 
          nothing more repulsive to Hash-m than this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #4 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> These are Chaverim (Tosfos and 
          Rashi elsewhere - an ethnic group that corrupted the 
          Persians).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When they told R. Yochanan that Chaverim came to 
               Bavel, he bent and fell.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> When they told him that they accept bribes, he 
               straightened up.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Malchus Bavel made three decrees. They 
          corresponded to three sins of Yisrael:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They decreed not to eat slaughtered meat, because 
               Yisrael did not give Matanos (the foreleg, jaw and 
               stomach) of slaughtered animals to Kohanim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They decreed against bathhouses, because Yisrael 
               were not careful about Tevilah;.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> They dug up graves, because Yisrael rejoiced on 
               pagan festivals.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> (Rabah bar Shmuel) 'The hand of Hash-m will be upon 
               you and your fathers' - this is the digging up of 
               graves;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  They dig up the dead due to sins of the living.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If 'They will not be gathered and will 
          not be buried; they will be as fertilizer on the ground', 
          how can it be that 'Death will be preferred to life'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah bar Mari):</font></b> Death is better for the wicked, 
          so they will not live and sin in this world and fall in 
          Gehinom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Sefer ben Sira):</font></b> A good wife is a good gift to her 
          husband; Good will be given in the lap of one who fears 
          Hash-m;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> An evil wife is Tzara'as for her husband. His cure 
               is to divorce her and heal himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Happy is the husband of a good wife! His days are 
               doubled.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Hide your eyes from a charming Eshes Ish, lest you 
               get caught in her trap. Do not befriend her husband, 
               for many were corrupted and killed by her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Perfume peddlers incite immorality like a spark 
               ignites a coal. They have many wounds (from irate 
               husbands). Their houses are full of deception like a 
               nest is full of fowl.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Do not worry about tomorrow, for you do not know 
               what the day will bring. Perhaps one will not be 
               alive tomorrow, and he worried over a world which is 
               not his!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Do not allow the multitude into your house. Many 
               should seek peace with you, but reveal your secrets 
               to only one out of 1000.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE GREATNESS OF HAVING CHILDREN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Asi):</font></b>  'Ki Ru'ach mi'Lefanai Ya'atof' - Ben David 
          will not come until all Neshamos in 'Guf' are completed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1 - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one does not engage in 
          procreation, it is as if he spills blood. 'One who spills 
          man's blood...' is followed by 'V'Atem Peru u'Rvu.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yakov says, it is as if he diminishes the Divine image 
          - '(Hash-m) made man in Hashem's image' is followed by 
          'V'Atem Peru...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Ben Azai says, it is as if he spills blood and diminishes 
          the Divine image -  'V'Atem Peru u'Rvu...' (follows both 
          of the above verses).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabanan, to Ben Azai:</font></b> Some expound and fulfill 
               nicely. Some fulfill nicely and do not expound 
               nicely. You expound nicely and do not fulfill!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ben Azai:</font></b> What can I do? My soul desires Torah! (I 
               cannot separate from it to fulfill marital 
               obligations.) Others can populate the world.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #2 - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one does not engage in 
          procreation, it is as if he spills blood -  'One who 
          spills...; V'Atem Peru u'Rvu...';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar ben Azaryah says, it is as if he diminishes the 
          Divine image;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Ben Azai says (as above, and he had the same dialogue 
          with Rabanan as above)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: COMPARING A WOMAN TO A NATION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the verse, 'I will anger them with a despicable nation' (Devarim 32:21), and says that this refers to a 'wicked wife.'
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara assert that the verse refers to a 'wife,' when the verse clearly refers to a nation and not to a woman?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>IYUN YAKOV</b> explains that women are called 'a nation unto themselves' (see Shabbos 62a). Hence, when the verse refers to a '<i>nation</i>,' it may refer to a woman.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>IYEI HA'YAM</b> explains that the 'nation' refers to a wife's <i>progeny</i>. Besides the need to tolerate his wicked wife, a man will need to tolerate her offspring who will have the same wicked traits as their mother.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> writes that the verse refers to Galus, and not to a bad wife. The Gemara cites the verse as an metaphor to show how difficult it is to be married to a wicked wife. Just as the Jewish people in Galus are unable to escape the torment of their enemies, so, too, one who has a wicked wife -- and an expensive Kesuvah -- is unable to divorce his wife and free himself of his torment.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AGADAH: THE 'NESHAMOS' IN 'GUF'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Asi states that Mashi'ach ('Ben David') will not come 'until all of the Neshamos that are in Guf are terminated.'
</p><p>
What is the meaning of the term 'Guf' in this context?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> here and in Avodah Zarah (5a) and Nidah (13b) explains that 'Guf' is the chamber in which the souls of all future Jews are kept. Rashi here explains that it specifically refers to the 'Pargod' (Heavenly curtain) which divides between the Shechinah and the angels.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU AVRAHAM MIN HA'HAR</b> offers an original explanation for the Gemara's statement (based on 'Remez'). Rabeinu Avraham Min ha'Har explains that this statement alludes to the age at which a person is able to understand the secrets of the Torah. 'Ben David' is an allusion to the development of a mature intellect ('Ko'ach ha'Sechel'). When the Gemara says that 'Ben David will not come until...,' it means that a person does not reach this level of deeper understanding until 'the Neshamos of the Guf are terminated,' that is, until the physical strength of his body begins to wane, when he reaches old age. As a person's physical vigor weakens, his analytic and cognitive powers become stronger. That is why the Gemara in Chagigah (13a) says that the Tana'im would study the secrets of the 'Ma'aseh ha'Merkavah' only when they were older, when they would be able to comprehend the secrets of the Torah. (The term 'Ben David' may allude to the age of seventy, the age at which a person is considered old (Avos 5:21), which was the age at which David ha'Melech died.)
</p><p>
Rabeinu Avraham Min ha'Har says that the statement of the Gemara here parallels an incident recorded in the Gemara in Sanhedrin (38a). Rebbi Chiya's sons, Yehudah and Chizkiyah, were sitting in front of Rebbi at a meal and did not speak at all. Rebbi decided to give them some wine so that they would be less inhibited and talk. When they drank the wine, they said, 'Ben David will come only after the two leading families in Yisrael -- the Rosh Golah in Bavel and the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael -- are terminated!' Rebbi complained that 'they are throwing thorns in my eyes,' meaning that he was upset that they were predicting that he would not live to see Mashi'ach. Rebbi Chiya explained to Rebbi that he should not get upset because 'Yayin' (wine) has the value of seventy in Gematriya, and 'Sod' (secret) also has the value of seventy, and thus when one drinks wine, secrets emerge.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Avraham Min ha'Har's intention in quoting this Gemara is unclear. It seems that his intention may be as follows:
</p><p>
The sons of Rebbi Chiya did not want to speak about the more esoteric parts of the Torah in the presence of Rebbi because they had not yet reached the age at which they felt comfortable discussing those parts of the Torah. When Rebbi insisted that they speak and he gave them wine to drink for that purpose, they tried to convey to him their reason for not speaking in a hidden, allegorical way. They said that 'Ben David,' meaning the intellect mature enough to understand the secrets of the Torah, 'will come only after the two leading families in Yisrael -- the Rosh Golah in Bavel and the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael -- are terminated,' a reference to the temporal leaders who take care of the physical needs of the nation, representing the physical strength of the body. (More specifically, those two leaders may refer respectively to a person's reproductive faculty and creative faculty.) When a person's physical strength and needs lessen as he ages, he becomes more fit to understand the secrets (Sod) of the Torah.
</p><p>
When Rebbi did not fully understand the intention behind their statement, Rebbi Chiya clarified what they meant and said that both 'Yayin' and 'Sod' equal seventy in Gematriya, which shows that only when a person reaches the age of seventy is he able to delve into the secrets of the Torah.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) HALACHAH: THE CONDUCT OF BEN AZAI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Ben Azai states that one who does not involve himself in the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah is both considered a murderer and reduces the 'heavenly form.' Nevertheless, Ben Azai himself never married and did not fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. (The Gemara in Sotah (4b) cites various opinions concerning whether Ben Azai was ever married. According to one opinion, he was once married but he separated from her. According to other opinions, he never married.)
</p><p>
The Gemara here relates that the other Tana'im asked Ben Azai on what basis he exempted himself from the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. He answered, 'What can I do? My soul yearns for Torah!'
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 15:3) expounds on this and writes that 'if one's soul yearns for Torah and he constantly thinks about it like Ben Azai and he is attached to it all of his days, and [because of this] he does not marry a wife, he has no sin in his hands (Ein b'Yado Avon).'
</p><p>
What does this mean? On what basis is a person permitted to abstain from fulfilling the Mitzvas Aseh to have children?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ME'IRI</b> and the <b>TAZ</b> (EH 1:3) explain that one who is immersed in his Torah learning is not permitted, l'Chatchilah, to refrain from marrying. He is obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah to marry just as he is obligated to fulfill other Mitzvos. However, it is possible that a person becomes so immersed in his learning that he feels incapable of being married. His desire for Torah is so strong that, to a certain degree, he loses control and <i>cannot</i> marry ('Ones'). In such a case, although refraining from marriage might not be proper, Hash-m pardons him because his inability to marry is beyond his control. This is the intent of the Rambam when he says, 'Ein b'Yado Avon.' (See also <b>RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b> Hy'd in <b>KOVETZ HE'OROS</b>, Hosafos #1.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> apparently understands that the Rambam permits a person like Ben Azai not to marry even <i>l'Chatchilah</i> because of his profound dedication to learning Torah. In the preceding Halachah, the Rambam writes that when a person is occupied with learning Torah and does not want to marry so that he not need to take time away from his learning to provide for a family, he is permitted to delay marriage because of the principle that 'one who is involved in one Mitzvah is exempt from another.' According to the Ritva, a person like Ben Azai may delay marriage indefinitely because he is involved in the Mitzvah of learning Torah.
</p><p>
Rav Elchanan Wasserman (loc. cit.) challenges the Ritva's explanation from the Gemara in Moed Katan (9b) which states that when a person is presented with the opportunity to do one of two Mitzvos -- to learn Torah or to do another Mitzvah, if the other Mitzvah is one which another person can do, he should let another person do it and not interrupt his Torah learning. If the other Mitzvah is one which only he can do, he must interrupt his learning in order to do it.
</p><p>
The <b>ROGATCHOVER GA'ON</b> in <b>TZAFNAS PANE'ACH</b> suggests that the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah is considered a Mitzvah which can be fulfilled by others. When the Gemara says that one should continue learning and let someone else do the Mitzvah which can be done by others, it means that the <i>outcome</i> of the Mitzvah can be achieved by others. The outcome of Piryah v'Rivyah is to populate the world, and thus it is considered a Mitzvah which can be done by others. Only when the outcome of a Mitzvah cannot be achieved by others must one interrupt his learning in order to do the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
The allowance to delay marriage in order to remain immersed in Torah learning applies only to a person who has no Hirhurim, wrongful thoughts. The Rambam concludes that a person who has Hirhurim is obligated to marry a wife regardless of whether he has children or not (see Rambam, ibid.). Only if he is like Ben Azai who is so deeply and completely involved in learning Torah and has no wrongful thoughts may he refrain from getting married.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>BRINGING THE DIVINE PRESENCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Uv'Nucho Yomar Shuvah Hash-m <i>Rivevos Alfei</i> 
          Yisrael' teaches that the Shechinah does not rest on less 
          than 22,000 Yisraelim (two Revavos and two thousands);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If there were 21,999 Yisraelim, and a man did not 
               engage in procreation, he caused the Shechinah to 
               depart from Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Aba Chanan says, he (one who does not engage in 
          procreation) is Chayav Misah. 'They (Nadav and Avihu) did 
          not have children' - had they had children, they would 
          not have died;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Others say, he causes the Divine Presence to depart from 
          Yisrael (by reducing the population) - 'Lihyos Lecha 
          l'Eilokim ul'Zar'acha Acharecha';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When you have children, the Shechinah dwells. When 
               you do not, will it dwell on sticks and rocks?!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A MAN MUST MARRY A WOMAN WHO CAN BEAR CHILDREN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man married a woman and she did not give 
          birth in 10 years, he may not neglect Peru u'Rvu;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he divorced her, she may marry another man, and the 
          latter man may keep her for 10 years without children;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she miscarried, we count 10 years from the 
               miscarriage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> If a man married a woman and she did 
          not give birth in 10 years, he must divorce her and pay a 
          Kesuvah. Perhaps (she is not sterile, just) he did not 
          merit to have children through her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  We have no proof from the Torah, but there is a hint - 
          'At the end of 10 years that Avram lived in Eretz Kena'an 
          (he married Hagar)'. This teaches that time in Chutz 
          la'Aretz does not count (after one comes to Eretz 
          Yisrael);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Therefore (since we rely on the merit of Eretz Yisrael, 
          we also rely on excuses why she did not conceive until 
          now, e.g.) if either of them was sick, or if both were in 
          jail, this does not count towards the 10 years.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Why don't we learn from Yitzchak? 
          'Yitzchak was 40 years old when he married Rivkah', and 
          'He was 60 when she gave birth'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Yitzchak was sterile.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Also Avraham was sterile!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The latter verse about Yitzchak is 
          needed for R. Chiya bar Aba's teaching (but the verse 
          about Avram is solely to hint to the law of 10 years).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> The years of Yishmael were 
               counted in order to reveal about Yakov's years (his 
               age when he went to Lavan - see Rashi here and 
               Bereishis 28:9).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'AVOS' WERE STERILE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Yitzchak was sterile - 'Yitzchak prayed to 
          Hash-m Nochach (corresponding to) his wife';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It does not say <i>for</i> his wife, rather, 
               <i>corresponding to</i> her. This teaches that they were 
               both sterile (and requesting mercy).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If both prayed, why does it say 'Hash-m 
          hearkened to <i>him</i>'? It should say 'to <i>them</i>'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The prayer of a Tzadik Ben Tzadik is much greater 
          than the prayer of a Tzadik whose father is evil.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> The Avos were sterile, because Hash-m 
          desires the prayers of Tzadikim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> The prayers of Tzadikim are compared to a 
          pitchfork;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like a pitchfork moves grain from one place to 
               another, also prayers of Tzadikim switch the Midos 
               that Hash-m uses, from the Midah of anger to the 
               Midah of mercy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ami):</font></b> Avraham and Sarah were Tumtumim (their genitals 
          were initially covered). 'Look to the rock from which you 
          were carved, and to the hammer from which your opening 
          was made.' 'Look to Avraham and Sarah that gave birth to 
          you.'
