# dafyomi

lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Regarding Pesach he should be obligated, since 
                    his master does not own him (he is a proper 
                    Yisrael).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Conclusion:</font></b> The words are extra. (Tosfos - we can 
               say that they refer to Nochri workers, but this is 
               no Chidush at all, for tit already forbids Arel and 
               Ben Nechar.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Gezeirah Shavah is free only from one side. 
          R. Eliezer holds that we learn from such a Gezeirah 
          Shavah only if it cannot be challenged (and this one can 
          be challenged, like above (f:1))!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since neither word ('Toshav' or 'v'Sachir') is 
          needed, we can apply one of them to what we wish to learn 
          (Terumah), and one to the source (Pesach), and now the 
          Gezeirah Shavah is free from both sides.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY DO WE LEARN ONLY 'AREL' FROM 'PESACH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> An Onen should be forbidden to eat Terumah, 
          just like he may not eat Pesach!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina):</font></b> 'Any Zar (will not eat 
          Terumah)' - a Zar is forbidden, but an Onen is not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should say that a Zar is forbidden, but not 
          an Arel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Gezeirah Shavah forbids an Arel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does he say that the Gezeirah Shavah 
          forbids an Arel, and 'V'Chol Zar' permits an Onen (and 
          not vice-versa)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is more reasonable to forbid an Arel, since he 
          has the following stringencies:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He needs to do an action (circumcision);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This action must be done to his body;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The punishment for remaining Arel is Kares;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> The Isur applied before Matan Torah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Failure to circumcise one's sons and (male) slaves 
               prevents him (from eating Pesach).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should forbid an Onen due to his 
          stringencies!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Aninus can apply at any time (whereas Orlah never 
               returns after Milah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It applies to men and women;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> An Onen cannot fix himself (end his Aninus when he 
               wants).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> There are more stringencies of an Arel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Even if there would not be more, we 
          would rather learn Arel from Pesach to Terumah, since 
          Arel is written regarding Pesach. Onen is not written 
          regarding Pesach; we learn from Ma'aser.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Just like failure to circumcise one's sons 
          and slaves forbids the master to eat Pesach, it should 
          forbid him to eat Terumah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> 'You will circumcise him, then he will eat 
          <i>it</i>' - failure to circumcise sons and slaves forbids 
          eating Pesach, but not eating Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, we should also expound 'Any Arel will 
          not eat <i>it</i>' - an Arel may not eat Pesach, but he may 
          eat Terumah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Gezeirah Shavah 'Toshav v'Sachir' forbids an 
          Arel to eat Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps we should learn oppositely (the 
          Gezeirah Shavah forbids one to eat Terumah until he 
          circumcises his sons and slaves, and 'it' permits an Arel 
          to eat Terumah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is more reasonable to forbid an Arel himself, 
          because:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The action must be done to his own body;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The punishment for remaining Arel is Kares.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should forbid one who did not circumcise his 
          sons and slaves, because it can apply at any time!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> There are more stringencies of an Arel 
          himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Even if there would not be more, we never find 
          that one's own Arelus does not forbid him (to do 
          something), but someone else's Arelus does!
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO MAY NOT EAT 'TERUMAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If we expound 'it', how will we expound 'Any 
          Ben Nechar (apostate) will not eat <i>it</i>'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Apostasy forbids eating from Pesach, but not from 
          Ma'aser.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we expound 'Any Arel will not eat it'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> An Arel may not eat Pesach, but he eats Matzah 
          and bitter herbs.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The Torah needed to write the Isur of Arel and also of an 
          apostate:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it written only Arel, one might have thought 
               that he is forbidden because he is repulsive, but an 
               apostate may eat!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it written only Ben Nechar, one might have 
               thought that he is forbidden because he does not 
               want to serve Hash-m, but an Arel who wants to serve 
               Hash-m (e.g. it is dangerous for him to circumcise) 
               may eat!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is 'Mimenu' repeated (regarding Pesach)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rabah uses it (for a Gezeirah Shavah, on Daf 
          74a).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</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'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps it comes to include an Onen!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> 'V'Chol Zar (may not 
          eat Terumah)', but an Onen may.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps this permits an Arel, and not an Onen!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'Ish Ish' forbids an Arel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why not learn the other way ('V'Chol Zar' 
          permits an Arel, and 'Ish Ish' forbids an Onen)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is more reasonable to forbid an Arel, since he 
          has the following stringencies:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He needs to do an action;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This action must be done to his own body;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The punishment for remaining uncircumcised is Kares;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> The Isur applied before Matan Torah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Failure to circumcise his sons and slaves forbids 
               him (to eat Pesach).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should say that an Onen is forbidden, since:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It can apply at any time;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It applies to men and women;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> An Onen cannot fix himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> There are more stringencies by an Arel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Even if there would not be more, we 
          would learn this way!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Ish Ish' teaches about something that applies to a 
               man, but not a woman, namely, Arelus!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW R. AKIVA AND R. ELIEZER EXPOUND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does R. Akiva learn from 'Toshav 
          v'Sachir'? (It cannot discuss Avadim Ivriyim, for they 
          must eat Pesach!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Shemaya):</font></b> It includes a circumcised Aravi 
          or Givoni (they may not eat Pesach).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> They are not considered circumcised (Arel 
          already forbids them)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'Konam (should be forbidden 
               like Hekdesh) any benefit I get from Arelim', he may 
               benefit from an Arel Yisrael, but not from a 
               circumcised Nochri;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he said 'Konam any benefit I get from circumcised 
               people', he may benefit from a circumcised Nochri, 
               but not from an Arel Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, it includes a convert who was 
          circumcised but did not immerse, and one who was born 
          circumcised.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva requires Hatafas Dam Bris (taking blood 
               from the place of Milah in order to fulfill the 
               covenant).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer has no source to learn these laws. He holds 
          that a convert who circumcised but did not immerse is a 
          full convert, and he exempts someone born circumcised 
          from Hatafas Dam Bris.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does R. Eliezer learn from 'Ish Ish'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Torah speaks like people do (we need not 
          expound the repetition).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ORLAH' BEFORE ITS TIME</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chama bar Ukva):</font></b> May we anoint an Arel baby 
          with Terumah oil?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Does Orlah (foreskin) forbid one to eat Terumah even 
               before the proper time for circumcision (the eighth 
               day), or not?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Zeira - Beraisa):</font></b> The Torah taught only that 
          failure to circumcise one's sons forbids him to <i>offer</i> 
          Korban Pesach, and failure to circumcise his male slaves 
          forbids him to eat it. A Gezeirah Shavah 'Az-Az' teaches 
          that failure to circumcise sons also forbids eating, and 
          failure to circumcise slaves also forbids Hakravah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We understand how one can have (Arel) 
               slaves at the time of eating, but did not have them 
               at the time of Hakravah (so we need to learn the 
               Isur to eat), i.e. he bought slaves in between;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  But how can one have (Arel) sons at the time of 
                    eating (Pesach night), but did not have them at 
                    the time of Hakravah (Erev Pesach)?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> A son was born in between. This 
                    shows that Orlah forbids even before its time!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Rejection (Rava):</font></b> This cannot be! 'He will 
                    circumcise every male, then he will bring' - 
                    before its time, he may not circumcise!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, his son had a fever at the time 
               of Hakravah (and could not be circumcised), and 
               recovered before the time of eating.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, we must wait seven days before 
               circumcising, like Shmuel taught!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We did. The case is, he recovered seven days 
               before Erev Pesach!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, the father should have circumcised 
               him in the morning (so the was forbidden to offer 
               Pesach)!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE REQUIREMENT OF MILAH AND TEVILAH FOR A CONVERT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (70a) teaches that an Arel may not eat Terumah. Rebbi Elazar says that this Halachah is derived from the words 'Toshav v'Sachir,' which describe who may eat Terumah (Vayikra 22:10) and who may eat the Korban Pesach (Shemos 12:45): Just as an Arel may not eat the Korban Pesach (Shemos 12:48), so, too, an Arel may not eat Terumah.
</p><p>
Rebbi Akiva derives this Halachah from a different source -- from the extra words in the verse, 'Ish Ish' (Vayikra 22:4).
</p><p>
The Gemara inquires what the words 'Toshav v'Sachir' teach according to Rebbi Akiva. Those words cannot teach that a circumcised Nochri may not partake of the Korban Pesach, because as long as he is a Nochri his circumcision does not remove him from the status of an Arel. Rather, those words teach that a convert who performed Milah but did not yet perform Tevilah may not partake of the Korban Pesach, and that a 'Katan she'Nolad Mal' -- a child born circumcised -- may not partake of the Korban Pesach (Hatafas Dam Bris must be done to him before he may partake of the Korban).