<br>
<br><font size='+1' color='darkblue'><center><b>64b----------------------------------------46b</b></center></font>
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Sarah was an Ailonis. 'Sarai was sterile, 
          she had no child' - she lacked even the housing (womb) 
          for a child.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A STERILE WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The Mishnah applied to the early generations, who 
          lived long. Nowadays one may wait two and a half years, 
          the time of three pregnancies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah, citing Rav Nachman):</font></b> One may wait three years, 
          corresponding to three Pekidos (decrees of prophecy);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> On Rosh Hashanah, pregnancy was decreed for Sarah, 
               Rachel and Chanah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rabah):</font></b> These laws are incorrect!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi codified our Mishnah, and peoples' years were 
               already shortened in David's days - 'The days of our 
               years are 70 years'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says that (he must pay a Kesuvah, 
          for) perhaps he did not merit to have children through 
          her. Perhaps she did not merit to conceive from him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since she is not commanded about Peru u'Rvu, she 
          would not be punished by inability to fulfill it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Rabanan told R. Aba bar Zavda that he should 
          marry and have children, and he replied that had he 
          merited, he would have had children through his first 
          wife!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He dispelled them off with empty words. Really, 
          he became sterile through (delaying urinating during) Rav 
          Huna's class.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Gidal, R. Chelbo, and Rav Sheshes became sterile 
               through Rav Huna's class.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Acha bar Yakov was seized by a sickness (from 
               withholding urine, which can cause sterility). They 
               hung him from a tree, and green matter exuded from 
               him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Acha bar Yakov:</font></b> I was among 60 elders who 
               attended Rav Huna's class. All became sterile except 
               for myself - Chachmah gives life to those who have 
               it! (He knew how to cure himself.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>A WOMAN WIDOWED TWICE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he divorced her, she may remarry...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> She may marry a second man, but not a third. 
          Our Mishnah is like Rebbi:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa #1 - Rebbi):</font></b> If a woman circumcised two of 
               her sons and they died, she should not circumcise 
               her third son;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, she circumcises the 
               third, but not a fourth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Another Beraisa (#2) switches the opinions.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Which was taught later?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> There was a case of four 
          sisters in Tzipori. Three circumcised their sons, and all 
          died. The fourth came to R. Shimon ben Gamliel. He told 
          her not to circumcise her son. (This supports Beraisa #1; 
          it was taught later).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Perhaps he would have told also the third not 
          to circumcise!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, what do we learn from R. Chiya's 
          testimony?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He teaches that a Chazakah may be established 
          through sisters.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Now that we see that sisters make a Chazakah, a 
          man should not marry a woman from a family of epileptics 
          or lepers;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This only applies if there are three in the family.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What was the conclusion?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef):</font></b> A case occurred in which 
          two sons of a woman died through circumcision. She came 
          to R. Yochanan on Yom Kipur that fell on Shabbos to ask 
          about her third son. He told her to circumcise him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Abaye:</font></b> You permit an Isur and a danger!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye relied on this and married Chomah, who had 
               been widowed twice; Abaye also died in her lifetime.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Does anyone jeopardize his life like 
          this?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection #1:</font></b> Abaye himself said that we can rely on 
               Avin, but not on Yitzchak!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Avin reviews his learning, Yitzchak does not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection #2:</font></b> They argue about circumcision. Do they 
               argue about marriage?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer to Objection #2:</font></b> Yes!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If she married a man, and he 
                    died; a second man, and he died; she may not 
                    marry again;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, she may marry a 
                    third man, but not a fourth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, regarding circumcision, some families 
          have weak blood and others have strong blood;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But why should a woman have a Chazakah that her 
               husbands will die?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Mordecai):</font></b> Bi'ah with her causes her 
          husband to die.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Her Mazal causes him to die.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The difference between these answers is if her 
               husbands die during Kidushin, or her husbands fell 
               from the roof (these can be attributed only to 
               Mazal).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Yosef brei d'Rava:</font></b> I asked Rav Yosef if the Halachah 
          follows Rebbi; he said that yes; another time, I asked if 
          the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel, and he said 
          yes!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Was he mocking me?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rava:</font></b> No. Regarding marriage and lashes, the Stam Mishnah 
          is like Rebbi. Regarding Vestos (expected menstrual 
          periods) and an ox Mu'ad (established) to gore, the Stam 
          Mishnah is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We taught about marriage above (she may marry a 
               second time, but not a third).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Lashes - (Mishnah):</font></b> If one was lashed twice (for 
               Chayavei Kerisos), Beis Din locks him in a cell and 
               feeds him barley, which causes his stomach to burst.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Vestos - (Mishnah):</font></b> A woman establishes a Veses 
               after three periods (at the time of the Veses). She 
               only uproots a Veses after three times when she does 
               not have a period at the time of the Veses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> A Mu'ad ox - (Mishnah):</font></b> An ox is established to be 
               Mu'ad after three times.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ONE WHO IS CHILDLESS OUTSIDE OF ISRAEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah and Beraisa state that if a couple has been married for ten years and has had no children, the man should divorce his wife and marry another woman in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. The Gemara derives this time span from Avraham Avinu, who married a second wife after ten years of childlessness. The Gemara adds that Avraham Avinu married his second wife ten years after he arrived in Eretz Yisrael; he was actually married to Sarah for more than ten years when he married a second wife. The Gemara says that the years he lived outside of Eretz Yisrael are not counted, because perhaps it was the lack of merit of Chutz la'Aretz that caused Avraham Avinu not to have children.
</p><p>
Does the Gemara imply that one who lives in Chutz la'Aretz may <i>not</i> divorce his wife if they do not have children for ten years, and that they may assume that it is the lack of merit of Chutz la'Aretz that prevents them from having children? Why should they be permitted to assume that it is the lack of merit of Chutz la'Aretz which causes them to be childless, when many people who live in Chutz la'Aretz <i>do</i> have children?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> cites <b>RASHI</b> (Bereishis 16:3) who explains that the reason why Avraham Avinu had to wait ten years after his arrival in Eretz Yisrael was that Hash-m promised him, 'I will make you a great nation,' only after he fulfilled the commandment to go to Eretz Yisrael ('Lech Lecha...'). Hence, it was only Avraham Avinu for whom the years of living in Chutz la'Aretz did not count. Avraham Avinu was unable to have children, and Hash-m promised him that his physical nature would change and he would have children only after his arrival in Eretz Yisrael. Accordingly, there was no point in counting the years during which he lived in Chutz la'Aretz; those years did not count because he was physically unable to have children there and not because of the lack of merit of Chutz la'Aretz.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> (6:12) explains that Avraham was in Eretz Yisrael at the time of the Bris Bein ha'Besarim, when he was 70 years old (Rashi, Shemos 12:40). However, at the time he moved to Eretz Yisrael with his family, he was 75 years old (Rashi, Bereishis 12:4). Why did he travel to Eretz Yisrael when he was 75 if he was already there when he was 70? The answer is that Avraham made a 'pilot trip' to Eretz Yisrael at age 70, without the rest of his family. Five years later he returned with his family in fulfillment of Hashem's command to him. Accordingly, the reason why Avraham Avinu did not merit to have a child in Chutz la'Aretz was because he delayed the fulfillment of Hashem's command for five years. All others have no specific command to leave Chutz la'Aretz, and thus the years they live in Chutz la'Aretz <i>do</i> count towards the ten years of marriage with no children.
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b> and <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by the <b>RASHBA</b>) add that following his first trip, Avraham Avinu left Eretz Yisrael to return to Chutz la'Aretz. <i>Leaving</i> Eretz Yisrael to go to Chutz la'Aretz is considered a misdeed which can cause a person to lose the merit to have children. For this reason, Avraham Avinu did not count the years that he lived in Chutz la'Aretz towards the ten years of marriage with no children. In contrast, one who always lived in Chutz la'Aretz and never left Eretz Yisrael to go there is not held accountable and <i>does</i> count the years that he lives childless in Chutz la'Aretz.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains that perhaps a person is required to divorce and remarry after ten years in Chutz la'Aretz. However, if he goes to Eretz Yisrael after ten years <i>the count starts anew</i>; perhaps the <i>merit</i> of Eretz Yisrael will enable him to have children (and not that the <i>sin</i> of living in Chutz la'Aretz prevents him from having children).
</p><p>
(d) The <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b> (Hilchos Ishus 15:4) cites other Rishonim (Tosfos, Semag, Ra'avyah) who indeed rule that a man in Chutz la'Aretz cannot be forced to divorce his wife after ten years of childlessness, because it might be the lack of merit of Chutz la'Aretz that prevents him from having children (and thus it will not help to marry another wife). <b>RASHI</b> (DH Miketz) also implies that this Halachah applies to anyone who lives in Chutz la'Aretz. (For a summary of the Halachah in practice today, see following Insight.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A BARREN WOMAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a woman was married to a man and did not 
          have children (in 10 years); to a second man and had no 
          children; afterwards she may marry only a man who has 
          children;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If she married a man without children, she leaves him 
          without a Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If she did not have children from the third 
          husband, may her first two husbands demand that she repay 
          the Kesuvah she collected from them?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Can they say, 'It is now revealed that you were the 
               barren one'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, can she say 'Now I became weak'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Presumably, the latter is true.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If she married a fourth husband and had 
          children, may she demand a Kesuvah from the third 
          husband?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> No. We tell her, it is better for you to be 
          quiet, lest your third husband say that had he known 
          (that you are fertile) he would not have divorced you 
          (and you are still married to him)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Papa):</font></b> If she keeps quiet, do we keep 
          quiet? The divorce was void, and her children are 
          Mamzerim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Rather, we say that now she got 
          better.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ami):</font></b> If (Reuven and Leah did not have children in 10 
          years and) each of them says that the other is sterile, 
          this is 'matters between the two of them'; she is 
          believed (and receives a Kesuvah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  This is because she can tell whether or not his semen 
          shoots as an arrow, but he cannot tell.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ami):</font></b> Even if he says that he will marry another 
          woman to prove that he can have children, he must divorce 
          Leah and pay a Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> I say that anyone who takes a second wife must grant 
               his first wife a divorce and a Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> A man may marry several additional wives, on 
          condition that he can feed them.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) LYING FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Ila'i teaches that one is permitted to alter the truth for the sake of peace. He derives this from the conduct of Yosef's brothers, who told Yosef that their father had commanded before his death that Yosef should forgive them for their sin (Bereishis 50:16-17), even though their father did not give such a directive.
</p><p>
Rebbi Nasan adds that not only is one permitted to alter the truth for the sake of peace, but it is a <i>Mitzvah</i> to do so. He derives this from Hashem's command to Shmuel to tell Shaul ha'Melech that he was on his way to offer a Korban to Hash-m, when in truth he was on his way to coronate David ha'Melech.
</p><p>
D'Vei Rebbi Yishmael adds that 'great is peace, for even Hash-m altered the truth for the sake of peace.' The Torah relates that Hash-m told Avraham Avinu that his wife said, 'Can I really bear a child? But I have become old!' (Bereishis 18:13). In truth, however, she said, 'But my husband is old!' (18:12). Hash-m altered her words when He related them to Avraham in order to maintain their marital harmony.
</p><p>
There were actually two parts to Sarah's statement. She said, 'After I have become old, how can I become youthful again,' and then she added, 'And my husband is old!' When Hash-m told Avraham that she said, 'I have become old,' perhaps He was quoting the first part of her statement ('after I have become old, how can I become youthful again'), and thus He did not alter her words at all. How is this verse a proof that one may alter the truth for the sake of peace?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MIZRACHI</b> explains that Sarah's statement was not an expression of bewilderment about how she could regain her youth. Rather, her statement was a declaration: 'After I have become old, <i>I have become youthful again</i>.' Sarah indeed experienced a revitalization of her feminine attributes, as Rashi there explains. She wondered that 'even though I have regained my youth, how can my husband have children -- he is old!' Thus, Hash-m indeed altered her statement when He related to Avraham that she wondered how she could have children since <i>she</i> was old.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (to Bereishis 18:12) and other Rishonim, however, explain that Sarah indeed wondered how she could return to her youth after she had aged. The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that Hash-m clearly intended to quote the second part of Sarah's statement that 'my husband is old' ('Adoni Zaken'). Hash-m used a parallel phrase ('Ani Zakanti') and not the phrase 'Belosi' ('I have withered') which Sarah used when she referred to herself. Accordingly, He indeed altered her statement.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> there explains that when the Gemara says that Hash-m changed what Sarah said, it means that instead of informing Avraham of both parts of her statement, He told him only one part (that she said that <i>she</i> was old). This is also the explanation given by the <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b> (Hilchos Rechilus, Be'er Mayim Chaim 1:14), who adds that although Hash-m merely omitted part of Sarah's statement and did not actually alter it, one is permitted even to misquote and change a statement for the sake of peace, as the Gemara earlier derives from the words of Yosef's brothers.
</p><p>
This distinction may resolve a number of difficulties. Rebbi Ila'i maintains that one is <i>permitted</i> to alter the truth for the sake of peace, as he proves from the words of Yosef's brothers. Rebbi Nasan, however, argues and maintains that it is a <i>Mitzvah</i> to alter the truth for the sake of peace, as he proves from the words of Shmuel. What is the basis of their argument? Why does Rebbi Ila'i not accept the proof of Rebbi Nasan?