</p><p>
Why does Rebbi Akiva need 'Toshav v'Sachir' to teach that a convert who performed Milah but not Tevilah may not partake of the Korban Pesach? The Gemara earlier (46a-b) teaches that a convert's conversion process is not valid until he performs both Milah and Tevilah. The source for this law is the Torah's description of the conversion of the Jews when they left Mitzrayim, who performed both Milah and Tevilah before they received the Torah at Sinai. Rebbi Akiva also should learn the requirement for Milah and Tevilah from there. Accordingly, before the convert performs Milah and Tevilah he still has the status of a Nochri and, consequently, an Arel. As an Arel, he may not partake of the Korban Pesach. Why does Rebbi Akiva need a special source for this law?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (46b, DH Ki Pligi) explains that although Rebbi Akiva agrees with the Chachamim (46a) that both Milah and Tevilah are necessary for conversion, he disagrees with the source for that requirement and derives it from the verse cited here, and not from the conduct of the Jewish people when they left Mitzrayim.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (46b, DH Od Piresh and DH Divrei Rebbi Yehoshua) explain that although a Nochri who is circumcised is considered an Arel under most circumstances, if he performed circumcision for the specific purpose of becoming a convert he is <i>not</i> considered an Arel.
</p><p>
The Ritva may be consistent with his opinion expressed earlier (see Insights to Yevamos 47:2:c), that the Milah prior to conversion serves to remove the Tum'ah of the Nochri. Only when his Tum'ah is removed can his Tevilah be effective. The Tevilah, in contrast, serves to sanctify the convert with the Kedushah of Yisrael. Once the Milah of Gerus has removed the Tum'ah of the Nochri, he no longer can be called an Arel like other Nochrim.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> adds that not only is a convert who performed Milah but not Tevilah no longer considered an Arel, he is considered a partial Jew, and thus he is not in the category of Arel like other Nochrim. It is not because the Milah removes his status of Arel, but because the Milah makes him a partial Jew. Since he is considered a partial Jew, the status of Arel is removed.
</p><p>
The Rashba also seems to be consistent with his own opinion as expressed earlier (ibid.), where he explains that Milah is the beginning of the Gerus process and is not merely a preliminary act to the Gerus process. Tevilah, therefore, is compared to the 'Gemar Din' and not the 'Techilas Din.' (See Insights to Yevamos 47:2:c.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We require seven 24-hour days from the time 
               of recovery (the baby recovered late in the 
               afternoon, and the father offered Pesach early in 
               the afternoon seven days later).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Ludah's Beraisa):</font></b> The day of recovery is 
               like the day of birth.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Just like we need not wait seven 
                    24-hour days from the time of birth, we need 
                    not wait seven 24-hour days from the time of 
                    recovery!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> No, the day of recovery is more severe than 
               the day of birth. One must wait seven 24-hour days 
               after recovery, but this is not needed after birth. 
               (The Beraisa teaches that they are the same 
               regarding the need to wait seven days.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (to question (1) - Rav Papa):</font></b> The baby's 
               eyes hurt him at the time of Hakravah, and healed 
               before the time of eating. (One must wait seven days 
               only after a fever.)
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> His parents were imprisoned at the 
               time of Hakravah (they did not circumcise due to 
               Ones, so they were able to make a Shali'ach to offer 
               Korban Pesach) and were released before the time of 
               eating.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #4 (Rav Kahana brei d'Rav Nechemyah):</font></b> The 
               baby was a Tumtum. The genitals were covered at the 
               time of Hakravah. The covering was torn and the baby 
               was found to be a boy before the time of eating.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #5 (Rav Sharbiya):</font></b> The baby's head left the 
               womb on Nisan 7, but he was not born until Erev 
               Pesach, between the times of Hakravah and eating.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Such a baby cannot survive!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Once the baby enters the air of the 
                    world, what was closed is opened, and what was 
                    open is closed. If not, the baby would die 
                    right away!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> The case is, a fever sustained him.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Whose fever sustained him?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If it was the baby's fever, we must wait seven 
                    days from the end of the fever!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The mother's fever fed him.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>17. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (to Question (13)):</font></b> We discuss a baby who 
               cried (Tosfos' text - it was attached by its 
               umbilical cord). The Beraisa discusses when this is 
               not so, then it cannot live long.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TAHARAH' OF AN 'AREL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Haza'ah (sprinkling water with ashes of 
          the red heifer) may be done on an Arel, as was done to 
          our forefathers - 'The nation came up from the Jordan 
          River on the 10th of the first month.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They were not circumcised on the 10th because they 
               were weak from travelling.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When was Haza'ah done?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It was done when they were still Arelim (on the 
          10th, so Taharah could be completed on the 14th, in time 
          to offer Korban Pesach)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps they did not bring the Pesach that year 
          (and Haza'ah was after Milah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> 'They did the Pesach'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Mar Zutra):</font></b> Perhaps Pesach was brought 
          b'Tum'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi - Beraisa):</font></b> They circumcised, immersed 
          and did the Pesach in Taharah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>'PRI'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Avraham was not commanded to do 
          Pri'ah (to peel back the layer under the foreskin to 
          reveal the crown) - 'At that time Hash-m said to 
          Yehoshua, make sharp knives (to circumcise Yisrael 
          again)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps this was for those who were never 
          circumcised - '... Those born in the Midbar had not 
          circumcised'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'Again'. We must say that this time, 
          Pri'ah was done.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does the verse say 'A second time'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This equates the end of circumcision with the 
          beginning:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like the start of circumcision is Me'akev (one 
               is an Arel if it was not done), also the end 
               (Pri'ah) is Me'akev.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> The following strands invalidate a 
               circumcision: skin that covers most of the crown. 
               The man may not eat Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ravina):</font></b> This refers to skin which covers most of 
               the height of the crown.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A WOMAN'S OBLIGATION TO PERFORM MILAH FOR HER SON</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa discusses the law that a person's son (or servant) must be circumcised in order to partake of the Korban Pesach, as the Torah says (Shemos 12:44, 48). The Beraisa states that if the son is not circumcised at the time of the Shechitah of the Korban Pesach, the father may not slaughter it on his behalf, and if the son is not circumcised at the time of the eating of the Korban Pesach, the father may not eat it.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks how it is possible to have a situation in which one is permitted to perform the Shechitah of the Korban Pesach (when one has no uncircumcised son) and yet not be able to eat the Korban Pesach a few hours later (when one has an uncircumcised son). It cannot be that the son was born between the time of the Shechitah and the Achilah, because the Torah says only that an uncircumcised son to whom it is possible to do Milah prevents his father from eating the Korban Pesach, but it is not possible to circumcise a son less than eight days old. Rava answers that the Beraisa refers to a case in which 'his father and his mother were incarcerated' during the time of Shechitah but were freed at the time of Achilah. Since it was not possible for them to do Milah to their son at the time of Shechitah (while they were in prison), their uncircumcised son did not prevent them from doing the Shechitah. When they are released from prison and are able to circumcise their son, they may not eat the Korban Pesach until they do Milah to their son.
</p><p>
Why does Rava explain that the Beraisa refers to a case in which both the father and mother were in prison at the time of the Shechitah? The Torah states that having an uncircumcised son prevents only the <i>father</i> from eating the Korban Pesach; it makes no mention of the mother. Moreover, the Gemara in Kidushin (29a) states that the mother has no obligation to circumcise her son; the responsibility of Milah rests solely on the father. Rava does not need to mention that <i>both</i> the father and the mother were in prison; it would suffice to say that the father alone was in prison. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>, <b>TESHUVOS TASHBETZ</b> 3:8, <b><b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b> 2:96)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b> and <b>RABEINU AVRAHAM MIN HA'HAR</b> explain that Rava indeed does not need to mention the whereabouts of the mother. He mentions that she was also in prison only because under normal circumstances -- when the father is unavailable -- the mother takes upon herself the responsibility to do Milah to her son (as the Torah describes in the case of the Milah of the son of Moshe Rabeinu, which Tziporah performed (Shemos 4:25); see also Shabbos 134a). Accordingly, Rava mentions that the mother was in prison only for practical considerations; he needs to explain how the child was still an Arel on the night of Pesach.
</p><p>
The Or Zaru'a, however, is perplexed by Rashi's words. Rashi writes that 'the Mitzvah of Milah is upon <i>them</i>,' which implies that the mother is <i>obligated</i> to do the Milah just as the father is obligated.
</p><p>
(b) The Or Zaru'a suggests that Rava adds the word 'Imo' ('his mother') only as an aside; what matters is that the father was in prison. Rava adds 'Imo' simply because the same expression, 'his father and his mother were incarcerated,' is used in Chulin (11b), where it is necessary to mention that the mother was also imprisoned. Rava here borrows that wording.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV YAKOV EMDEN</b> suggests that Rava means that <i>either</i> the father <i>or</i> the mother was in prison. The father's incarceration prevents the Milah from being performed because the father is the one responsible to perform the Milah, and he is unavailable. The mother's incarceration presents the Milah from being performed because the mother is the one who tends to the needs of the baby after the Milah and helps him recuperate. Without her, the baby's life is in danger. Hence, without the mother the father is unable to perform the Milah.
</p><p>
(d) Rashi's words seem contradictory. Rashi implies that both the father and the mother are obligated to do Milah to their son. However, in the end of his comment he writes, 'If <i>they</i> left the prison at the time of the eating [of the Korban Pesach], <i>his</i> son prevents <i>him</i> from eating the Korban.' Why does Rashi first refer to both parents, and then refer only to the father?
</p><p>
Apparently, Rashi agrees with the other Rishonim who maintain that having an uncircumcised son prevents only the father from eating the Korban Pesach. However, if the father alone would be in jail, he could still eat the Korban Pesach by having his wife perform the Milah. If, in that situation, his wife fails to circumcise the child, it is considered as though <i>he</i> was negligent in his responsibility to circumcise the child, either because he did not send a messenger to his wife or because he did not emphasize the importance of performing Milah before he was separated from his wife. (Similarly, if there is someone else whom the father knows who could take responsibility for the Milah on his behalf and the father neglects to ask that person to do it, his incarceration does not constitute a situation of 'Ones' which would permit the father to eat the Korban Pesach while his son is uncircumcised.)
</p><p>
This explains why Rashi writes that 'they' are obligated to perform the Milah. Rashi means that the father must either do it himself or have his wife do it on his behalf. If the Milah is not performed, only the <i>father</i> suffers the consequences, and only he is prohibited from eating the Korban Pesach because of his uncircumcised son. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AGADAH: TWO ELEMENTS OF MILAH</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara relates that Avraham Avinu was commanded only to perform Milah but not Peri'ah (removal of the thin membrane after the Orlah is removed). Based on this Gemara, the <b>BEIS HA'LEVI</b> (Parshas Lech Lecha) explains the wording of the verse in the Torah which relates Hashem's commandment to Avraham Avinu to perform Milah.
</p><p>
Hash-m said to Avraham Avinu, 'Go before Me and be complete' (Bereishis 17:1), and, 'I will place My covenant between Me and you' (17:2). Why does Hash-m open with a command instructing Avraham Avinu what to do ('Go before Me...'), and then continue with a description of what He will do in the future ('I will place My covenant...')? Why does Hash-m not phrase His second statement in the form of a command as well, such as 'Fulfill My covenant'?
</p><p>
The Beis ha'Levi explains that Milah and Peri'ah serve different purposes. Milah, the removal of the Orlah, represents the removal of an imperfection from the person. The Orlah is considered a Mum, a blemish, on the body. The Mishnah in Nedarim (31b, cited here on 71a) states that the Orlah is loathsome and thus wicked people are referred to as 'Arelim.'
</p><p>
However, Milah accomplishes more than just the removal of an abhorrent blemish. It adds Kedushah to the Jew by forging a bond between Hash-m and him. This is the aspect of Milah to which the Gemara refers when it says, 'Great is Milah, because thirteen covenants were established upon it' (Nedarim 31b). This second element of Milah is accomplished by the Peri'ah.
</p><p>
This is the meaning of the verse. Hash-m first told Avraham Avinu, 'Go before Me and <i>be complete</i>' -- remove the blemish of Orlah. Hash-m then told Avraham Avinu that although the command to perform Peri'ah has not yet been given, nevertheless 'I will place My covenant between Me and you' -- in the future, Hash-m will make a special covenant between Him and Avraham's descendants, through which He will give them Kedushah. This would occur at the time they receive the Mitzvah of Peri'ah (upon entering Eretz Yisrael).
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY 'YISRAEL' DIDN'T CIRCUMCISE IN THE WILDERNESS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't they circumcise in the Midbar?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> They were weak from travelling.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The north wind (it is the most gentle) did not 
          blow (during the day).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> All 40 years that Yisrael were in the 
               Midbar, the north wind did not blow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Bnei Yisrael were excommunicated.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> It would have scattered the Clouds of Glory.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Papa:</font></b> Therefore, we do not circumcise on a cloudy day 
          or on a day when the south wind (the harshest) blows. We 
          do not let blood on such days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Nowadays that many people do this, 'Hash-m watches over 
          the simple'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> All 40 years in the Midbar, each night the 
          north wind blew at midnight - 'At midnight, Hash-m killed 
          every firstborn'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How is this learned from this verse?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It shows that Hash-m is appeased at midnight.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'MASHUCH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, a Mashuch (a circumcised person 
          whose foreskin covers the crown) may eat Terumah. 
          Chachamim decreed that he may not, because he looks like 
          an Arel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> A Mashuch must be circumcised.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is only mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The one who asked should have anticipated the 
          answer! (The Beraisa does not say that he is an Arel, 
          merely he must circumcise!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Seifa made him err:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Seifa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> He should not circumcise, 
               because it is dangerous (lest he be castrated).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> But many were circumcised in the days of 
               Ben Koziva (after Nochrim forcibly were Moshech 
               foreskins of Yisrael), and they had children! 'Himol 
               Yimol' - even 100 times! 'He annulled my covenant' 
               includes a Mashuch!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why was the second verse needed?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that circumcision is 
               repeated only for strands that invalidate the Milah. 
               The second verse teaches that even a Mashuch must 
               circumcise again.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> The one who asked thought that since verses are 
               brought, the law is mid'Oraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> This is wrong. The law is mid'Rabanan; the verses 
               are only Asmachtos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> A Tumtum does not eat Terumah. His 
          wives and slaves eat. A Mashuch and one born circumcised 
          may eat;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> An Androginus (one who has male and female genitals) 
               eats Terumah, but not Kodshim; a Tumtum eats neither 
               Terumah nor Kodshim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa permits a Mashuch and one born 
               circumcised to eat. This refutes Rav Huna.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'TUMTUM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A Tumtum does not eat Terumah. His Nashim 
          (wives) and slaves eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does a Tumtum have wives?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He was Mekadesh a woman:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Tumtum was Mekadesh a woman or 
                    became Mekudeshes to a man, the Kidushin takes 
                    effect.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> It takes effect to be stringent, not to 
               be lenient!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  A Tumtum is a Safek woman. If the Tumtum is 
                    truly female, when she was Mekadesh a woman it 
                    is not Kidushin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The case is, (his Ever is covered but) 
          the testicles can be recognized.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> He feeds his 'Nashim' (women), i.e. his 
          mother (if she is a Bas Yisrael widowed or divorced from 
          a Kohen).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> That is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that only one who can have 
          children permits eating. The Beraisa teaches that this is 
          not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A Tumtum eats neither Terumah nor Kodshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, according to Abaye the Reisha teaches 
          about a Vadai Arel (the Beitzim can be recognized) and 
          the Seifa teaches about a (Safek woman,) Safek Arel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> According to Rava, why must the Seifa 
               repeat (the Isur to eat Terumah)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Here, 'Tumtum' refers to a (Vadai) Arel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Reisha forbids a Safek Arel to eat. There 
          is no need to teach that a Vadai Arel may not eat!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Seifa explains the Reisha:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Tumtum may not eat Terumah because he is a Safek 
               Arel, and an Arel may not eat Terumah or Kodshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue about Rav Huna's law.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> The following may only be circumcised in 
               daytime: a Mashuch; a convert who was circumcised 
               before converting; a baby past his time (eight 
               days); and all others who are circumcised, i.e. one 
               who has two foreskins;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar bar Shimon says, in the proper time they 
               are circumcised only during the day. After the time, 
               it may be at night.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MAY AN 'AREL' TOUCH TERUMAH?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara inquires whether an Arel is permitted to perform Haza'ah of the Mei Chatas on another person. The Gemara suggests that he is permitted to perform Haza'ah based on a Kal v'Chomer: Since a  Tevul Yom -- who is not permitted to touch Terumah (or Kodshim, <b>TOSFOS</b>) -- is permitted to perform Haza'ah, certainly an Arel -- who may touch Terumah (and Kodshim) -- should be permitted to perform Haza'ah.
</p><p>
The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that an Arel may <i>not</i> perform Haza'ah. The Gemara explains that the Beraisa expresses the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. Rava explains (in the Gemara's conclusion, according to Rashi, DH Lo) that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah because of the strictness of the laws of the Parah Adumah (see Chart, and Insights to Yevamos 75:1).
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> asks that according to the Gemara's conclusion that an Arel is not permitted to perform Haza'ah, he should also not be permitted to touch Terumah or Kodshim. The Gemara's initial Kal v'Chomer should apply and teach that since a Tevul Yom may perform Haza'ah but may not touch Terumah or Kodshim, an Arel -- who may <i>not</i> perform Haza'ah -- certainly should not be permitted to touch Terumah or Kodshim.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The fact that the Torah prohibits an Arel from <i>eating</i> Terumah or Kodshim (Vayikra 22:4; see 70a) implies that the Torah permits him to <i>touch</i> it. If an Arel would be prohibited from touching Terumah, no verse would be necessary to teach that he may not <i>eat</i> Terumah. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
The <b>YASHRESH YAKOV</b> challenges this answer. Perhaps when the Torah prohibits an Arel from eating Terumah its intention is to teach that an Arel is <i>punished with Malkus</i> for eating Terumah but not for touching Terumah (since the prohibition against touching Terumah is derived from a Kal v'Chomer, and 'Ein Onshin Min ha'Din'). Accordingly, the fact that the verse mentions only that an Arel may not <i>eat</i> Terumah provides no proof that he is permitted to <i>touch</i> Terumah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>YASHRESH YAKOV</b> answers instead that the verse itself explicitly prohibits an Arel only from eating Terumah and does not prohibit him from touching Terumah. This is not derived from an inference in the verse, but it is the very intention of the verse.