</p><p>
Moreover, the <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> asks how can the Torah encourage lying? That the Torah might permit lying under certain extenuating circumstances is understandable, but how can the Torah give a <i>Mitzvah</i> to lie? The Torah itself commands a person to distance himself from lying ('mi'Devar Sheker Tirchak,' Shemos 23:7).
</p><p>
Finally, the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> HA'CHAIM</b> asks how can the Gemara say that Hash-m, Whose essence is 'Emes,' truth (Shabbos 55a), would alter the truth?
</p><p>
The answer might be that there are two different forms of altering the truth for the sake of peace. The first form is an outright lie. Altering the truth for the sake of peace in this manner is only <i>permitted</i>; there is no obligation or Mitzvah to do so. The words of the Yosef's brothers are an example of this form of altering the truth for the sake of peace. It is not a Mitzvah because the Torah clearly commands that one may not lie. Hash-m never alters the truth in such a way, even for the sake of peace.
</p><p>
The second form of altering the truth is making an ambiguous statement which is open for misinterpretation. When Hash-m quoted Sarah, and when He told Shmuel what to say to Shaul, He did not say an untruth. Rather, He said a true statement but left it open for misinterpretation. When He spoke to Avraham, He merely omitted part of Sarah's statement. When He spoke to Shmuel, He did not tell him to lie because Shmuel really did go to offer a Korban. This manner of altering the truth for the sake of peace is what the Gemara calls a Mitzvah. (<b>SALMAS CHAIM</b> #485 and <b>TAZ</b> in <b>DIVREI DAVID</b>, Bereishis 18:15)
</p><p>
(d) Others, including the <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> here and the <b>ANAF YOSEF</b> in Bava Metzia (23b), explain that the Gemara says only that one is 'Mutar <i>l'Shanos</i>' ('permitted <i>to change</i>') for the sake of peace; it does not say that one is 'Mutar <i>l'Shaker</i>' ('permitted to lie'). They point out that when Hash-m quoted Sarah, He did not say an actual lie, and when the brothers of Yosef quoted their father's words, they also did not lie. The Aruch la'Ner explains that the brothers did not say to Yosef openly that their father told them to tell Yosef to forgive them. Rather, they told him (via messengers) what their father had said before his death (matters unrelated to their sin against Yosef), and then they told <i>the messengers</i> on their own accord to ask Yosef for forgiveness. Their words, 'Your father commanded, saying' ('Avicha Tzivah Leimor'), comprised the <i>conclusion</i> of their father's words; they related Yakov's final words, will, and testament. The brothers then told the messengers, 'So shall you say to Yosef....' They did not tell their messengers to say that their father had given this command, but rather they said it in a way that would mislead the messengers into thinking that it was their father who said it.
</p><p>
However, <b>SEFER DIVREI SHALOM</b> (4:38) rejects this explanation based on the Gemara in Beitzah (20a), which relates that Hillel once brought a male animal to the Beis ha'Mikdash on Yom Tov to be offered as a Korban Olah, contrary to the opinion of Beis Shamai that an Olah may not be offered on Yom Tov. When students of Shamai confronted Hillel, he told them that the animal was female and that he had brought it to be offered as a Korban Shelamim. Rashi explains that Hillel altered the truth, in his great humility, for the sake of peace. It is clear from the Gemara there that one is permitted to say even an outright lie for the sake of peace.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHEN IS LYING FOR PEACE PROHIBITED?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Ila'i teaches that one is permitted to alter the truth for the sake of peace. Rebbi Nasan adds that not only is one permitted to alter the truth for the sake of peace, but it is a <i>Mitzvah</i> to do so.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier (63a) relates that when Rav would send a request to his wife via his son Chiya, Chiya would reverse Rav's requests because he knew that his mother would do the opposite of whatever Rav requested. When Rav found out about this he told his son not to reverse his requests because it is improper to train oneself to lie. Why did Rav stop him if the Gemara here says that one is permitted to lie in order to maintain peace?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ME'IRI</b> answers that in the case of Rav, the peace of the home was not at stake. Rav never became angry when his wife did not fulfill his requests, and he was entirely forgiving. Therefore, it was not necessary for his son to lie for the sake of peace.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SEFER CHASIDIM</b> (#426) writes that when the Chachamim permitted one to lie, they did so only when the lie is necessary to correct a situation which has <i>already arisen</i> and which may lead to strife. One may alter the truth in order to avoid the quarrel. One who lies in such a situation (with pure intent) is like one who rectifies a problematic situation which has arisen already, and thus he is permitted to lie. In contrast, to lie about something that will happen only in the future (such as what a person will or should do) is prohibited.
</p><p>
<b>RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS</b> (in 'Mekor Chesed,' his footnotes to the Sefer Chasidim) cites the <b>DIVREI SHAUL</b> to Yevamos and the <b>MAHARI ASAD</b> (YD 316) who explain the logic behind this distinction. When the situation of discord has already arisen, one may lie because the positive outcome of his lie does not encourage him to lie again in the future. Since he is lying only to correct a situation that has already arisen, he will lie again only if such a situation arises again. He will not assume that he is permitted to lie all the time. In contrast, if a person would be permitted to lie about a future event, to prevent a situation of discord that has not yet arisen, he may fall into the habit of lying about what will happen in the future since he can always find excuses to lie about his plans 'to avoid strife.'
</p><p>
The <b>YAM SHEL SHLOMO</b> here proposes a similar distinction to explain why Rav told his son not to lie. In each case cited by the Gemara, the situation of potential discord already existed. In the case of Rav's wife, however, his wife had not yet mishandled his present request. His son spoke falsely in order to prevent strife between his mother and father -- when the situation for that potential strife had not yet arisen. Lying under such circumstances is not permitted.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  (R. Ami) If he says that she miscarried within 10 years 
          and she denies it (so you must divorce me now), also here 
          she is believed. Had she miscarried, she would not 
          falsely establish herself to be barren.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  If she miscarried three times she is established to 
          miscarry (and he must divorce her).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  (R. Yitzchak ben Elazar) A case occurred in which he said 
          that she miscarried twice and she said that she 
          miscarried three times. Rabanan believed her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had she not miscarried three times, she would not 
               falsely establish herself as one that miscarries.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ARE WOMEN COMMANDED TO HAVE CHILDREN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A man is commanded 'Peru u'Rvu, but a woman is 
          not;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan ben Berokah says '... Peru u'Rvu' was said to 
          both Adam and Chavah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the source that only a man is 
          commanded?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Ilai):</font></b> The verse continues 'Fill the land 
          and conquer it'. It is normal for men to conquer (in 
          war), not for women.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Just the contrary! Kivshuhah (conquer it) 
               is the plural form, connoting both!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> It is written 
               Kivshah (singular).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> (Hash-m told Yakov) '... Pere 
          u'Rve (singular)', and not 'Peru u'Rvu' (plural).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ilai):</font></b> Just like it is a Mitzvah to say something 
          that will be heeded, it is a Mitzvah not to say something 
          that will not be heeded.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Aba):</font></b> This is an obligation - 'Don't rebuke a 
               scoffer, lest he hate you; rebuke a Chacham, and he 
               will love you.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ilai):</font></b> It is permitted to deviate (from truth) for 
          the sake of Shalom - 'Your father commanded ... tell 
          Yosef to bear the sin (of his brothers)'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Noson):</font></b> This is a Mitzvah - 'And Shmuel said ... 
               Sha'ul will hear (that I am going to anoint David) 
               and he will kill me' (so Hash-m told him to say a 
               falsehood).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael - Beraisa):</font></b> Shalom is so great 
          that even Hash-m deviated (for its sake). Sarah said 'And 
          my husband is old'; Hash-m told Avraham only that she 
          said, 'And I am old'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Yochanan ben Berokah says...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  One of R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben Levi said that the 
          Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Berokah. The other said 
          that the Halachah follows Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Decision:</font></b> The following shows that R. Yochanan said the 
          Halachah follows Chachamim:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1:</font></b> R. Avahu said in the name of R. Yochanan 
               that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Berokah; 
               R. Ami and R. Asi turned their faces.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> R. Chiya bar Aba said so in the name of 
               R. Yochanan, and R. Ami and R. Asi turned their 
               faces.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> Granted, in Version #1 R. Ami and R. 
          Asi did not say anything (they merely turned their faces) 
          due to the honor of the Kaiser's house (R. Avahu was 
          close to them);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But according to Version #2, why didn't they refute 
               him?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the final ruling?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A case (of a childless couple) came before R. 
          Yochanan. He obligated the husband to divorce her and pay 
          a Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she is not commanded, why must he pay a Kesuvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps she had a claim (why she needed 
          children):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> A woman (to R. Ami):</font></b> Force my husband to (divorce me 
               and) pay my Kesuvah (we are childless).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Ami:</font></b> No, you are not commanded to have children!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The woman:</font></b> What will be in my old age (if I have no 
               children)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Ami:</font></b> If this is her concern, we certainly force 
               him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> A woman came before Rav Nachman with a similar 
               request. When he heard that she desires a son to 
               support her in her old age and to bury her, he 
               replied like R. Ami.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  Yehudah and Chizkiyah were twins. One was born at the 
          beginning of the seventh month, and the other at the end 
          of nine months. This was very painful for Yehudis (their 
          mother), R. Chiya's wife. She disguised herself and came 
          before R. Chiya.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yehudis:</font></b> Is a woman commanded Peru u'Rvu?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chiya:</font></b> No.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  She drank a sterility potion. When R. Chiya found out, he 
          greatly regretted that she would not bear more children;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Yehudah and Chizkiyah were brothers; Pazi and Tavi 
               were sisters.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ARE WOMEN COMMANDED TO HAVE CHILDREN? (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A woman is commanded to have children!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Acha bar Rav Ketina):</font></b> A case occurred in which 
               Rabanan forced the owner of a half-freed Shifchah to 
               free the rest of her (so she could marry and have 
               children)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> She is not commanded. The half-slave was freed 
          because people were freely having Bi'ah with her.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***<b>PEREK ALMANAH</b>***
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A FORBIDDEN MARRIAGE TO A 'KOHEN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a widow was married to a Kohen Gadol, or a 
          divorcee or Chalutzah to a regular Kohen, and she brought 
          into the marriage Melug slaves and Tzon Barzel slaves, 
          the Melug slaves do not eat Terumah, but the Tzon Barzel 
          slaves eat Terumah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Melug slaves are those brought into the marriage on 
               condition that if they die, it is her loss; if they 
               increase, it is her gain. Even though her husband 
               must feed them, they do not eat Terumah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Tzon Barzel slaves are brought in on condition that 
               if they die, he loses; if they increase, it is his 
               gain. Since he has Acharayos (he bears or receives 
               any loss or gain from them), they eat Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If a Bas Yisrael (Kosher to Kehunah) married a Kohen and 
          brought in slaves, both types eat Terumah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If a Bas Kohen married a Yisrael and brought in slaves, 
          neither type eats Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why don't Melug slaves eat Terumah? 
          They should be considered the acquisition of his 
          acquisition!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'V'Chohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo 
               Hu Yochal Bo' teaches that if a Kohen marries a 
               woman or buys slaves, they eat Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the source that if his wife or 
               slaves bought slaves, that the (latter) slaves eat?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'V'Chohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh (a Kohen's 
               property, i.e. wife or slave) Kinyan Kaspo (one 
               acquired by the Kohen's wife or slave) Hu Yochal 
               Bo'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Only one who may eat causes others to eat (a 
          Kohen's Pasul wife may not eat).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1:</font></b> This is not true! An Arel or Tamei Kohen 
          may not eat, but he causes others to eat!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (An Arel or Tamei Kohen may eat,) just his mouth 
          hurts him (he may not eat until he fixes himself.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #2:</font></b> A Mamzer cannot eat, yet he causes others 
          to eat (e.g. if his grandmother is a Bas Yisrael widowed 
          from a Kohen and he is her only living descendant from 
          the Kohen)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Ravina):</font></b> Only an acquisition who can eat 
          causes others to eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, they may eat. Chachamim 
          decreed that they may not eat, in order that she should 
          think 'I cannot eat and my slaves cannot eat. (I am not 
          really married, rather,) I am like a harlot with him!', 
          and he will come to divorce her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> This is a decree lest they eat 
          after her husband dies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, we should decree even when a Bas 
          Yisrael is permitted to a Kohen, lest they eat after her 
          husband dies!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Rather, we are concerned lest a 
          Kohenes widow married to a Kohen Gadol come to err;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Originally, her slaves ate Terumah of her father's 
               house. When she married, they ate Terumah of her 
               husband. Now that she was widowed and they return to 
               her, she will think that they eat like they did 
               before;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She does not realize that she became a Chalalah and 
               she is no longer a Kohenes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This explains why slaves of a Kohenes may not 
          eat. Why may slaves of a Bas Yisrael (married to a Kohen 
          b'Isur) not eat?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim did not distinguish among widows (i.e. 
          women forbidden to their husbands. in every case her 
          slaves may not eat.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN A WOMAN DEMAND THE SAME SLAVES SHE BROUGHT IN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A woman brought Tzon Barzel slaves into the 
          marriage. At the time of divorce, she wants to take them 
          back, and her husband wants to keep them and pay her 
          their value. Who wins?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> She wins.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF A RENTED ITEM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara rules that when a Yisrael rents a cow from a Kohen or a Kohen rents a cow from a Yisrael, the cow is considered the possession of the real owner with regard to Terumah. Accordingly, if the Kohen is the real owner, the cow may be fed Terumah, and if the Yisrael is the real owner, it may not be fed Terumah. The reason why the rented object is considered the property of the real owner is that the owner suffers the loss in value of the animal in the event that its value decreases or it is harmed.
</p><p>
However, if the one who rents the cow appraises its value with intent to assume full responsibility for it and to return to its owner the exact value after a certain period of time, it is considered the property of the one who rents it, for he bears the monetary responsibility. In such a case, if the person who rents it is a Kohen, he may feed it Terumah.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that this case refers to a rental, like the first case. It differs from a normal case of a rental because at the time of the rental, the person who rents the cow stipulated that he will return the exact value that the cow presently represents (and he will compensate for any difference).