</p><p>
(c) Perhaps the Kal v'Chomer does not apply for the following reason. As Rashi explains, an Arel may not perform Haza'ah with the Mei Chatas because of the strictness of the laws of Parah Adumah. Why, though, should the strictness of the laws preclude an Arel from performing part of the service? The reason is that an Arel is 'Ma'us' -- he is considered loathsome because of his state of Arelus, and thus it is improper for him to take part in the service of the Parah Adumah. The Gemara suggests a similar logic when it exempts an Arel from the Mitzvah to appear in the Beis ha'Mikdash during the festival 'because he is loathsome.'
</p><p>
Accordingly, the limitation of an Arel applies only in situations in which the Arel's participation would be loathsome. An Arel's loathsome nature prevents him from active involvement in the Avodah of the Parah Adumah and in helping another person become Tahor (with Haza'ah). Similarly, it is improper for one who is considered 'Ma'us' to enter the Azarah, a holy place. In contrast, <i>contact</i> with a sanctified object such as Terumah cannot be prohibited merely because the person is 'Ma'us.' Therefore, the Kal v'Chomer does not apply.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The first Tana holds that Mashuch must 
               be circumcised mid'Oraisa, and R. Elazar bar Shimon 
               requires this mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> This is unreasonable! Mashuch is taught with a 
          baby past his time, which all agree is mid'Oraisa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, all agree that Mashuch is mid'Rabanan, and 
               that a baby past his time is mid'Oraisa;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The first Tana expounds the Vav in '<i>U</i>va'Yom' (to 
               require Milah during the day even after the time. 
               Chachamim pattern the law of Mashuch after the 
               mid'Oraisa law);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar does not expound it (so Milah after the 
               time may be at night, and all the more so Mashuch).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Nosar (Korbanos that were not eaten in the 
          allotted time) in the proper time (to burn it) must be 
          burned during the day. After the time, it may be burned 
          even at night.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (R. Elazar - Beraisa) Question:</font></b> ('Ba'Yom 
          ha'Shemini' teaches that) Milah on the eighth day must be 
          during the day. What is the source that Milah must be 
          during the day even if it is on day nine, 10, 11 or 12 
          (e.g. we are unsure which day he was born, so we must 
          wait until a Yom Chol)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We learn from '<i>U</i>va'Yom'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> Also, even the opinion that does not expound 
          Vav expounds Vav-Hei (so 'Veha'Nosar' teach that it must 
          always be burned during the day)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan was silent. After R. Elazar left, R. Yochanan 
          said that R. Elazar expounds like Moshe learning from 
          Hash-m!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Reish Lakish:</font></b> He did not expound on his own. He learned 
          from a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan went and learned Toras Kohanim in three days, 
          and spent three months thinking it over.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN AN 'AREL' DO 'HAZA'AH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> If an Arel did Haza'ah (sprinkled water 
          sanctified with ashes of Parah Adumah), it is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like a Tevul Yom (one who immersed today 
               from Tum'ah). Even though a Tevul Yom is forbidden 
               to Terumah (until evening), he is Kosher for Parah 
               Adumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> One cannot learn from a Tevul Yom, since 
               he may eat Ma'aser (Sheni, but an Arel may not)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We do not discuss eating, rather, touching!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  A Tevul Yom may not touch Terumah, but he is 
                    Kosher for Parah Adumah. An Arel may touch 
                    Terumah, all the more so, he is Kosher for 
                    Parah Adumah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> Haza'ah of an Arel is valid. A case 
          occurred, and Chachamim validated the Haza'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Tumtum was Mekadesh (water with 
          the ashes), his Kidush is invalid, since he is a Safek 
          Arel, and Kidush of an Arel is invalid. If an Androginus 
          was Mekadesh, his Kidush is valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, even Kidush of an Androginus is 
               invalid, since he is a Safek female, and Kidush of a 
               female is invalid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that an Arel or a Safek Arel may not 
               Mekadesh!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> That Tana holds like Tana d'vei R. 
          Akiva, who considers an Arel like a Tamei:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> 'Ish Ish' (regarding the Isur 
               for a Tamei to eat Terumah) includes an Arel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Why isn't there a Mishnah or Beraisa 
          that teaches 'an Arel and a Tamei', and we will establish 
          it like R. Akiva?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We do find this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> An Arel and a Tamei are exempt from 
               Re'iyah (the Mitzvah to enter the Mikdash on the 
               festival).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> An Arel is not exempt from Re'iyah because 
          he is considered Tamei, rather, because he is repulsive.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah and Chachamim are consistent with what they 
          taught elsewhere:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> All are Kosher to Mekadesh (water with 
               the ashes) except for a deaf person, lunatic or 
               minor;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, a minor may Mekadesh, but a woman 
               or Androginus may not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Chachamim learn from 'V'Lakchu... me'Afar... (v'Nasan 
          Alav Mayim)' - only one who may gather may Mekadesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah disagrees, for if so it should have said 
          'V'Lakach (singular)'! Rather 'V'Lakchu (plural)' teaches 
          that those Pesulim to gather may do Kidush.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, even a woman should be Kosher for 
               Kidush!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'V'Nasan (masculine)' excludes women.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Chachamim disagree. It did not say both in the singular 
          'V'Lakach... v'Nasan', for this would teach that one 
          person takes the ashes and another takes the water 
          (Rashi; Tosfos - the same one who put the ashes on the 
          water must mix them together). Therefore, it says 
          'V'Lakchu';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It did not say 'V'Lakchu... v'Nasnu', for this would 
               teach that two take the ashes and two put the water;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rather, it says 'V'Lakchu... v'Nasan' to teach that 
               even two may take the ashes and one may put the 
               water.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  'And the Tahor will sprinkle on the Tamei' implies that 
          he is considered Tahor for Haza'ah, but he is Tamei for 
          other things!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This teaches that a Tevul Yom is Kosher for Parah 
               Adumah.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>STRINGENCIES OF 'MA'ASER'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> May an Arel eat Ma'aser (Sheni)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like we learn from Ma'aser to Pesach that an 
               Onen may not eat, we learn from Pesach to Ma'aser 
               that an Arel may not eat!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps we can learn what is stringent (Pesach) 
               from what is lenient (Ma'aser), but not vice-versa!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes - Mishnah):</font></b> The following apply to 
          Terumah and Bikurim (the first fruits to ripen, one 
          brings them to a Kohen in the Mikdash), but not to 
          Ma'aser:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim for eating them 
               (b'Tum'ah), a Zar who ate them b'Shogeg must pay an 
               extra fifth for them, they are forbidden to a Zar, 
               they are the property of the Kohen;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They become Batel (nullified) if mixed with 100 
               times as much Chulin (regular food), one must wash 
               his hands before touching them, and a Tevul Yom must 
               wait until dark to eat them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If an Arel were permitted to eat Ma'aser, the 
               Mishnah should also say that an Arel may not eat 
               Terumah and Bikurim, but he may eat Ma'aser!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps the Tana omitted teaching this. (Other 
          answers to Question (a) are given on Daf 74.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (Surely, the Tana would not omit only one 
          case.) What else did he omit?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> He omitted a case in the Seifa:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Seifa):</font></b> The following apply to Ma'aser and Bikurim, 
               but not to Terumah: one must bring them to 
               Yerushalayim, one must recite Viduy over them, and 
               they are forbidden to an Onen;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon permits them to an Onen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Bi'ur applies to them (there is a deadline, after 
               which one must get rid of them);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon exempts.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah does not say that they may not be burned 
               if they are Tamei, and that one is lashed for eating 
               them if they are Tamei, which do not apply to 
               Terumah!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'CHUMROS' OF TERUMAH AND BIKURIM OVER MA'ASER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Bikurim (2:1-2) which contrasts the laws of Terumah and Bikurim with the laws of Ma'aser Sheni and describes the ways in which Terumah and Bikurim are more stringent than Ma'aser, and the ways in which Ma'aser is more stringent than Terumah and Bikurim. Among the stringencies of Terumah and Bikurim are the laws that a Zar (non-Kohen) who willfully eats them is Chayav Misah, a Zar who accidentally eats them must pay an additional Chomesh (a fifth of their value), and a Zar is prohibited from eating them.
</p><p>
Since the Mishnah states that a Zar is Chayav Misah for willfully eating Terumah and Bikurim, and must pay a Chomesh for inadvertently eating them, it is obvious that he is prohibited from eating them! Why does the Mishnah mention as an additional stringency that Terumah and Bikurim are prohibited to a Zar? (<b>TOSFOS</b>, <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>)
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara in Yoma (73b) asks why the Mishnah there states that eating and drinking are prohibited on Yom Kippur. Since the Mishnah there already states that one who eats and drinks on Yom Kippur is punished with Kares, it is inappropriate to mention that those acts are merely 'prohibited.' Similarly, why does the Mishnah in Bikurim mention that Terumah and Bikurim are 'prohibited' to a Zar? A Zar is not merely prohibited from eating them -- he is even punished with Misah! (<b>ME'IRI</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Bava Metzia (53a, DH va'Asurim) answers that the Mishnah mentions the words 'Asurim l'Zarim' only because it wants to conclude with the words 'Mah she'Ein Ken b'Ma'aser' and contrast the laws of Terumah and Bikurim with Ma'aser. By adding the words 'Asurim l'Zarim,' the Mishnah teaches that Ma'aser differs from Terumah and Bikurim not only in that a Zar is not punished for eating it, but in that a Zar is permitted to eat it even l'Chatchilah. 'Asurim l'Zarim' teaches by inference that Ma'aser is permitted to Zarim.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (here and in Bava Metzia) rejects this explanation. He points out that the first part of this Mishnah, which lists the stringencies of Terumah and Bikurim, is recorded again in a Mishnah in Chalah (1:9), which lists the stringencies of Chalah and Bikurim. There, however, the Mishnah also begins by saying that Chalah and Bikurim are 'Asurim l'Zarim,' but it does not conclude by contrasting the laws of Chalah and Bikurim with the laws of Ma'aser! According to Rashi's explanation, the Mishnah in Chalah has no need to mention 'Asurim l'Zarim.'
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> defends Rashi's explanation. He writes that occasionally a Mishnah uses the same wording it uses elsewhere even though that wording is not fully appropriate in the present context. (See, for example, Makos 2:8, 'k'Yotzei Bo, Rotze'ach...,' which is based on the wording of the Mishnah in Shevi'is 10:8.) The Mishnah in Chalah borrows the wording of the Mishnah in Bikurim even though the words 'Asurim l'Zarim' are unnecessary in the Mishnah in Chalah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> here in Yevamos apparently follows a different approach. When the Mishnah says that one is punished with Misah for intentionally eating Terumah and Bikurim, it does not refer to a Zar who eats Terumah and Bikurim but to a <i>Kohen who is Tamei</i> who eats Terumah and Bikurim. This also seems to be the intent of Rav in the Yerushalmi in Bikurim (2:1). (See <b>MAHARSHA</b>; see also <b>RASHASH</b> and <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> who suggest another reason for why Rashi writes that the Mishnah discusses a Kohen who is Tamei, and not a Zar.)
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Mishnah mention that Terumah and Bikurim are 'Asurim l'Zarim' if it already mentions that one must pay a Chomesh for eating them? A Kohen who is Tamei does not pay Chomesh for inadvertently eating Terumah or Bikurim! Perhaps Rashi maintains that the fact that one is obligated to pay a Chomesh for eating Terumah is not a definite indication that he is prohibited from eating it (as the Me'iri explicitly writes). One might have thought that he is permitted to eat Terumah but must pay a Chomesh if he does. Therefore, the Mishnah must add that one is prohibited to eat Terumah and Bikurim. (See, however, <b>RASHI</b> to Gitin 21b, DH Lo Efshar.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ARUCH</b> (Erech 'Te'an') answers that 'Asurim l'Zarim' teaches that Terumah and Bikurim remain prohibited to a Zar even after they are redeemed with Pidyon. In other words, the  Mishnah teaches that Terumah and Bikurim cannot be redeemed with Pidyon, in contrast to Ma'aser which may be redeemed.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b>, however, rejects this answer because Rav Ashi (74a) states that the Mishnah <i>omitted</i> the stringency that Terumah and Bikurim cannot be redeemed, and that this was one of several stringencies which the Mishnah intentionally omitted ('Tana v'Shayar').
</p><p>
Perhaps the Aruch understands that the other Amora'im in the Gemara disagree with Rav Ashi and maintain that the stringency of 'Ein Lahem Pidyon' was <i>not</i> omitted from the Mishnah but was included in the Mishnah in the words 'Asurim l'Zarim.' The Aruch intends only to explain the wording of the Mishnah according to those Amora'im.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>ARUCH</b> cites another answer in the name of Rebbi Yochanan in the Yerushalmi (Bikurim 2:1). The Yerushalmi suggests that 'Asurim l'Zarim' refers to the prohibition against eating 'Chatzi Shi'ur' (less than the minimum amount necessary for being punished). A Zar who eats a 'Chatzi Shi'ur' of Terumah is neither punished with Misah nor required to pay Chomesh.
</p><p>
However, the Gemara in Yoma (73b) teaches that the prohibition of 'Chatzi Shi'ur' applies to all prohibitions in the Torah. Accordingly, why does the Mishnah need to state this Halachah specifically with regard to Terumah and Bikurim?
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and other Rishonim answer that eating Terumah and eating Bikurim are prohibitions which are not 'Shaveh ba'Kol' -- they do not apply to all Jews equally (since they do not apply to Kohanim). One might have thought that the Torah (or Rabanan; see Yoma 73b) does not prohibit a 'Chatzi Shi'ur' of such prohibitions. Therefore, the Mishnah teaches that even a 'Chatzi Shi'ur' of Terumah and Bikurim is prohibited.
</p><p>
(e) The <b>ME'IRI</b> (in the name of 'Yesh Mefarshim') explains that 'Asurim l'Zarim' means that Terumah and Bikurim are Asur b'Hana'ah -- one is prohibited to derive any form of benefit from them. Although there are forms of benefit which one may derive from Terumah, those forms of benefit are permitted only when the Terumah will not be consumed in the process. One may not derive benefit from Terumah in a manner which does not preserve the Terumah itself. (See <b>TOSFOS</b> to 66b, DH Lo.)
</p><p>
One who derives benefit by destroying Terumah is not punished with Misah or Chomesh, but he does transgress a prohibition. This is the intention of the Mishnah when it states that Terumah and Bikurim are 'Asurim l'Zarim.' (See <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b> for another answer.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> This shows that the Tana omitted cases. (A second 
               answer will be brought at the end of this Daf.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Ma'aser and Bikurim are forbidden to an Onen; 
          R. Shimon permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Chachamim's source to forbid?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'In your city you may not eat Ma'aser... 
          u'Serumas Yadecha';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We learned that 'u'Serumas Yadecha' is Bikurim; the 
               verse equates them to Ma'aser. Just like Ma'aser is 
               forbidden to an Onen, also Bikurim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon explains that the Torah calls them Terumah 
               to teach that just like Terumah is permitted to an 
               Onen, also Bikurim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> They require Bi'ur; R. Shimon exempts.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim equate Bikurim to Ma'aser, and R. Shimon 
               does not.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT IS PERMITTED 'B'TUM'AH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We said that one may not burn Tamei Ma'aser, 
          and one is lashed for eating it. What is the source of 
          this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> 'I did not consume 
          (Ma'aser) in Tum'ah' - whether I was Tamei and it was 
          Tahor, or vice-versa;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (R. Shimon):</font></b> (He must declare that he did 
               not eat it b'Tum'ah.) Where does the Torah forbid 
               this?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'He will not eat from the 
                    Kodoshim...' forbids a Tamei to eat Ma'aser!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> R. Shimon asks where the Torah forbids 
                    eating Ma'aser when it is Tamei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Shimon):</font></b> It says 'In your city you <i>may 
               not</i> eat Ma'aser...', and 'In your city you <i>may</i> 
               eat them (blemished Korbanos that were redeemed), a 
               Tahor and a Tamei together';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> The Tahor and Tamei 
                    may eat in the same plate (even though the food 
                    becomes Tamei).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> What is permitted (eating when the food is Tamei) 
               there (Korbanos after redemption) is  forbidden 
               regarding Ma'aser.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We said that these do not apply to Terumah. 
          What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> We learn from 'I did not eradicate 
          <i>it</i> in Tum'ah'. You may not burn Tamei Ma'aser, but you 
          may burn Tamei Terumah oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps you may not burn Tamei Ma'aser, but 
          you may burn Tamei Kodesh oil!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> A Kal va'Chomer refutes this:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Ma'aser is lenient, yet it may not be burned 
               b'Tum'ah, all the more so Kodesh, which is 
               stringent!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, the same applies to Terumah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'It' permits burning Tamei Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'it' permits burning Kodesh!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> This is unreasonable, for Kodesh is stringent:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It can become Pigul (if it was offered with intent 
               to eat it after the allotted time);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It becomes Nosar if not eaten in the allotted time;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> It is brought in the Mikdash;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> One transgresses Me'ilah for improper benefit from 
               Kodesh;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> A Tamei who eats it is Chayav Kares;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> It is forbidden to an Onen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should not permit burning Tamei Terumah, 
          since it has stringencies:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Tamei who eats it is Chayav Misah (b'Yedei 
               Shamayim);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If a Zar ate it b'Shogeg he pay for it and add a 
               fifth;.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> It cannot be redeemed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> It is forbidden to a Zar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> There are more stringencies of Kodesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> (Even if there were equal numbers,) Kares is 
          more severe (than Misah b'Yedei Shamayim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  We said that one is lashed for eating Tamei Ma'aser or 
          Bikurim, but not for Tamei Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This implies that he is not lashed, but it is 
          forbidden. What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'In your city you will eat <i>it</i>' - this (a 
          redeemed Korban), not something else (Tamei Terumah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Lav derived from an Aseh is like an Aseh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to question 1:f - Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Tana also 
          omitted cases in the Reisha!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He omitted that Terumah and Bikurim apply in other 
               years (the third and sixth years of Shemitah) and 
               have no redemption, which do not apply to Ma'aser 
               (Sheni).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) IN WHAT WAY IS 'MISAH B'YEDEI SHAMAYIM' MORE SEVERE THAN 'KARES'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara compares Terumah to Kodshim and attempts to prove that Kodshim is more severe ('Chamur') than Terumah. In one attempt, the Gemara points out that the punishment for one who is Tamei who eats Kodshim is Kares (early death and childlessness). The Gemara counters that perhaps Terumah is more 'Chamur' because one who is Tamei who eats Terumah is punished with Misah b'Yedei Shamayim (death at the hands of heaven).