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation is problematic. When the renter accepts upon himself to return the exact value of the object he received, in essence he treats the entire transaction like a loan. However, if he is also paying a rental fee in addition to taking responsibility to return the exact value of the object, the fee that he pays should constitute Ribis, forbidden interest, because he is returning more than he borrowed.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Bava Metzia (69b) explains that in an ordinary case of a rental, the money paid as the rental fee for the object is not considered interest even though the object itself is returned to the owner in addition to the rental fee that he pays. The reason why a rental fee does not constitute Ribis is as follows. Since the renter takes no responsibility for fluctuations in the value of the object, and he takes no responsibility for the loss of the object due to circumstances beyond his control, the owner of the object <i>takes the risk</i> of losing his object. In return for this risk he receives a rental fee, and thus it is not considered interest. Another reason for why a rental fee is not considered interest applies in a case of an object which <i>depreciates in value</i> as it is used. Even if the rental fee cannot be considered compensation for the risk which the owner takes -- such as when the renter accepts upon himself to compensate for the fluctuation in the object's value and for loss due to uncontrollable circumstances (and thus the owner risks nothing when he rents out his object), the rental fee is not considered Ribis because it is considered a form of compensation for the <i>decrease in value</i> of the object as a result of the renter's usage of it.
</p><p>
However, in the case of the Gemara here, the renter takes full responsibility for the value of the cow. Moreover, a cow's value usually remains the same; it does not decrease in value as a result of pulling a plowshare. Why, then, is the rental fee for a cow not considered Ribis? (This is the question of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Aval), who rejects Rashi's explanation and says instead that in the second case of the Beraisa, the person <i>borrows</i> the cow and pays no rental fee.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> According to <b>RASHI</b>, perhaps the rental fee for a cow is not considered Ribis for the following reason. A person who rents an animal is not liable if the animal depreciates or dies as a result of normal usage ('Mesah Machmas Melachah'). In the case of the Gemara here, the renter accepted upon himself responsibility to pay only for fluctuations in value that are not work-related. (See also <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>.)
</p><p>
Perhaps <b>TOSFOS</b> does not accept this explanation because he maintains that if the renter is not responsible to replace the value of the animal <i>under any circumstance</i>, the animal is not considered to be his property with regard to feeding it Terumah. If he is not responsible to replace the animal if it dies as a result of normal usage, it is not considered his property.
</p><p>
Rashi argues that as long as the renter accepts responsibility for secondary liability (other than the actual depreciation due to normal usage), he is considered the owner. Even though he is not considered the owner with regard to responsibility for depreciation as a result of normal wear and tear, he may feed it Terumah. It is for that depreciation in value which he pays a rental fee, and that is why the rental fee is not Ribis. (In the case of an ordinary rental in which the renter does not accept responsibility for any form of decrease in value, the renter is not considered the owner because his rental fee does not suffice to cover the external, secondary factors which might cause it to depreciate.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Ami):</font></b> He wins.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> She wins, due to the glory of her father's 
          house (they should return with her).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ami):</font></b> He wins. We learned that if they die he loses, 
          and if they increase, it is his gain. Since he has 
          Acharayos for them, they eat Terumah (it is as if they 
          are his).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Safra):</font></b> The Mishnah does not say they are 
          his! It says only that since he has Acharayos for them, 
          they eat. Really, they are hers!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We do not say that they may eat whenever he has 
          Acharayos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> A Yisrael who rented a cow from a Kohen 
               may feed it Terumah of Karshinim (horsebean. It is 
               primarily fed to animals, but people can eat it.) A 
               Kohen who rented a cow from a Yisrael may not feed 
               it Karshinei Terumah, even though he must feed it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is not a good comparison!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Granted, a renter is responsible for theft and loss, 
               but he has no Acharayos for accidents, weakening, or 
               a decrease in their value! (A husband has Acharayos 
               for everything.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Rather, our case resembles the Seifa of that Mishnah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Seifa):</font></b> If a Yisrael appraised a cow (and accepted 
               to return it with compensation if the value will go 
               down) from a Kohen may not feed it Karshinei 
               Terumah. A Kohen who appraised a cow from a Yisrael, 
               may feed it Karshinei Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rabah and Rav Yosef:</font></b> A Beraisa supports Rav Yehudah, and 
          another Beraisa supports R. Ami.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for R. Ami - Beraisa #1):</font></b> Tzon Barzel slaves go 
          free if the husband knocks out a tooth or eye, but not if 
          she does.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa #2):</font></b> If a wife brought 
          Tzon Barzel to her husband, he may not sell it. Even if 
          he brought in property and appraised it (to guarantee 
          that she will collect its value with her Kesuvah, like 
          Tzon Barzel), he may not sell it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the law if one of them sold it to 
               buy food?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> A case arose (in which she sold), and R. 
               Shimon ben Gamliel ruled that the husband may 
               retrieve the property from the buyer. (Likewise, if 
               he sold she takes it from the buyer when collecting 
               her Kesuvah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava, citing Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows Rav 
          Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> A Beraisa supports R. Ami!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Even so, the reason of Rav Yehudah 
          (glory of her father's house) is better.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  A woman brought a silk cloak into the marriage; it was 
          written in the Kesuvah. When he died, the orphans spread 
          it on the corpse.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rava:</font></b> It gets the status of shrouds (and may not be taken 
          from the deceased).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Nanai):</font></b> But Rava said that the Halachah follows 
          Rav Yehudah (she has the right to reclaim it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Kahana):</font></b> Rav Yehudah agrees that it is not 
          hers until she collects it. Until then, it belongs to her 
          husband;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rava ruled like he taught elsewhere, that the 
               following uproot Shi'abud - freeing a slave, the 
               Isur of Chametz on Pesach, and making something 
               Hekdesh (which includes forbidding benefit from 
               something, e.g. shrouds).
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TZON BARZEL</font></b>
'(a)	(Rav Yehudah): If she brought in two vessels worth 1000 Zuz, 
     and they increased in value to 2000, she takes one for her 
     Kesuvah (the dowry she brought in). She may pay the value of 
     the other and take it also, due to glory of her father's 
     house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does he teach that what she brought from her 
          father's house is hers? We already know this from his 
          earlier teaching!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Above he discussed when her Kesuvah entitles her 
          to take it all. One might have thought that she may not 
          pay money to retrieve her Kelim. Rav Yehudah teaches that 
          this is not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>EATING 'TERUMAH' AFTER THE MARRIAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</font></b> If a Bas Yisrael was widowed from a 
          Kohen and she was pregnant, her slaves do not eat Terumah 
          because the fetus owns part of them. A fetus forbids from 
          eating, but does not permit eating;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim:</font></b> According to you, this should apply even if 
          she is a Bas Kohen!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is R. Yosi's reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Does he hold that a fetus in the womb of a Zarah 
               (non-Kohenes) is a Zar?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, does he hold that only one who is born permits 
               others to eat Terumah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The law of slaves of a pregnant Kohenes depends on 
               this. (They eat only according to the first 
               explanation.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> He holds that a fetus in the womb of a 
          Zarah is a Zar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He holds that only one who is born 
          permits others to eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa - Chachamim):</font></b> You forbid a pregnant Bas 
          Yisrael widowed from a Kohen. What do you say about a Bas 
          Kohen widowed from a Kohen?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yosi:</font></b> I did not hear that law. I only heard the 
               law I said.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We understand this if he forbids because a fetus in 
               a Zarah's womb is a Zar. But if he holds that only 
               one who is born permits others to eat, why did he 
               say that he did not hear about this? It is the same 
               law!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  This is left difficult.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> This is R. Yosi's opinion. 
          Chachamim say, if the Kohen left sons, her slaves eat due 
          to his sons. If he left no sons, they eat due to his 
          brothers. If he left no brothers, they eat due to the 
          whole family.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> '<i>This</i> (is R. Yosi's opinion)' implies that 
          Shmuel himself disagrees;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But Shmuel told Rav Chanah 'gather a Minyan, and I 
               will teach that an acquisition on behalf of a fetus 
               is valid'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, this (is R. Yosi's opinion), and Shmuel 
          agrees.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is Shmuel's Chidush that Chachamim argue with 
          R. Yosi? They do not argue!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Zakai):</font></b> R. Yosi gave this testimony in the name 
               of Shemayah and Avtalyon, and Chachamim admitted to 
               him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It does not say that they accepted it. 
          They admitted that it is reasonable.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO DIED WITH CHILDREN AND A PREGNANT WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> If he (died and) left sons, both 
          types of slaves eat. If he left her pregnant, neither 
          type eats. If he left sons and she was pregnant, Melug 
          slaves eat like she does.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Tzon Barzel slaves do not eat, because the fetus owns a 
          share, and a fetus forbids eating, but does not permit;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael bar R. Yosi says in the name of R. Yosi, a 
          daughter permits them to eat, a son does not permit them 
          to eat;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, if he left sons, both types of slaves 
          eat. If he left daughters, they do not eat, lest the 
          fetus is a male, and daughters do not inherit when there 
          is a son.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did R. Shimon say, lest the fetus is a 
          male? Even if it is a female, they do not eat!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> True! R. Shimon covers both cases:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it is a female, she also disqualifies them from 
               eating.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it is a male, the daughters do not inherit at 
               all.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does R. Shimon permit when he left sons? 
          The fetus owns a share!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE STAKE OF A FETUS IN THE ESTATE OF HIS FATHER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa states that if a Kohen dies and leaves behind sons and a wife who is pregnant, the Kohen's Avdei Tzon Barzel may not eat Terumah due to the portion of the Avadim in the possession of the fetus. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Avdei) explains that the Beraisa means that since the fetus owns part of the Avadim and it is unknown which of the Avadim eventually will be given to him, the Avadim may not eat Terumah.
</p><p>
Rashi's words are perplexing. Rashi explains that since the fetus might receive partial ownership of the Avadim after the estate is divided, none of the Avadim may eat Terumah. This implies that if the fetus does not receive any of the Avadim, but receives some other part of the estate instead, the Avadim <i>may</i> eat Terumah. Accordingly, Rashi's explanation follows the opinion which maintains 'Yesh Bereirah.' 'Bereirah' refers to a situation in which a future event determines a retroactive change of status. According to those who maintain 'Yesh Bereirah,' brothers who divide an inherited estate have the status of absolute heirs ('ha'Achin she'Chalku, Yorshin Hen'). Hence, their apportionment of the property clarifies retroactively that each brother was the true heir to that share of the property from the time their father died. (This is in contrast to those who maintain 'Ein Bereirah,' who maintain that the brothers' division of the property is considered a 'trade' or exchange of portions with each other.)
</p><p>
Why does Rashi explain the Beraisa according to the opinion which maintains 'Yesh Bereirah'? With regard to any Torah matter (such as the Isur d'Oraisa that forbids a Zar from eating Terumah), the Halachah is in accordance with the opinion which maintains 'Ein Bereirah.' Rashi should have given a more basic explanation: since the fetus inherits a portion of the estate and <i>right now</i> the estate is not yet divided, the fetus owns a small part of each Eved. Since the fetus owns a small part of each Eved, none of the Avadim may eat Terumah. (<b>RASHBA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> suggests that perhaps Rashi rules 'Yesh Bereirah' even in the case of a Torah matter, contrary to the conclusion of the Gemara in Beitzah (38a). (Alternatively, Rashi may intend to explain why the Eved may not eat even Terumah d'Rabanan.)
</p><p>
(b) The Rashba assumes that if the Halachah is 'Ein Bereirah,' the fetus owns a share of every part of the estate. However, the Gemara in Gitin (47b) discusses the case of a field owned jointly by a Jew and a Nochri. The Gemara says that the produce which grows in the field is a complete mix of Tevel and Chulin. <b>TOSFOS</b> there (DH Tevel) explains that even if one separates Terumah from one part of the field on behalf of another part of the field, his act is not effective because perhaps the part that he separates does not belong to the Jew but to the Nochri (in which case he has separated Terumah from fruit that was exempt on behalf of fruit that was obligated in Terumah, and such fruit cannot become Terumah).
</p><p>
Similarly, in the case of the Gemara here, perhaps the fetus does <i>not</i> own a share of every Eved. Rather, he owns an unspecified portion of the estate in general. Accordingly, Rashi means that since it is <i>possible</i> that the fetus owns a part of this Eved <i>now</i>, the Eved may not eat Terumah. Rashi does not mean that in the <i>future</i> the fetus might own this Eved, but rather perhaps the fetus owns this Eved <i>now</i>.
</p><p>
However, this approach does not fully answer the question. Rashi in Gitin disagrees with Tosfos and writes that one <i>may</i> separate Terumah from the fruit of one part of the field on behalf of the fruit of the other part of the field, because every individual stalk is divided between the owners and thus half of every stalk belongs to the Jew. That is, if the Halachah is 'Ein Bereirah,' each owner has partial ownership of each and every part of the property until the field is divided. Accordingly, Rashi here should have been consistent with his opinion in Gitin. He should have explained that the fetus owns part of each Eved, and not that it is unknown which portion the fetus will inherit later.
</p><p>
(c) Rashi, however, may be consistent with his own opinion expressed elsewhere with regard to the meaning of 'Ein Bereirah.' Most Rishonim explain that 'Ein Bereirah' means that one cannot effect a Kinyan, or a change of status, now based on the outcome of an event in the future. If one attempts to do so, the Kinyan does not take effect at all. (See <b>RAN</b> to Nedarim 45b.)
</p><p>
Rashi understands 'Ein Bereirah' differently. Rashi explains in many places (see Rashi to Chulin 14a, DH Osrin; Gitin 24b, DH l'Eizo; Gitin 73b, DH u'Meshani) that the change which the person wants to take effect <i>does</i> occur, but the way in which it transpires remains unclear. For example, when a person has two fruits of Tevel and says, 'If it rains tomorrow, the one on the left will be Terumah for the one on the right, but if it does not rain tomorrow, the one on the right will be Terumah for the one on the left,' according to Rashi one of the two fruits certainly becomes Terumah, but which one it is remains in doubt. According to the way most Rishonim understand 'Ein Bereirah,' neither fruit becomes Terumah because 'Ein Bereirah' dictates that a present status cannot take effect based on a future event. According to Rashi, however, one of the fruits is Terumah, but exactly <i>which</i> fruit is Terumah remains in doubt. The change of status is effected, but the details that depended on the future event remain in doubt even after the future event occurs. In practice, a Kohen is permitted to eat both pomegranates, because one of them is Terumah and the other is Chulin, and neither one is Tevel.
</p><p>
Rashi understands that when one makes a Kinyan dependent on a future event, the Kinyan does not depend on what actually happens in the future (since the Kinyan must take place <i>now</i>). Rather, it depends on what is <i>destined -- at this point in time -- to happen in the future</i>. Even if it actually does rain tomorrow (in the example above), those who rule 'Ein Bereirah' maintain that the Kinyan does not take effect because it was impossible to know on the previous day, when the condition was stipulated, that <i>it was destined to rain the next day</i>. (<b>TOSFOS</b> Eruvin 37b, DH Ela, cites a similar ruling in the name of <b>MAHARI</b>. See <b>CHIDUSHEI REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> in Ma'arachah #4 to Eruvin 38a, DH v'Nir'eh d'Vein. See also Insights to Eruvin 37:1, Yevamos 67:1, Gitin 25:1, Gitin 73:2, Zevachim 3:1, and Chulin 14:3.)
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rashi here does not explain the Sugya according to the opinion that 'Yesh Bereirah.' Rather, Rashi follows the Halachic opinion that 'Ein Bereirah.' Since the Halachah is 'Ein Bereirah,' it is impossible to determine which of the Avadim was destined to belong to which of the heirs based on the way they divide the Avadim at a later time. This is the intent of Rashi when he writes that it is not known 'which Eved will come into his possession.' 
</p><p>
(When Rashi in Gitin writes that each owner has an equal portion according to those who maintain 'Ein Bereirah,' he is discussing a field which was still owned in partnership and was not yet divided. According to Rashi (Gitin 47b, DH Shel Yisrael), when the owners eventually divide the field their division cannot determine retroactively which portion belonged to whom at the time the grain was grown, because 'Ein Bereirah.')
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> He is not concerned for the minority (that the 
          fetus is a viable male. Half of all fetuses are male, and 
          some of them are Nefalim.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Really, he is concerned for a minority, but we 
          fix things like Rav Nachman. (We give other property to 
          the fetus (on condition that he is a male) so he has no 
          share in the slaves.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel):</font></b> When orphans come to 
               divide their father's estate, Beis Din appoints an 
               overseer, who picks for them a nice share. When they 
               grow up, they can protest;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Nachman himself holds, they cannot protest. If 
               they could protest, there is no strength to the 
               enactment of Beis Din!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue about whether we make an 
          enactment like Rav Nachman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, all agree to it. They argue about whether 
          or not we are concerned for a minority (when the 
          enactment was not done).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yishmael citing R. Yosi):</font></b> A daughter 
          permits them to eat. A son does not permit them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Surely, a son does not permit them due to the 
          fetus' share. The same should apply when he left a 
          daughter!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The case is, the estate is small (no 
          more than what the daughter will eat until she matures), 
          and there is a son with the daughter. In either case, the 
          fetus has no share:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it is a male, it is no better than the son (who 
               does not inherit);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it is a female, a daughter eats by Rabbinic 
               enactment, and there is no enactment before she is 
               born!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1 (Seifa - R. Shimon):</font></b> (When he left 
          daughters) the slaves do not eat lest the fetus is a 
          male, and daughters do not inherit when there is a son.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This cannot discuss a small estate, for then it goes 
               to the daughters!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Seifa discusses a large estate.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A small estate is not in the daughters' Reshus 
          (even though all the money will be used for their food)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Asi):</font></b> If (male) orphans sold property from a 
               small estate, the sale stands!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, R. Yishmael says that a <i>daughter</i> 
          permits the slaves to eat, i.e. the mother (permits her 
          Melug slaves).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> R. Yosi taught that!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes! R. Yishmael bar R. Yosi explains his 
          father's opinion.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>PEOPLE WHO ONLY DISQUALIFY FROM EATING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A fetus, a Yavam, Kidushin, a deaf man, and a 
          nine-year old disqualify but do not permit to eat;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  In the following cases the widow does Chalitzah but not 
          Yibum - we are in doubt whether or not a boy is nine 
          years old, or whether or not a boy brought two hairs, or 
          if a house fell on a man and his brother's daughter and 
          we do not know who died first.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> A fetus disqualifies a Bas Kohen widowed or 
          divorced from a Yisrael - 'Bi'N'ureha (she returns to eat 
          Terumah)' excludes a pregnant woman;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If she is a Bas Yisrael widowed or divorced from a Kohen, 
          a fetus does not permit her to eat. Only one who is born 
          permits eating.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  A Yavam disqualifies a Bas Kohen widowed or divorced from 
          a Yisrael - 'She will return to her father's house' 
          excludes a Shomeres Yavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  A Yavam does not permit a Bas Yisrael widowed or divorced 
          from a Kohen. 'Kinyan <i>Kaspo</i> Hu Yochal Bo', but she was 
          acquired by the Yavam's brother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  A Bas Kohen Mekudeshes to a Yisrael is disqualified from 
          eating, since he acquired her.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THOSE WHO ONLY DISQUALIFY FROM EATIING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A Bas Yisrael Mekudeshes to a Kohen does not eat due to 
          Ula's concern (lest she share Terumah with her siblings).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A Bas Kohen Mekudeshes to a deaf Yisrael is disqualified 
          from eating, since he acquired her mid'Rabanan;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A Bas Yisrael married to a deaf Kohen does not eat. We 
          require 'Kinyan Kaspo', and a deaf man cannot acquire.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A nine-year old... (We are thinking that this 
          refers to a Shomeres Yavam to a nine-year old Yavam.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does this case teach?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it teaches that he disqualifies her, a Yavam less 
               than nine also disqualifies!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it teaches that he does not permit her, even an 
               adult Yavam does not permit her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The case is, he did Yibum. Mid'Oraisa, 
          he acquired her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that since he acquired her 
               mid'Oraisa, and his Bi'ah is considered Bi'ah, he 
               permits her to eat. The Mishnah teaches that this is 
               not so;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim made Bi'ah of a nine-year old Yavam like a 
               Ma'amar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava - Seifa):</font></b> If we are unsure whether or not 
          he is nine...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a Vadai nine-year old does not permit, we need 
               not teach about a Safek nine-year old!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, it teaches that whenever a man 
          disqualifies her through Bi'ah, such a nine-year old also 
          disqualifies her:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> The following disqualify a Bas Kohen, Bas 
               Levi or Bas Yisrael through Bi'ah: a nine-year old 
               Kusi, Nasin, Chalal, Mamzer, or converted Amoni, 
               Mo'avi, Mitzri or Edomi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Seifa (69a)):</font></b> If they are not forbidden to have 
          Bi'ah in Yisrael, they disqualify.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This implies that the Reisha does not discuss such 
               people!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Reisha discusses men who cannot marry any 
          Yisraelis. The Seifa discusses men who cannot marry a Bas 
          Kohen.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MEN WHO DISQUALIFY FROM 'TERUMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The following disqualify a Bas Kohen, Bas Levi 
          or Bas Yisrael through Bi'ah: a nine-year old Kusi, 
          Nasin, Chalal, Mamzer, or converted Amoni, Mo'avi, Mitzri 
          or Edomi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, only one whose seed is unfit disqualifies;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, a man's widow may marry a 
          Kohen (i.e. he does not disqualify her through Bi'ah) 
          only if his daughter may marry a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> From where do we learn this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'U'Vas Kohen Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar' - 
          once she has Bi'ah with a man forbidden to her, he 
          disqualifies her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> That verse teaches that marriage to a Zar 
          forbids her to eat!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is learned from 'She will return... she will 
          eat the bread of her father's house';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Return' implies that before (being widowed or 
               divorced from the Yisrael) she could not eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If we learned from 'She will return', one 
          would say that only a Lav derived from a Mitzvas Aseh, 
          which is an Aseh, forbids her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Therefore, 'U'Vas Kohen...' teaches that a Lav 
               forbids her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, we learn a Lav from 'V'Chol Zar Lo Yochal 
          Kodesh'.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DISQUALIFYING A BAS YISRAEL FROM EATING TERUMAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara cites sources to prove that a woman who has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Lav becomes disqualified from eating Terumah. The Gemara searches for a source that such a relationship also disqualifies the woman from marrying a Kohen. 
</p><p>
The Gemara first attempts to prove that the woman becomes prohibited to a Kohen from the fact that the verse makes special mention that even a Bas Yisrael becomes prohibited when she has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Lav. The verse must mean that she becomes prohibited to marry a Kohen, because as a Bas Yisrael she is already prohibited to eat Terumah. The Gemara refutes the proof and says that perhaps the verse is needed to teach that a Bas Yisrael who has prohibited relations may not eat Terumah in a case in which she was permitted until then to eat Terumah -- such as when she had once been married to a Kohen and has children from him. Perhaps it is that Terumah which the verse teaches that she loses if she has prohibited relations.
</p><p>
(a) Why does the Gemara reject the proof from the verse by saying that the verse refers to a case in which the Bas Yisrael loses the right to eat Terumah if she has prohibited relations <i>after</i> she was married to (and divorced or widowed from) a Kohen? The verse could refer to a simpler case: the Bas Yisrael loses the right to eat Terumah if she has prohibited relations <i>while she is married</i> to a Kohen!
</p><p>
(b) Why does the Gemara not reject the proof by saying that the verse refers to a case of a Bas Yisrael who loses the right to eat Terumah when she has prohibited relations and <i>later</i> marries a Kohen? Normally, a Bas Yisrael who marries a Kohen becomes entitled to eat Terumah, but in this case she is disqualified because she had prohibited relations.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara does not suggest that the Bas Yisrael is married to a Kohen at the time she has prohibited relations because the verse says 'Ki Siheyeh' (Vayikra 22:12) which the Gemara later understands to mean that the man with whom she has prohibited relations must be one with whom Kidushin can take effect. If she is married to a Kohen at the time she has relations with him, she is an Eshes Ish and Kidushin obviously cannot take effect.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> answers the second question as follows. The verse implies that the Bas Yisrael loses the right to eat the Terumah which she <i>presently</i> is eating (and not the Terumah which she might eat in the future), just as the Bas Kohen mentioned in the verse loses the Terumah which she presently is eating.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A WOMAN WHO HAS RELATIONS WITH AN 'ISUR KARES'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses the source for the law that a woman becomes disqualified from eating Terumah when she has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Lav, and when she has relations with an Eved or a Nochri (see Chart).
</p><p>
If a woman has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Kares, what is her status?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (13b, DH u'Veis Hillel Poslin, #2) writes that she is <i>permitted</i> to eat Terumah, because no verse teaches that a woman loses her right to eat Terumah when she has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Kares. Rashi there follows his first explanation of the Gemara here. In fact, Rashi seems to follow this opinion throughout Yevamos. Rashi consistently explains that the expression 'Pesulah l'Kehunah' (with regard to a woman who has relations prohibited by an Isur Kares) means that she is disqualified from <i>marrying</i> a Kohen but not from eating Terumah. (See Rashi to 44b, DH v'Hi Pesulah; 69a, DH v'Eima Niv'alah; 53b, DH Pesalah; 81a, DH Pesulah. See <b>TOSFOS</b> to 44b, DH Hi, and Insights to Yevamos 69:2:b, and Tosfos ibid., DH Asa'ah Zonah. See also Rashi to 57b, DH Min ha'Pesulin, and Nidah 44b, DH Min ha'Pesulin, and Sanhedrin 55b, DH Ba Aleha, where he conspicuously omits any Chayavei Kerisus from a list of men who disqualify a woman from eating Terumah.)
</p><p>
(b) However, Rashi earlier (15b, DH Hi Atzmah) rules that having relations with an Isur Kares indeed disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah. Relations with a man who is forbidden to her with an Isur Kares is included in the category of relations with an Eved and Nochri, which are derived from the verse of 'Almanah u'Gerushah' which includes any man with whom Kidushin cannot take effect. This explanation is not consistent with what Rashi writes earlier (13b), as <b>TOSFOS</b> there points out (DH Beis Hillel Poslim). Rashi there (15b) follows his second explanation in the Gemara here, which he also mentions here that he prefers. This is also the way Rashi presents the law on 35a (DH Nifselu). (Apparently, those comments were added after Rashi completed his commentary on Yevamos. Instead of changing his comments in every place he discussed the issue, he merely added a few lines to reflect his new perspective on the matter.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (44b, DH Hacha Nami) writes that the source that relations with an Isur Kares disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah is the verse, 'Ki Siheyeh l'Ish Zar' (Vayikra 22:12), the verse which prohibits the daughter of a Kohen from eating Terumah when she has relations with a man who is prohibited to her with an Isur Lav. Although the Gemara explains that the word 'Ki <i>Siheyeh</i>' teaches that the verse refers specifically to a woman who has relations with a man with whom Kidushin can take effect, the simple meaning of the verse is that any man with whom she becomes a Zonah and with whom relations is a severe Isur (an Isur Kares, as opposed to the Isur against having relations with an Eved or Nochri) is called a 'Zar' and disqualifies her from Terumah. Relations with a man who is prohibited to her through an Isur Lav is thus derived from the verse through a Derashah.
</p><p>
(d) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> suggests another explanation there (44b, and in greater detail on 35a, DH Af Al Pi). He explains that having relations with an Isur Kares is not included in the verse of 'Ki Siheyeh' if that Isur Kares is one that comes about through a marital union (that is, the man is forbidden to the woman only because of a marriage that took place; for example, he is married to her sister). The reason for this is that the word 'Zar' implies that the person was <i>always</i> prohibited to this woman ('Zar me'Ikara'; Gemara 69a).