</p><p>
In what way does the punishment of Misah b'Yedei Shamayim indicate that Terumah is more 'Chamur' than Kodshim? The punishment of Kares includes the death of one's children, but Misah affects only the transgressor himself. Moreover, one who is punished with Kares dies between the ages of 50 and 60, but one who is punished with Misah dies only before his destined time, but he can live to be older than 60. (See Background to the Daf.)
</p><p>
These differences make it clear that Kares is more severe than Misah. Why does the Gemara respond that Misah b'Yedei Shamayim is more severe than Kares? 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH she'Ken) answers that when the Gemara mentions Misah it does not refer to the punishment for one who eats Terumah while he is Tamei. Rather, it refers to the punishment for a <i>Zar</i> (a non-Kohen) who eats Terumah. The punishment for a Zar who eats Terumah is Misah b'Yedei Shamayim, while the punishment for a Zar who eats Kodshim is Malkus (see also Rambam, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 11:8), and not Misah or Kares. In this respect, Terumah is more 'Chamur' than Kodshim.
</p><p>
However, Rashi (DH Pigul and DH Machpaz) explains that the Gemara refers to a Kohen who is <i>Tamei</i> who eats Terumah and Kodshim, and not to a <i>Zar</i> who eats Terumah and Kodshim.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ</b> (in Pesachim 32b) quotes <b>RABEINU SHMUEL</b> of Evreux who cites the Yerushalmi that states that Misah is more severe than Kares in one respect. When one is punished with Misah, all of his possessions are also destroyed. In contrast, when one is punished with Kares, his possessions are spared. This is also the opinion of <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> (Sha'arei Teshuvah 3:6:1): the punishment of Misah includes the eventual destruction of a person's animals and possessions, as the verse says, 'Alah Maves b'Chaloneinu' (Yirmeyahu 9:20).
</p><p>
Perhaps this phenomenon -- that Misah is more severe than Kares in one respect -- may be understood as follows. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (48b) teaches that 'when the court kills a person [who deserves the death penalty], his belongings pass to his legal heirs. However, when the king kills someone for disobeying his word, the king takes the person's property.' Kares is a punishment meted out by the court -- the 'heavenly court.' The heavenly court administers Kares when the earthly courts are unable to prosecute the perpetrator (for example, the sinner did not receive proper Hasra'ah, warning, from witnesses before the act). In the framework of Torah punishments, Kares is in the same category as Misas Beis Din.
</p><p>
In contrast, Misah b'Yedei Shamayim is punishment 'at the hands of heaven.' It is carried out by the King, Hash-m Himself, when a person disobeys Him and slights His majesty in a particular way. Specifically, Misah b'Yedei Shamayim is administered to those who defile His chosen portion or sanctuary. (Examples of this are a non-Kohen who eats Terumah, Bikurim or Chalah, a Kohen Tamei who eats Terumah, one who eats Tevel from which Terumah was not separated, one who misuses Hekdesh (according to Rebbi), improper behavior in the Mikdash such as a Zar who performs the Avodah or a Kohen who enters the Kodesh ha'Kodashim for no reason; see <b>RAMBAM</b>, Hilchos Sanhedrin 19:2. It is interesting to note that even the instances of Misah b'Yedei Shamayim 'd'Rabanan' that Rabeinu Yonah lists (ibid.) fit precisely into this category.)
</p><p>

When Misah is administered, the person is killed for having offended the King. Just as an earthly king, who executes a person who disobeyed him, takes away all of the person's property, so, too, Hash-m, the King, confiscates the guilty party's property and takes back what was always His. (M. Kornfeld; see also Insights to Pesachim 32:2.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY AN 'AREL' EAT 'MA'ASER'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question 1:a, 73a - Beraisa):</font></b> If strands 
          were left that invalidate the Milah, he may not eat 
          Terumah, Pesach, Kodshim or Ma'aser.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This refers to Ma'aser (Sheni) of grain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #1:</font></b> No, it refers to Ma'aser Beheimah (one of 
          every 10 animals born each year becomes a Korban).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> That is Kodshim, which the Beraisa already 
          listed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question:</font></b> Pesach was also listed, even 
               though it is Kodshim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is necessary to teach both Pesach and 
               Kodshim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Had it taught only Pesach, one might have 
                    thought that this is because the Torah 
                    explicitly forbids an Arel to eat Pesach, but 
                    this does not apply to Kodshim;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Had it taught only Kodshim, one might have 
                    thought that this refers only to Pesach!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> We cannot explain why it would teach Ma'aser 
          Beheimah in addition to Kodshim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #2:</font></b> The Beraisa refers to Ma'aser Rishon. It is 
          like R. Meir, who says that only Leviyim may eat Ma'aser 
          Rishon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (R. Chiya bar Rav mi'Difti's Beraisa):</font></b> Two 
          kinds of Ma'aser are forbidden to an Arel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This refers to Ma'aser Sheni and Ma'aser 
               Beheimah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it refers to (Ma'aser Beheimah and) 
          Ma'aser Rishon, according to R. Meir.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Beraisa #1):</font></b> An Onen is forbidden to eat 
          Ma'aser, and permitted to Terumah and Parah Adumah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Tevul Yom is forbidden to Terumah and permitted to 
               Ma'aser and Parah Adumah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Mechusar Kipurim (one who must bring a Korban to 
               complete his Taharah) is forbidden to Parah Adumah 
               and permitted to Terumah and Ma'aser.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of answer:</font></b> If an Arel were permitted to 
               Ma'aser, the Beraisa should teach that an Arel is 
               forbidden to Terumah and permitted to Parah Adumah 
               and Ma'aser!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> This Tana is R. Akiva, who considers an Arel 
          like a Tamei (Rashi - so he is forbidden even to Parah 
          Adumah. Rambam, according to Maharsha - R. Akiva forbids 
          an Arel to Ma'aser. We ask about Chachamim's opinion):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> 'Ish Ish' (regarding the Isur 
               for a Tamei to eat Terumah) includes an Arel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of Beraisa #1 (who forbids 
               Mechusar Kipurim to Parah Adumah? We follow the 
               Gra's text.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is R. Yosef ha'Bavli:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If an Onen or Mechusar Kipurim 
                    burned Parah Adumah, it is Kosher;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> R. Yosef ha'Bavli says, if an Onen burned it, 
                    it is Kosher. If a Mechusar Kipurim burned it, 
                    it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  (Rambam - not only R. Akiva, but) also R. Yitzchak 
          forbids an Arel to Ma'aser from a Gezeirah Shavah 
          'Mimenu-Mimenu';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'Mimenu' regarding Pesach and regarding 
               Ma'aser. Just like an Arel is forbidden to Pesach, 
               also to Ma'aser.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WE LEARN FROM 'PESACH' TO 'MA'ASER'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> The words must be free to learn the Gezeirah 
          Shavah. If not, we cannot learn from Pesach, since it has 
          the stringencies of Pigul, Nosar, and (Kares for a person 
          who eats it when he is) Tamei!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Affirmation:</font></b> Yes, the words are free.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How can we show that the words are free?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> It says 'Mimenu' three times regarding 
          Pesach. One is needed for the simple meaning (the Isur to 
          eat it raw applies only to Pesach, not to Matzah and 
          Maror), and two are extra. One of the two is used for the 
          Gezeirah Shavah. (The other was merely included with the 
          verse that discusses burning the Nosar:)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that this Aseh (to burn 
               Nosar) exempts the Lav (not to leave it over) from 
               lashes, since the Torah needed to say 'Nosar', it 
               also says 'Mimenu';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that the verse mandates 
               waiting another morning before burning it, since the 
               Torah needed to say 'until morning', it also says 
               'Mimenu'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  It says 'Mimenu' three times regarding Ma'aser. One is 
          needed for the simple meaning, and two are extra. One of 
          these two teaches R. Avahu's law (73b, that one may burn 
          Tamei Terumah). The other teaches Reish Lakish's law:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> 'V'Lo Nasati Mimenu l'Mes', but a 
               similar usage for a living person, i.e. anointing, 
               is permitted.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This teaches that one may anoint with Tamei 
                    Ma'aser Sheni.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Mar Zutra):</font></b> Perhaps the verse forbids 
               buying a coffin or shrouds with Ma'aser Sheni!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> 'Mimenu' - 
               from (Ma'aser) itself (not from its value).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> 'V'Lo Nasati' is like (what 
               follows it,) 'I did not eat'. Just like the latter 
               refers to the Ma'aser itself, also the former.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  The Gezeirah Shavah is free from one side (what is 
          written by Pesach).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like the opinion that in such a case, 
          we learn and do not challenge;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that we learn and 
               challenge, how can we answer? (We can challenge like 
               above (a)!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (The Gezeirah Shavah is free both sides.) We 
          learn R. Avahu's law (not from 'Mimenu', rather,) like 
          Rav Nachman:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> 'V'Nasati Lecha Es Mishmeres 
               Terumosai (plural)' alludes to two Terumos, Tahor 
               and Tamei. It is 'Lecha' (for your needs); you may 
               cook with it while burning it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TEMEI'IM' MAY NOT EAT 'TERUMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> All Temei'im (may not eat Terumah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> We learn from 'Any man from the seed of 
          Aharon (who is a Metzora or Zav will not eat Kodshim 
          until he is Tahor.)'
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN AREL'S LIMITATIONS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses whether an Arel is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheni. It attempts to bring proof from a Beraisa which lists the laws unique to Terumah, Ma'aser, and Parah. In its list of laws unique to Terumah and which do not apply to Ma'aser (which an Arel is permitted to eat) or to Parah (for which an Arel is permitted to perform Haza'ah), the Beraisa omits the law that an Arel is prohibited from eating Terumah. It must be that an Arel is also prohibited from eating Ma'aser, and thus this law is not unique to Terumah.
</p><p>
The Gemara refutes this proof and says that the Beraisa follows the view of Rebbi Akiva. <b>RASHI</b> explains that according to Rebbi Akiva, an Arel is prohibited from performing Haza'ah with the Mei Chatas of the Parah, and thus the Isur which prohibits an Arel from eating Terumah is not unique to Terumah, for he is also prohibited from performing Haza'ah as well. (He indeed may be permitted to eat Ma'aser; see, however, <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>.)
</p><p>
The Gemara then inquires (according to the Girsa of our texts, and according to Rashi's understanding) which Tana argues with Rebbi Akiva and says that an Arel is <i>permitted</i> to perform Haza'ah. The Gemara answers that it is the Tana who states that a person who is Mechusar Kipurim is permitted to burn the Parah Adumah. Just as that Tana permits a <i>Mechusar Kipurim</i> to burn the Parah Adumah, he also permits an <i>Arel</i> to take part in the Avodah of the Parah Adumah (Rashi, DH Hachi Garsinan). 
</p><p>
The Gemara here seems to contradict the Gemara earlier (72b), which cites a dispute between Rav Yosef and Rava with regard to the view of Rebbi Akiva. According to Rav Yosef, Rebbi Akiva maintains that an Arel is compared to a Tamei (and thus he may not even <i>touch</i> Terumah). Accordingly, he may not perform the Haza'ah of the Mei Chatas. Rava refutes Rav Yosef's opinion by pointing out that no Mishnah states that an Arel may not touch Terumah; had Rebbi Akiva been of that opinion, his opinion would have been mentioned in a Mishnah. It must be that the reason why the Tana of the Beraisa there does not permit an Arel to perform Haza'ah is the Chumra (severity) of the laws of Parah Adumah (as Rashi there explains).
</p><p>
The Gemara here says that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah because an Arel is like a Tamei. This, however, is only <i>Rav Yosef's</i> interpretation of Rebbi Akiva's opinion, which the Gemara earlier rejects. Does the Gemara now return to the logic of Rav Yosef? Moreover, why does the Gemara here not use the logic of Rava earlier, who says that an Arel may not perform Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah? Had the Gemara used Rava's reasoning, it could have concluded that the Beraisa here is even in accordance with the view of the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Akiva.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara here may be understood in one of two ways. These two ways depend on how the Gemara earlier (72b) is understood.
</p><p>
When Rava (72b) rejects Rav Yosef's view and suggests that an Arel may not do Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah, does he mean that even according to the Rabanan the Arel may not perform Haza'ah, or that only according to Rebbi Akiva an Arel may not perform Haza'ah, but the Rabanan permit an Arel to perform Haza'ah? (<b>TOSFOS</b> there (DH Hasam) asks a similar question about the exemption of an Arel from the Mitzvah of 'Re'iyah ba'Azarah.')
</p><p>
(Even if the Rabanan agree that an Arel may not perform Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah (as Rava explains), this is only the view of the <i>second</i> Beraisa (72b) which maintains that an Arel may not perform Haza'ah. The first Beraisa there -- which argues and permits an Arel to perform Haza'ah -- apparently follows another version of the opinion of the Rabanan.)
</p><p>
(a) The first way in which the Gemara here may be understood is that the Gemara here follows the opinion of Rav Yosef who says that Rebbi Akiva compares an Arel to a Tamei. Why does the Gemara not suggest that the reason why an Arel may not perform Haza'ah is the Chumra of Parah, as Rava states? Perhaps the Gemara prefers to avoid choosing sides in the Machlokes between Rava and Rav Yosef, and therefore it attempts to explain the Beraisa even according to Rav Yosef, who maintains that it is <i>only</i> Rebbi Akiva who prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah. By saying that the Beraisa expresses the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, the Gemara shows that the Beraisa may be consistent even with the view of Rav Yosef. According to Rava, the Beraisa may even express the opinion of the Rabanan.
</p><p>
This appears to be the understanding of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Hachi Garis). However, as Tosfos and the Rishonim point out, according to this understanding the continuation of the Gemara is unclear. The Gemara asks who it is that argues with Rebbi Akiva and says that an Arel <i>may</i> perform Haza'ah. What is the Gemara's question? The Gemara has already taught (70a) that Rebbi Eliezer is the Tana who argues with Rebbi Akiva and does not accept the view that an Arel is comparable to a Tamei.
</p><p>
Another difficulty with this explanation is that the Gemara answers its question by citing a Tana in a Beraisa which teaches that a Mechusar Kipurim may perform Haza'ah. The Gemara assumes that the same allowance applies to an Arel. Why does the Gemara make this assumption? In what way can an Arel be compared to a Mechusar Kipurim? They seem entirely unrelated! An Arel has the status of a person who is an Av ha'Tum'ah (whose form of Tum'ah is severe) and not just a Mechusar Kipurim (whose Tum'ah is not severe).
</p><p>
Moreover, according to this explanation, why does the Gemara discuss this question here? It should have discussed it earlier (on 72b), when it first mentions that Rebbi Akiva compares an Arel to a Tamei and says that an Arel may not perform Haza'ah.
</p><p>
(b) Rashi apparently has a different understanding of the Sugya. When Rava (72b) says that an Arel may not perform Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah (and not because an Arel is compared to a Tamei), he does not mean that both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan agree with that ruling. Rather, Rava means that only <i>Rebbi Akiva</i> prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah for this reason (the Chumra of Parah). Rava agrees with Rav Yosef that Rebbi Akiva is more stringent than the Rabanan with regard to an Arel. Rava, however, heard Rav Yosef say that an Arel, according to Rebbi Akiva, is so similar to a Tamei that he is not permitted to touch Terumah (Rashi to 72b, DH Ish Ish). Rava disagrees with that point and says that Rebbi Akiva does not maintain that an Arel is like a Tamei. Rather, Rebbi Akiva merely is stringent with regard to an Arel in certain cases, such as Parah Adumah, the same way the law is stringent with a Tamei, because of the general Chumra of the Parah Adumah. For this reason, Rebbi Akiva does not permit an Arel to perform Haza'ah. It is because of the Chumra of Parah and not because of the Tum'ah of the Arel.
</p><p>
According to this understanding, when the Gemara here says that the Beraisa -- which prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah -- is the view of Rebbi Akiva who compares an Arel with a Tamei, it is consistent with the conclusion of Rava (on 72b) that Rebbi Akiva does <i>not</i> give an Arel the status of a Tamei completely, and yet he still prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah. (This explains why Rashi here does not write that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from touching Ma'aser Sheni. The Gemara here does not refer to Rav Yosef's opinion that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from touching Kodshim, but rather to Rava's opinion that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel only from performing the Haza'ah of the Parah Adumah. See also <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>.)
</p><p>
This approach also explains the continuation of the Gemara. The Gemara asks who is the Tana that argues with Rebbi Akiva. The Gemara does not suggest that it is Rebbi Eliezer because it understands that the reason why Rebbi Akiva is stringent with regard to an Arel is because of the Chumra of Parah. Rebbi Eliezer argues with Rebbi Akiva only with regard to comparing an Arel to a Tamei; perhaps Rebbi Eliezer agrees that the Chumra of Parah prohibits the Arel from performing Haza'ah.