</p><p>
Rather, the source that disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah if she has relations with any of the Arayos is the Torah's appellation of her as a Zonah (as the Chachamim say on 61b). The fact that the Torah mentions both the Isur of Zonah and the Isur of Chalalah in the same verse implies that the Torah intends to compare the two types of women. Just as a Chalalah becomes prohibited from eating Terumah (as the verse states explicitly), so, too, a woman who is a Zonah is not only prohibited to marry a Kohen but is also prohibited from eating Terumah.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE SOURCE FOR WHY AN ISUR KARES DISQUALIFIES A WOMAN FROM TERUMAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS: RASHI</b> concludes that a woman who has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Kares becomes disqualified from eating Terumah because of the verse, 'Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah' (Vayikra 22:13). Rashi writes that this Halachah cannot be derived from the previous verse which teaches that having relations with an Isur Lav disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah, because that verse refers only to types of forbidden relationships with which Kidushin can take effect.
</p><p>
When the Gemara asks for the source that having relations with an Eved or a Nochri disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah even though Kidushin does not take effect with those men, the Gemara also could have asked for the source that having relations with an Isur Kares disqualifies a woman from Terumah, and the answer would have been the same (both are derived from the verse 'Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah'). This is Rashi's preferred explanation.
</p><p>
(a) Why is a relationship forbidden by an Isur Kares not included in the verse that teaches that having relations with an Isur Lav disqualifies a woman from Terumah? Rashi himself writes later that there is a Kal v'Chomer: if an Isur Lav disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah, certainly an Isur Kares disqualifies her! Why is a new verse needed to teach that an Isur Kares disqualifies a woman from Terumah? (<b>MAHADURA BASRA</b>)
</p><p>
(b) Rashi continues and says that a Zonah may not eat Terumah, and that having relations with a man who is prohibited to her with an Isur Kares renders a woman a Zonah. Why, then, is a new verse needed to teach that an Isur Kares disqualifies a woman from Terumah? Having relations with an Isur Kares renders her a Zonah, and thus she should be disqualified from Terumah because of the fact that she is a Zonah!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>YASHRESH YAKOV</b> answers the first question by saying that even if the Halachah with regard to Chayavei Kares could be derived from Chayavei Lavim, such a Derashah would teach only that an Isur Kares disqualifies her from Terumah when the man was a 'Zar Etzlah me'Ikara,' when they were prohibited to each other from birth. In contrast, in a case in which they became prohibited to each other as a result of a marriage (for example, he married her sister), the Kal v'Chomer would not teach that having relations disqualifies her from Terumah, because even Chayavei Lavim do not disqualify her from Terumah when the relationship is not one of 'Zar Etzlah me'Ikara.' The Gemara seeks a source that teaches that <i>all</i> forms of Isurei Kares disqualify her from Terumah. (<b>TOSFOS</b> to 35a, DH Af Al Pi, gives a similar explanation. See above, Insight 2:d.)
</p><p>
(b) Why does having relations with an Isur Kares not disqualify her from Terumah simply because it renders her a Zonah? The Gemara (56b) records a dispute (between two versions of a ruling) about whether a married woman (Eshes Ish) who is raped becomes a Zonah or not. Rashi here follows the opinion there that she becomes a Zonah only when she has relations willfully. When Rashi writes that having relations with an Isur Kares disqualifies a woman from Terumah because it renders her a Zonah, he refers to when she has relations <i>willfully</i>. Nevertheless, a source is still necessary to teach that even when she has relations with an Isur Kares against her will, she becomes disqualified from eating Terumah. For this reason Rashi writes that the source is the verse, 'Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah.' This also seems to be the intention of the <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos to 56b, page 18b of the pages of the Rif) and the <b>RASHBA</b> here.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> That verse teaches only about a Zar, not a Bas 
          Kohen married to a Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There are two verses 'V'Chol Zar'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The other 'V'Chol Zar' is needed to teach R. 
          Yosi bar Chanina's law!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yosi bar Chanina):</font></b> 'V'Chol Zar' may not eat 
               Terumah, but an Onen may.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is learned from the extra 'V'Chol'. (Had the 
          Torah said just 'Zar', we would learn only that Bi'as 
          Isur disqualifies.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Still, we need 'U'Vas Kohen' to teach that she 
          returns to eat Terumah, but not Chazeh v'Shok (parts of a 
          Korban Shelamim given to Kohanim)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> 'U'Vas Kohen... <i>mi'Srumas</i> 
               ha'Kodoshim Lo Sochal' - from Muram (what is taken) 
               from Kodshim she will not eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If the verse came only to teach about Terumah, it 
          would have said only 'b'Kodoshim'. It says 'mi'Srumas 
          ha'Kodoshim' to teach both.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ALSO A 'BAS' 'YISRAEL' IS DISQUALIFIED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This teaches that such men disqualify a Bas 
          Kohen. What is the source that they disqualify a Bas Levi 
          and a Bas Yisrael?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn like R. Aba taught (elsewhere), from the 
          extra 'Vav' in '<i>U</i>'Vas'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> This is only like R. Akiva, who expounds 
          extra Vavim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, even Chachamim could agree here, since the 
          entire verse ('U'Vas Kohen...') is extra.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This teaches that they become forbidden to eat 
          Terumah. What is the source that they become forbidden to 
          (marry) a Kohen?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> The Torah taught that a Bas Levi and Bas 
          Yisrael become forbidden. This must be to Kohanim, since 
          they are anyway forbidden to eat Terumah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> They could eat if they had children from a 
          Kohen!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If so, a Kal va'Chomer teaches that Bi'as Isur 
          forbids them to eat Terumah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Bas Kohen eats because of her intrinsic Kedushah, 
               yet Bi'as Isur forbids her. A Bas Levi or Bas 
               Yisrael lacks intrinsic Kedushah, all the more so 
               Bi'as Isur forbids her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> To the contrary! A Bas Kohen eats due to her 
          Kedushah, therefore, Bi'as Isur blemishes her Kedushah 
          and disqualifies her. Those whose Heter to eat is not due 
          to their Kedushah are not disqualified!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> A Kal va'Chomer from a divorcee teaches that a 
          Bas Levi and Bas Yisrael become forbidden to Kohanim:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A divorcee is permitted to eat Terumah, but is 
               forbidden to Kohanim. All the more so, one who is 
               forbidden to eat Terumah is forbidden to Kohanim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We cannot learn a Lav (for which one can be 
          lashed) from a Kal va'Chomer!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Kal va'Chomer merely teaches that the Isur to 
          eat Terumah also forbids to Kohanim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (What is the source that all the men in the 
          Beraisa disqualify?) Perhaps only Bi'ah of Chayavei 
          Kerisos disqualifies!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'Ki <i>Sihyeh</i>' connotes Kidushin. There cannot be 
          Kidushin with Chayavei Kerisos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, a Nochri or slave should not disqualify 
          through Bi'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yishmael taught why they disqualify.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'A Bas Kohen who was widowed or 
               divorced... (returns to eat Terumah)'  - this 
               applies to men from whom she can be widowed or 
               divorced. A Nochri or slave permanently disqualifies 
               her.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'NOCHRI' OR SLAVE DISQUALIFIES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This teaches about a Bas Kohen. What is the 
          source for a Bas Levi or Bas Yisrael?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn like R. Aba taught, since it says 
          'U'Vas'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> This is only like R. Akiva, who expounds 
          extra Vavim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, even Chachamim could agree here, since the 
          entire verse ('U'Vas Kohen...') is extra.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> We should say that when she leaves a man from 
          whom she can be widowed or divorced, she eats only if she 
          has no children from him. If she leaves a man from whom 
          she cannot be widowed or divorced, she eats even if she 
          has children from him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> If so, why does it say 'U'Vas' to disqualify 
          also a Bas Levi and Bas Yisrael? (If a slave or Nochri 
          does not disqualify a Bas Kohen, surely he does not 
          disqualify a Bas Levi or Bas Yisrael!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Akiva holds that Ein Kidushin Tofsin 
          b'Chayavei Lavin. 'Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar' refers to Bi'as 
          Isur (it cannot mean Kidushin). If so, why does it say 
          'widow or divorcee' (since they do not apply)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches a stringency for a widow (a Bas 
          Kohen from a Yisrael; if she has children, she may not 
          eat) and a leniency for a divorcee (if she has no 
          children, she may eat). It is necessary to teach both:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about a widow (that if she has no 
               children, she may eat), one might have thought that 
               this is because she is still permitted to Kohanim, 
               but a divorcee does not eat even if she has no 
               children;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about a divorcee (that if she has 
               children, she may not eat), one might have thought 
               that this is because she is forbidden to Kohanim; 
               but a widow eats even if she has children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps even Machazir Gerushaso (after she 
          married someone else) disqualifies her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> 'L'Ish Zar' connotes one who is foreign 
          (forbidden) to her from birth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, a Chalal, who is permitted to her, 
          should not disqualify her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> '(A Kohen Gadol) will not disqualify his seed...' 
          equates his (Pasul) seed (a Chalal) to him:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like he disqualifies, also his seed 
               disqualifies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps his seed disqualifies through 
          Kidushin alone!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> He is equated to a Kohen Gadol who 
          disqualifies a widow;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like a Kohen Gadol disqualifies only through 
               Bi'ah, also a Chalal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps (we learn from 'Ki Sihyeh' that) a 
          Chalal disqualifies only through Bi'ah amidst Kidushin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, he is equated to a Kohen Gadol that 
          disqualifies a widow.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like a Kohen Gadol disqualifies a widow through 
               Bi'ah alone, also, a Chalal.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DISPUTE OVER WHO DISQUALIFIES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> One disqualifies only if his seed is 
          forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does he argue with the first Tana?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> They argue about a second 
          generation (i.e. the son of a converted) Mitzri or Edomi. 
          Both of them learn from the Hekesh to a Kohen Gadol:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana learns, just like a Kohen Gadol is 
               forbidden to a widow and he disqualifies her through 
               Bi'ah, also a Mitzri or Edomi Sheni (disqualifies a 
               Yisraelis through Bi'ah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi learns, since a Kohen Gadol's children from 
               a widow are Pesulim, he disqualifies her. Children 
               of a Mitzri (or Edomi) Sheni are Kesherim - 'Dor 
               Shelishi Yavo Lahem bi'Khal Hash-m' - therefore he 
               does not disqualify
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> A man's widow may 
          marry a Kohen only if his daughter may marry a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does R. Shimon ben Gamliel argue with R. 
          Yosi?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ula):</font></b> They argue about a convert from Amon or 
          Mo'av (who has Bi'ah with a Bas Yisrael). Both of them 
          learn from the Hekesh to a Kohen Gadol:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi learns, just like a Kohen Gadol's children 
               from a widow are Pesulim and the Kohen Gadol 
               disqualifies her, also whenever a man's children 
               through a woman are Pesulim (including a converted 
               Amoni or Mo'avi that marries a Bas Yisrael), he 
               disqualifies her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel learns, just like all children 
               of a Kohen Gadol from a widow are disqualified, also 
               whenever all a man's children from a woman are 
               Pesulim, he disqualifies her;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This excludes a converted Amoni or Mo'avi, 
                    since only his sons are Pesulim, but not his 
                    daughters.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW 'BI'AS ZENUS' AFFECTS 'TERUMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A rapist, enticer, and a lunatic neither 
          disqualify nor permit eating Terumah. If he is forbidden 
          to marry a Bas Yisrael, he disqualifies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he was a Yisrael that had Bi'ah with a Bas Kohen, she 
          continues to eat Terumah;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A WOMAN WHO HAS A CHILD FROM A YISRAEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara suggests that the verse, 'Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah' (Vayikra 22:13), teaches that when a Bas Kohen has children from a Yisrael she may not eat Terumah after her husband dies, but if she has children from an Eved or a Nochri she may eat Terumah, because the children from a non-Kohen with whom Kidushin cannot take effect do not disqualify her from eating Terumah. The Gemara rejects this suggestion on the grounds that if this would be the intention of the verse, there would be no purpose in the additional verse (the extra word, 'u'Vas') which teaches this Halachah with regard to a Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi (since they do not eat Terumah even in their fathers' home).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that even if the Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi has a child from a Kohen and thus may eat Terumah (see 68b), there still would be no need for a verse to teach that if she then bears a child from a Yisrael she may no longer eat Terumah. Since the verse already teaches that a Bas <i>Kohen</i> may not eat Terumah because of her child from a Yisrael, certainly (Kal v'Chomer) a Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi may not eat Terumah when she has a child from a Yisrael. The verse is also not needed to teach that a Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi <i>may</i> eat Terumah when she has a child from a Nochri, because if a Bas <i>Kohen</i> may eat Terumah even though she has a child from a Nochri, certainly a Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi may eat Terumah in such a situation.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara assume that a Kal v'Chomer teaches that a Bas Yisrael and Bas Levi become disqualified from eating Terumah because of a child born from a Yisrael? The Gemara earlier (68b) explains that there is <i>more</i> of a reason for a Bas <i>Kohen</i> to become disqualified than for a Bas Yisrael to become disqualified: a Bas Kohen has inherent Kedushah, and therefore relations with an 'Ish Zar' can disqualify her more readily than it can disqualify a Bas Yisrael. Consequently, perhaps a child from a Yisrael disqualifies only a Bas Kohen from eating Terumah, while such a child does <i>not</i> disqualify a Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi, and thus the additional verse is still necessary.
</p><p>
Moreover, Rashi seems to rely on this logic himself when he writes that if a child from a Nochri does not disqualify a Bas Kohen from eating Terumah, certainly such a child should not disqualify a Bas Yisrael. Rashi implies that it is <i>easier</i> for a Bas Kohen to become disqualified than for a Bas Yisrael to become disqualified! Why, then, does the Gemara say that no verse is necessary to teach that a child from a Yisrael disqualifies a Bas Yisrael and Bas Levi from eating Terumah? (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that a Bas Kohen can become disqualified easier only through an act which directly contradicts her Kedushah. For example, the Gemara (68b) says that a Bas Kohen who has relations with a man to whom she is forbidden detracts from her Kedushah, and thus in such cases it indeed is easier for her to become disqualified. Similarly, if she has a child from an Eved or Nochri, since the child was born through an act of prohibited relations, it should affect her more than it would affect a Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi.
</p><p>
However, if a Bas Kohen has a perfectly legitimate child from a relationship with a Yisrael (a completely valid relationship), the fact that her child from a Yisrael disqualifies her from eating Terumah in no way detracts from her Kedushah. Rather, it is merely her connection to a Yisrael through the child that removes her right to eat Terumah. Accordingly, the Gemara is justified in its assertion that in such a case a Bas Yisrael and Bas Levi certainly lose their rights to eat Terumah for that reason.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE STATUS OF A WOMAN WHO MARRIES HER 'MACHZIR GERUSHASO' </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION: RASHI</b> (DH v'Eima Niv'alah) cites a Beraisa (44b) that states that when a man remarries his ex-wife (in a case of 'Machzir Gerushaso'), 'she is Kesherah and her child is Pasul.' Rashi explains that she is Kesherah <i>to marry a Kohen</i>, and certainly she may eat Terumah.
</p><p>
How can she be Kesherah to marry a Kohen? She is a Gerushah (divorcee), who is prohibited to a Kohen! (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that Rashi's words, 'Kesherah l'Kehunah,' refer to the <i>daughter</i> born from the union. When the Beraisa says that the woman herself is Kesherah, it refers only to her rights to eat Terumah, as Tosfos writes (44b, DH Hi).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> (44b) explains that Rashi does not mean that the woman may actually marry a Kohen, but rather he means that the woman is not a Zonah.
</p><p>
Why does the Beraisa say that she is 'Kesherah' if she is not really fit to marry a Kohen? The Aruch la'Ner explains that the Chachamim in the Beraisa are responding to Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Akiva says that a woman who has relations with her husband who is 'Machzir Gerushaso' becomes Pesulah. This means that aside from her status of a Gerushah which disqualifies her from marrying a Kohen, she also attains the status of a Zonah. The Chachamim reply that 'she is Kesherah' -- she does not attain the status of a Zonah.
</p><p>
(Alternatively, the Chachamim use the word 'Kesherah' in order to express their disagreement with Rebbi Akiva in a number of cases. One of those cases is 'Kerovas Chalutzaso,' a woman who is neither a Gerushah nor a Chalutzah and is not prohibited from marrying a Kohen. Since it is appropriate to say that such a woman is Kesherah to marry a Kohen, the Chachamim say 'Kesherah l'Kohen' (and is not a Zonah) with regard to all of the cases in which they disagree with Rebbi Akiva, even though the woman in the case of 'Machzir Gerushaso' indeed is disqualified from marrying a Kohen because of her separate Pesul of Gerushah.)
</p><p>
Why does Rashi insist on explaining that she is Kesherah 'l'Kehunah' and not 'l'Terumah'? Rashi apparently follows the logic of his <i>first</i> explanation earlier (68b, DH Iy Hachi). He maintains that a Zonah is not disqualified from eating Terumah but only from marrying a Kohen. When Rebbi Akiva argues and says 'she is Pesulah,' he must mean that she is a Zonah and may not <i>marry a Kohen,</i> and when the Chachamim argue and say 'she is Kesherah,' they mean that she <i>may</i> marry a Kohen. (See Insights to Yevamos 68:2:a.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she became pregnant, she may not eat. If the 
               fetus was cut up inside her, she may eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If he was a Kohen that had Bi'ah with a Bas Yisrael, she 
          may not eat Terumah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she became pregnant, she may not eat; if she gave 
               birth, she may eat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The child is able to permit her more than his father 
               can!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  A slave disqualifies through Bi'ah, but not due to seed:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven was born (1) to a Bas Yisrael from a Kohen 
               or (2) to a Bas Kohen from a Yisrael and Reuven 
               fathered a child from a Shifchah, the child is a 
               slave;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> In case (1) (Reuven was born to a Bas Yisrael from a 
               Kohen), she may not eat Terumah (if Reuven died. Her 
               slave grandchild is not considered seed of a Kohen.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> In case (2) (a Bas Kohen from a Yisrael) she may eat 
               Terumah (if Reuven died).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  A Mamzer can disqualify or permit eating.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Leah was born (1) to a Kohen from a Bas Yisrael 
               or (2) to a Yisrael from a Bas Kohen, and Leah had a 
               child from a Nochri or slave, the child is a Mamzer;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> In case (1) (a Bas Yisrael from a Kohen), she may 
               eat Terumah (even if Leah died. Her grandchild, the 
               Mamzer, is considered seed from a Kohen);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> In case (2) (a Bas Kohen from a Yisrael) she may not 
               eat Terumah (even if Leah died).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Sometimes a Kohen Gadol can forbid eating.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Leah was born to a Yisrael from a Bas Kohen, and 
               Leah had a child from a Kohen, the child could be 
               appointed to be Kohen Gadol. He permits his mother 
               to eat Terumah, and forbids his mother's mother.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> His grandmother laments 'There should not be (many) 
               like my grandson the Kohen Gadol, who forbids me to 
               eat Terumah.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> Our Mishnah teaches like the following Beraisa:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> A woman widowed from a lunatic or minor 
               is exempt from Chalitzah and Yibum (because Ein 
               Kidushin Tofsin).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Yisrael had Bi'ah with a Bas Kohen, she 
          continues to eat Terumah. If she became pregnant, she may 
          not eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Since if she is pregnant she may not eat, when 
          we are unsure, we should be concerned lest she is 
          pregnant!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> (If two women had Bi'ah with each other's 
               husband,) we separate them from their husbands for 
               three months, lest they are pregnant.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> We are concerned only 
          regarding lineage, not for Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We are also concerned for Terumah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a man gave a Get to his wife to take 
               effect a moment before he dies, she is immediately 
               forbidden to eat Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> Rather, we are concerned 
          only for Bi'ah through marriage, but not for Bi'as Zenus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We are not concerned for Bi'ah through 
          marriage!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Bas Kohen married a Yisrael and he 
               died (that day), she may immerse (from Tum'ah due to 
               Bi'ah) and eat Terumah at nightfall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> She may eat for 40 days:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she is not pregnant. there is no problem;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If she is pregnant, until 40 days the fetus is 
               (considered to be) mere water.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye - Seifa):</font></b> If the fetus becomes 
          recognizable, retroactively she transgressed (and must 
          pay the fine for a Zar who ate Terumah. This shows that 
          she was forbidden to eat!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> She transgressed retroactively up to 
          40 days (i.e. if she ate after then).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN 'ARUSAH' THAT BECAME PREGNANT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Rav):</font></b> If a Chasan has Bi'ah with his 
          betrothed in her father's house, the child is a Mamzer;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The child is a Shtuki (i.e. of uncertain 
          lineage).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Presumably, Rav's law when she is suspected of 
          Bi'ah with others. If not, we attribute the child to her 
          husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support  (Rava, for himself - Mishnah):</font></b> If she gave birth 
          (after being raped or enticed by a Kohen), she may eat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If she is suspected of Bi'ah with others, why 
                    may she eat (perhaps the child is not from the 
                    Kohen)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> We must say, she is not suspected of 
               Bi'ah with anyone else.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Even though she is forbidden (mid'Rabanan) to 
                    the Kohen and to all men (without Kidushin), we 
                    assume that the child is from him;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Here, an Arusah is permitted to her husband and 
                    forbidden to all others. All the more so we 
                    should assume the child is from her husband!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> Perhaps Rav disqualifies the child 
          even when she is suspected only of him, and not of 
          others;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We say, just like she freely had Bi'ah with her 
               betrothed, she freely had Bi'ah with others.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Our Mishnah discusses when she was locked in a jail 
               cell with the Kohen (and she could not have had 
               Bi'ah with anyone else).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> If we know that the Chasan had Bi'ah with his 
          betrothed, Rav and Shmuel agree that we attribute the 
          child to him. They argue about an Arusah that is pregnant 
          (nothing else is known).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The child is a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The child is a Shtuki.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN 'ARUSAH' THAT BECAME PREGNANT (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Presumably, Rav's law is when she is not 
          suspected of Bi'ah with her betrothed, and is suspected 
          of Bi'ah with others.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she was suspected of Bi'ah with him, even if she 
               was also suspected of Bi'ah with others, we would 
               attribute the child to her husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Rava, for himself - Mishnah):</font></b> If a woman (raped 
          or enticed by a Kohen) gave birth, she may eat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If she is suspected of Bi'ah with him but not 
                    with others, surely she eats. The Mishnah would 
                    not need to teach this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> Rather, we must say that she is also 
               suspected of Bi'ah with others.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Even though she is forbidden both to him and to all 
               others, we assume that the child is from him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Here, an Arusah is permitted to her husband and 
               forbidden to all others. All the more so, we should 
               assume the child is from her husband!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> Perhaps Rav disqualifies the child 
          whenever she is suspected of others, even if she is also 
          suspected of her betrothed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In our Mishnah, she was not suspected of Bi'ah at 
               all (except for the time she was raped or enticed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A slave disqualifies through Bi'ah (but not 
          due to seed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this (that children of a 
          Shifchah are not attributed to their father)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'The woman (the Shifchah married to an Eved Ivri) 
          and her children will be (slaves to her master)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Mamzer can disqualify or permit eating.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> 'V'Zera Ein Lah' teaches only that 
          children forbid. What is the source that grandchildren 
          forbid?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'V'Zera Ein Lah' - any seed. (Note: The 
               continuation of the Gemara suggests that perhaps the 
               text should be like in Kidushin 4a, we  read 'Ein 
               Lah' like 'Ayen Lah', investigate her. Even if she 
               has no living children, grandchildren forbid her.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> This teaches that Kosher children forbid. 
               What is the source that Pasul children (Mamzerim) 
               forbid?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'Ein Lah' - 'Ayen Lah'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We expounded this to teach that 
               grandchildren forbid her!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Really, the verse is not needed for 
               grandchildren, for we know that they are like 
               children. The verse is needed only for Mamzerim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Reish Lakish):</font></b> (The Mishnah says, if a Nochri 
          or slave had Bi'ah with the daughter, her child is a 
          Mamzer.) Is this like R. Akiva, who says that Mamzerim 
          come from Chayavei Lavin?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is even like Chachamim. They 
          agree about a child from a Nochri or slave:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Dimi, citing Rebbi):</font></b> The child of a Nochri or 
               slave from a Bas Yisrael is a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Sometimes a Kohen Gadol can forbid eating.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  His grandmother says, 'I should atone for my grandson the 
          Mamzer, who permits me to eat Terumah, but not for my 
          grandson the Kohen Gadol, who forbids me.' (One woman 
          does not say both of these. The Tana merely teaches that 
          both of these are possible.)
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***<b>PEREK HA'AREL</b>***
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO MAY EAT 'TERUMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> An Arel (uncircumcised man) or Tamei may not 
          eat Terumah. His wife and slaves may eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A Petzu'a Daka or Krus Shofchah may eat and his slaves 
          may eat, but his wife may not. If he did not have Bi'ah 
          with her since becoming a Petzu'a Dacha or Krus Shofchah, 
          she may eat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Petzu'a Daka is one whose Beitzim were crushed, 
               even one of them;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Krus Shofchah is one whose Ever was cut. If even a 
               hair's width remains from the crown, he is 
               permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Eliezer) Question:</font></b> What is the 
          source that an Arel may not eat Terumah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Eliezer):</font></b> It says 'Toshav v'Sachir (a 
          resident or hired worker)' regarding Korban Pesach, and 
          also regarding Terumah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like an Arel may not eat Korban Pesach, he may 
               not eat Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Akiva):</font></b> We need not learn from there. It 
          says 'Ish Ish' (regarding the Isur for a Tamei to eat 
          Terumah) to include an Arel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> The words ('Toshav v'Sachir') must be extra, 
          for otherwise we can challenge R. Eliezer's Gezeirah 
          Shavah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Korban Pesach is more stringent. One is Chayav 
               [Kares] for eating it if it is Pigul (was offered 
               with intent to eat it past the allowed time) or 
               Nosar (left past the allowed time), or if one eats 
               it when he is Tamei. We cannot learn to Terumah, 
               which lacks these stringencies!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Conclusion:</font></b> Correct! The words are extra.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Where are the words extra, regarding Pesach or 
          regarding Terumah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The words by Terumah are extra.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Beraisa):</font></b> ('Toshav v'Sachir', Avadim 
               Ivriyim of a Kohen, may not eat Terumah.) 'Toshav' 
               is an Eved Ivri acquired until Yovel. 'V'Sachir' is 
               an Eved Ivri acquired for (six) years.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> It should suffice for the Torah to say 
               that a Toshav does not eat!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If one acquired until Yovel does not eat, all 
                    the more so one acquired for years does not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Had it said only 'Toshav', we would have 
               thought that this refers to one acquired for years, 
               but one acquired until Yovel eats!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Therefore it also says 'v'Sachir' to teach that 
                    even one acquired until Yovel does not eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The words are extra regarding Pesach:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> '<i>Toshav v'Sachir</i> (may not eat Korban 
               Pesach)' - to whom does this refer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> It refers to Avadim Ivriyim acquired for 
               years or until Yovel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> He is not exempt from Pesach!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  He may not eat Terumah (even if his master is a 
                    Kohen). This shows, his master does not own his 
                    body;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN 'AREL' KOHEN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that a Kohen who is an Arel (uncircumcised) may not eat Terumah. <b>RASHI</b> writes that the Mishnah refers to a Kohen whose brothers died from Milah, and thus he cannot be circumcised due to the danger that it poses to his life.
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand. The Gemara earlier (66a) discusses the principle that only a man who is able to eat Terumah himself is able to grant his wife the ability to eat Terumah. The Gemara there questions this principle from the case of a Kohen who is an Arel and from the case of a Kohen who is Tamei. Neither Kohen may eat Terumah himself, and yet he still entitles his wife to eat Terumah. The Gemara answers that in the cases of an Arel and a Tamei, 'their mouths hurt them' ('Pumaihu Ka'iv Lehu'), which means that their inability to eat Terumah is only temporary and, as Rashi there explains, 'they anticipate correcting their problem in the future and becoming permitted to eat Terumah.' That is why their wives and servants may eat Terumah.
</p><p>
However, according to Rashi here who explains that the Arel's brothers died from Milah and thus he cannot do Milah to himself, he certainly is <i>not</i> able to do Milah and never expects to correct his problem. On the contrary, he is forbidden to correct his problem because of the danger that it poses to his life. Since his problem will never be corrected, he should not entitle his wife to eat Terumah. (<b>RASHBA</b> and Rishonim)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that even though his brothers died from Milah, it is still possible for him to perform Milah. At a later time, perhaps the symptoms of his debility will pass and he will appear healthier than his brothers did at the time of their Milah, at which time he will be able to perform Milah (as the Rambam writes in Hilchos Milah 1:17).
</p><p>
(b) Another question may be asked on Rashi's explanation (that 'Arel' refers to one who did not have Milah because his brothers died from Milah). The Gemara later (70b) states that one of the unique characteristics of an Arel is that the factor which prevents him from eating Terumah is 'b'Yado l'Takno,' it is in his ability to correct his situation (in contrast to an Onen, who does not have the ability to rectify his state of Aninus). According to Rashi, why does the Gemara say that an Arel has the ability to correct his situation? Even if, as the Rashba writes, he will be able to perform Milah after signs of health appear, the Milah still is not '<i>b'Yado</i> l'Takno,' for at the present moment he is unable to change his status!
</p><p>
The <b>YASHRESH YAKOV</b> and the <b>NEHOR SHRAGA</b> answer that the Arel is considered 'b'Yado l'Taken' because if, b'Di'eved, someone would cut off his Orlah, he would become permitted to eat Terumah. In contrast, an Onen has no way to change his status. (See also Insights to Pesachim 62:1.)
</p><p>
Based on this explanation, a different interpretation for the Gemara's words, 'their mouths hurt them' (66a), may be suggested. Perhaps the Gemara means that an Arel's wife is considered fit to eat Terumah <i>not</i> because he anticipates becoming fit in the near future, but because if, b'Di'eved, someone cuts off his Orlah, he will be able to eat Terumah. (In contrast, a woman who is a Chalalah has no way of becoming fit to eat Terumah.)
</p><p>
Why, though, does Rashi there (66a) not explain the Gemara's answer in this way? Rashi there writes that the Arel and Tamei anticipate being able to rectify their problem, and that is why they are considered fit to eat Terumah. Apparently, Rashi is bothered by the wording of the Gemara there. The Gemara does not say that they may eat Terumah because the problem is 'b'Yado l'Taken,' but because 'their mouths hurt them.' Rashi understands that the Gemara does not say 'b'Yado l'Taken' because that principle does not apply to a person who is Tamei, who must wait seven days before he can begin the Taharah process. Why may the wife and servants of a Tamei Kohen eat Terumah if his Taharah is not 'b'Yado'? It must be that they may eat Terumah because he is 'Omed l'Taken' -- he anticipates becoming Tahor. In contrast, in the case of an Arel, the reason of 'Omed l'Taken' is unnecessary; it is 'b'Yado l'Taken' at the present moment, because he could cut off his Orlah and make himself fit to eat Terumah. 
</p><p>
This may be the reason why Rashi here (DH Nesheihem) does not mention that the Arel is 'Omed l'Taken,' but only that he is 'Mechusar Takanah' -- lacking a correction, and that deficiency is what prevents the Arel from eating Terumah.
</p><p>
(Others suggest another explanation, based on the words of Rashi to 64b, DH Isura. Rashi maintains that if the Kohen whose brothers died from Milah is not expected to become healthy and fit for Milah, if he nevertheless circumcises himself without waiting to become fit, the Milah is <i>not</i> valid.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> to Chagigah 4b and Zevachim 22b) disagrees with Rashi and explains that the Arel mentioned in the Mishnah refers to a Kohen who <i>refuses</i> to perform Milah, with no Halachic basis for exemption.
</p><p>
If, however, the Arel is one who deliberately refuses to fulfill the Mitzvah of Milah, why does the Torah specify in one verse (Shemos 12:43) that a Mumar (apostate) may not partake of the Korban Pesach, and in another verse (Shemos 12:48) that an Arel may not partake of the Korban Pesach? According to Rabeinu Tam, the Arel <i>is</i> a Mumar.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Tam explains that if a man refuses to perform Milah out of fear for his life, although that fear is unfounded he is not considered a Mumar.
</p><p>
According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation, the Arel certainly is 'b'Yado l'Taken' and 'Omed l'Taken.'
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHY THE WIFE OF A 'PETZU'A DAKA' MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that a Petzu'a Daka and a Kerus Shafchah are permitted to eat Terumah but their wives are not. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Nesheihem) explains that the reason why their wives may not eat Terumah is that they become Chalalos by having relations with their husbands, since a woman is prohibited to live with a Petzu'a Daka and a Kerus Shafchah (Devarim 23:2). Rashi gives this explanation earlier as well (57a, DH Ha Nami and DH Ho'il).
</p><p>
(a) However, the Gemara in Kidushin (77b) derives from a verse that a woman becomes a Chalalah only when she has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited by one of the Isurim of Kehunah (such as an Almanah with a Kohen Gadol). For this reason, a man who transgresses the Isur of 'Achoso' does not render her a Chalalah. Rashi himself writes in many places (see 53b, DH Pesalah; 61b, DH v'she'Niv'alah) that a prohibited relationship renders a woman a Zonah but not a Chalalah. Why, then, does Rashi write that a woman who lives with a Petzu'a Daka is prohibited from eating Terumah because she becomes a Chalalah? (<b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RITVA</b>; see also <b>RASHASH</b>.)
</p><p>
(b) The words of Rashi in Sanhedrin (69a, DH Ba Aleha) are even more enigmatic. Rashi writes that when a woman lives with a Nochri, Nesin, or Mamzer, she becomes a Chalalah. Why does he write that she becomes a Chalalah through having relations with any of the Chayavei Lavin, when the Gemara in Kidushin states that a woman becomes a Chalalah only by having relations with Isurei Kehunah? (<b>YASHRESH YAKOV</b>, 57a)
</p><p>
Rashi here in Yevamos (69a) alludes to this as well when he writes that when a man who is not permitted to marry an ordinary Jewess rapes a woman, 'she becomes a Chalalah.' Why does she become a Chalalah if she did not have relations with an Isur Kehunah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Rishonim who disagree with Rashi (such as the <b>RASHBA</b>, <b>RITVA</b> and others) explain that there are two possible reasons for why a Petzu'a Daka disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah. The first reason is that he renders her a Zonah (and not a Chalalah), as the <b>RAMBAM</b> writes (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 18:3 and Perush ha'Mishnayos). The second reason is the verse, 'Ki Siheyeh l'Ish Zar' (Vayikra 22:12), which is the Gemara's source for disqualifying a woman who has relations with an Isur Lav (68b; see Insights there).
</p><p>
However, the Gemara (69a) states that one who is 'Machzir Gerushaso' and has relations with his ex-wife does <i>not</i> disqualify her from eating Terumah, because he was not 'Zar Etzlah me'Ikara' -- he was not forbidden to her from birth. (<b>RASHI</b> (15b, DH Hi Atzmah) writes that for this reason, a Yevamah who transgresses and marries another man without performing Yibum or Chalitzah does not become prohibited to a Kohen.) It is clear that she also does not become disqualified because of Zonah, but she is permitted to eat Terumah. How, then, can a man who became a Petzu'a Daka <i>after</i> he was married disqualify his wife from eating Terumah? He is not 'Zar Etzlah me'Ikara'! (<b>TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> on the Mishnah)
</p><p>
The Rishonim ask this question and offer a number of approaches.
</p><p>
1. In truth, a Petzu'a Daka does <i>not</i> disqualify his wife from eating Terumah, even though the Mishnah says that he does. The Rishonim prove this from the Beraisa earlier (68a) that lists all of the prohibited relationships that disqualify a woman from eating Terumah and from marrying a Kohen, but omits Petzu'a Daka. The <b>RASHBA</b> (in one approach) asserts that the Mishnah here must be expressing the minority view of Rebbi Elazar (61b) who rules that even when an unmarried man has relations with an unmarried woman, she acquires the status of a Zonah. Alternatively, the Mishnah expresses the minority view of Rebbi Masya ben Charash who rules that when a man has relations with his wife when she is a Safek Sotah, she becomes a Zonah even though he is not 'Zar Etzlah me'Ikara.' Accordingly, the opinion of the Mishnah is not the opinion which the Halachah follows. (The same must be said about the Gemara on 56b which discusses a Petzu'a Daka who disqualifies his wife from eating Terumah.)
</p><p>
2. Others answer that perhaps the opinion of the Mishnah indeed is the Halachah, and the requirement that the man be 'Zar Etzlah me'Ikara' is meant only to exclude a person who is not forbidden to join the Jewish people. When the man is forbidden only to this woman and not to everyone else (he is 'Zar <i>Etzlah</i>,' prohibited to <i>her</i> alone), he must be prohibited to her 'me'Ikara.'
</p><p>
Why does the Beraisa earlier (68a) omit Petzu'a Daka from its list of relationships that disqualify a woman from eating Terumah? The <b>RASHBA</b> suggests that the Beraisa disagrees with the reasoning of the Mishnah and maintains that a Petzu'a Daka or a Kerus Shafchah does <i>not</i> disqualify his wife from eating Terumah, because he indeed must be 'Zar Etzlah me'Ikara' in order to disqualify her. Alternatively, the Beraisa simply omits the case of Petzu'a Daka along with the case of Kerus Shafchah, even though in both cases she is disqualified from eating Terumah (that is, the Beraisa was 'Tana v'Shayar'). The <b>RITVA</b> adds that the Beraisa maintains that it is unnecessary to mention all of the cases, since it mentions 'Nesin and Mamzer' which include all of the other 'Pesulei Kahal b'Lav.'
</p><p>
Rashi apparently is bothered by the question of the Rishonim that a Petzu'a Daka is not 'Zar Etzlah me'Ikara,' and therefore he writes only that a Petzu'a Daka renders the woman a <i>Chalalah</i> but not a <i>Zonah</i>. Why, though, does a Petzu'a Daka render her a Chalalah and not a Zonah? What is Rashi's source for this?
</p><p>
The Gemara (15b and 44b) suggests that the child from a forbidden relationship of 'Machzir Gerushaso' should be disqualified from Kehunah based on a Kal v'Chomer from the case of a child born to an Almanah married to a Kohen Gadol. The Gemara rejects the Kal v'Chomer only because the prohibition of an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol is more severe than the prohibition of 'Machzir Gerushaso' in that the Almanah herself becomes disqualified by living with the Kohen Gadol, while a woman who remarries her former husband does not become disqualified.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (15b, DH Mah, and Nidah 69b) asks why the same Kal v'Chomer is not used to disqualify the woman herself in the case of 'Machzir Gerushaso.' If an Almanah who marries a Kohen Gadol becomes a Chalalah, certainly a woman who marries the 'Machzir Gerushaso' should become a Chalalah! Tosfos answers by citing the Gemara in Kidushin (77b) that says that only Pesulei Kehunah render a woman a Chalalah.
</p><p>
Tosfos asks, however, that the woman in the case of 'Machzir Gerushaso' still should be Pesulah to Kehunah based on a 'Mah ha'Tzad': an Almanah's status of Chalalah is due to her transgression of a prohibition of Pesulei Kehunah (an Almanah married to a Kohen Gadol). Having relations which involve a transgression of an Isur Lav also renders a woman Pesulah to Kehunah (Yevamos 68b). Based on these two laws, it may be derived that any woman who has prohibited relations becomes Pesulah to Kehunah, even one who transgresses the prohibition of 'Machzir Gerushaso.' Although her status of Pesulah cannot be derived from the law of an Isur Lav alone -- since a man prohibited to her due to an Isur Lav is 'Zar Etzlah me'Ikara' while 'Machzir Gerushaso' is not, her status of Pesulah can be derived from an Almanah who marries a Kohen Gadol, who <i>is</i> Pesulah even though he is not 'Zar Etzlah me'Ikara.' On the other hand, her status cannot be derived from the case of Almanah alone, because the case of Almanah is a case of Pesulei Kehunah, and therefore the case of Isur Lav (in which her status of Pesulah is learned from the verse 'Ki Siheyeh l'Ish Zar') is necessary. From the combination of the law of an Almanah married to a Kohen Gadol and the law of a woman who has relations with an Isur Lav, the status of a woman who marries her 'Machzir Gerushaso' should be derived, and she should be Pesulah to Kehunah and to Terumah.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi maintains that having relations with a Petzu'a Daka indeed disqualifies a woman from Terumah based on this 'Mah ha'Tzad.' Why, though, does this 'Mah ha'Tzad' not disqualify a woman who has relations with her 'Machzir Gerushaso' as well? Perhaps there is another common denominator between an Almanah and an Isur Lav (who is a 'Zar me'Ikara'): both cases involve relations with men who are prohibited not only to her but to a broader group of people. Hence, Rashi writes that a woman who has relations with a Petzu'a Daka is a Chalalah because the Pesul of a woman who has relations with a Petzu'a Daka is derived from the 'Mah ha'Tzad' which incorporates the case of an Almanah married to a Kohen Gadol, a case of a Pesul l'Kehunah.
</p><p>
(b) Rashi earlier (69b) uses the term 'Nis'chalelah' ('she becomes a Chalalah') apparently because it denotes the complete loss of her permissibility to Kehunah, even with regard to eating Terumah (as Rashi writes on 68b, DH Giluy Milsa). This may be the intention of Rashi in Sanhedrin (69a) as well; he does not mean that relations with every form of Isur Lav renders the woman a Chalalah.
</p><p>