</p><p>
This approach answers the question: why does the Gemara associate an Arel with a Mechusar Kipurim when they are completely unrelated? If the Chumra of Parah is the reason why an Arel is prohibited from performing Haza'ah, that reason also applies to a Mechusar Kipurim (at least mid'Rabanan) because he also retains a certain degree of Tum'ah with regard to Kodshim. However, once the Gemara shows that there is a Tana who is lenient l'Chatchilah in the case of a Mechusar Kipurim despite the Chumra of Parah, it may be assumed that this Tana is also lenient in the case of an Arel and maintains that the Chumra of Parah does not prevent him from performing Haza'ah.
</p><p>
The reason why the Gemara does not discuss the identity of this Tana earlier (72b) is as follows. When Rava states that the reason why the Beraisa prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah is the Chumra of Parah, the Gemara assumes that according to both the Rabanan <i>and</i> Rebbi Akiva the Chumra of Parah prohibits the Arel from performing Haza'ah. The dispute between the Beraisos there is whether or not the Chumra of Parah indeed prohibits the Arel from performing Haza'ah, according to both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan. The dispute between the Beraisos, therefore, is unrelated to the dispute between the Rabanan and Rebbi Akiva.
</p><p>
From the Gemara here, however, it is evident that even Rava seeks to establish that the Beraisa, which is stringent with regard to an Arel, expresses <i>only</i> the view of Rebbi Akiva. The Gemara now asks why Rava seeks to limit the Beraisa to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. Apparently, Rava wants to establish that the earlier Beraisa, which permits an Arel to perform Haza'ah, expresses the opinion of the Rabanan (the majority opinion), while the later Beraisa, which prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah, expresses the opinion of Rebbi Akiva (a minority opinion). Rava must know of some other Tana who permits an Arel to perform Haza'ah, and since Rava agrees with the ruling of that Tana he prefers to establish the Beraisa which permits an Arel to perform Haza'ah to be in accordance with the majority opinion, that of the Rabanan. The Gemara therefore inquires who is the Tana with whom Rava seems to side and who is lenient with regard to Parah.
</p><p>
The Gemara finds a Tana in a Beraisa who permits a Mechusar Kipurim to perform the Avodah of the Parah, and the Halachah follows that opinion. Rava also rules in accordance with that Tana, and thus he prefers to establish the Beraisa which permits an Arel to perform Haza'ah to be in accordance with the view of the Rabanan, the majority opinion, while the Beraisa which prohibits an Arel to perform Haza'ah expresses only the view of Rebbi Akiva. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This refers to Terumah, which all seed of Aharon 
               (i.e. even females) may eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the verse refers to Chazeh v'Shok 
          (from Shelamim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Some females, e.g. a Bas Kohen who returns to 
          eat Terumah after being widowed or divorced from a 
          Yisrael, may not eat them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Likewise, a Chalalah may not eat Terumah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A Chalalah is not considered the seed of Aharon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that 'Until he is Tahor' 
          refers to nightfall? Perhaps it means after he brings his 
          Korban (then he may eat Terumah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> The verse 
          discusses a Zav who had two emissions and a Metzora 
          Musgar, who do not bring Korbanos, similar to a Tamei Mes 
          (at the end of the verse. Therefore, 'Yithar' must refer 
          to nightfall.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> Perhaps a Tamei who must bring a Korban 
          (e.g. a Zav who had three emissions and a Metzora 
          Muchlat) is forbidden to Terumah until he offers it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> What is the source for the following 
          Mishnah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> After immersing, he may eat Ma'aser. 
               After dark, he may eat Terumah. After offering his 
               Korban, he may eat Kodshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer to both questions (Rava):</font></b> There are three verses 
          (which seem to contradict each other)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'He will not eat Kodshim until bathing' implies that 
               after Tevilah he is Tahor;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It also says 'At nightfall he will be Tahor, then he 
               will eat Kodshim';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> It also says 'The Kohen will atone for her and she 
               will be Tahor'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Resolution:</font></b> The first verse refers to Ma'aser, the 
               second to Terumah, and the third to Kodshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the first refers to Terumah, and the 
          second to Ma'aser!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Presumably, Terumah is more stringent:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Tamei who eats it is Chayav Misah (b'Yedei 
               Shamayim);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Zar who eats it b'Shogeg adds a Chomesh (when 
               paying for what he ate);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> It cannot be redeemed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> It is forbidden to a Zar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Ma'aser has more stringencies!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It must be brought to Yerushalayim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One must recite Viduy over it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> It is forbidden to an Onen;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> One may not burn Tamei Ma'aser, and one who eats it 
               is lashed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Bi'ur applies to it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Misah is more stringent (this is the 
          overriding consideration).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Even without this, it says 'A soul 
          (that will touch... will immerse and be Tahor)';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Ma'aser applies to every soul (but only Kohanim eat 
               Terumah).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN IS THE' KORBAN ME'AKEV'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps this only applies to a Tamei who is not 
          Mechusar Kipurim, but a Mechusar Kipurim may not eat 
          until he brings his Korban!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It says about a Yoledes (one who gave 
          birth) 'Until the days of her Taharah are completed'. 
          This implies that once the days are completed, she is 
          Tehorah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It also says 'The Kohen will atone for her and she 
               will be Tehorah'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Resolution):</font></b> The first verse teaches when she can 
               eat Terumah. The latter teaches when she may eat 
               Kodshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps we should say the other way!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Presumably, Kodshim is more stringent, because:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It can become Pigul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It can become Nosar;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> It is brought in the Mikdash;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Me'ilah applies to it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> A Tamei who eats it is Chayav Kares,
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> It is forbidden to an Onen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps Terumah is more stringent, because:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Tamei who eats it is Chayav Misah (b'Yedei 
               Shamayim);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Zar adds a fifth (if he ate it b'Shogeg);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> It cannot be redeemed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> It is forbidden to a Zar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Kodshim have more stringencies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Even without this, we cannot say that 
          Mechusar Kipurim is permitted to Kodshim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'The Kohen will atone for her and she will be 
               Tehorah' implies that she is Teme'ah until then;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She cannot eat Kodshim, for '(Kodesh) meat that any 
               Tamei will touch may not be eaten'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Conclusion:</font></b> Mechusar Kipurim can be permitted only 
               to Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> The verse cannot 
          discuss Terumah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'Bnei Yisrael' teaches 
               that Tumas Yoledes applies only to Benos Yisrael!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Ishah' includes a convert or freed 
               slave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A convert or freed slave may not eat Terumah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Rava):</font></b> You must agree that the 
               verse discusses Terumah!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  'She will not touch <i>any</i> Kodesh' includes 
                    Terumah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer to both questions (Rava):</font></b> We must say that the 
          verse gives laws of Terumah <i>and</i> Kodshim.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF 'TAHARAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  There are three verses about Terumah. All are needed:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Until he will be Tahor' does not specify when this 
               is, so we also need 'At nightfall, he will be 
               Tahor';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it written only these verses, we would think 
               they apply to one who is not Mechusar Kipurim; but a 
               Mechusar Kipurim cannot eat until he brings his 
               Korban. Therefore we need 'Until the completion of 
               her days of Taharah'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Had it written only this last verse, we would think 
               that Tevilah is not needed. Therefore, we also need 
               'Until he will become Tahor'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A Tana argues with Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael (74a), and says 
          that 'Any man... who is a Metzora or Zav' discusses a Zav 
          that saw three emissions and a Metzora Muchlat. 'Until he 
          becomes Tahor' means, when he brings his Korban.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does this Tana require two verses about 
          Kodshim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Had the Torah written only that a Yoledes must 
          bring her Korban before eating Kodshim, one might have 
          thought that this is because she is Teme'ah for a long 
          time, but a Zav could eat before Kaparah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had the Torah written only that a Zav needs Kaparah 
               before eating, one might have thought that this is 
               because his Tum'ah is never totally permitted, but a 
               Yoledes is Tehorah (to her husband and to Ma'aser) 
               even while seeing Dam (Tohar), so she could eat 
               before bringing her Korban.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need 'He will immerse and be Tamei 
          until nightfall'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> This teaches that he is Metamei 
          Terumah if he touches it before nightfall:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> 'V'Tamei' - perhaps he is 
               Tamei for everything!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'V'Taher'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'V'Taher' teaches that he is 
               Tahor for everything!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'V'Tamei'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Resolution:</font></b> He is Tahor regarding (touching) 
               Ma'aser, and Tamei regarding Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps he is Tahor regarding Terumah and Tamei 
          regarding Ma'aser!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Presumably, just like Terumah is more 
          stringent than Ma'aser regarding eating, also regarding 
          touching.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> 'She will not touch <i>any</i> Kodesh and will not 
          come to the Mikdash' warns a Yoledes (within Yemei 
          Taharah) not to eat (Terumah).'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps this is a warning not to touch Terumah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The verse discusses touching (Kodesh) and 
          entering the Mikdash. Just like one is Chayav Misah 
          (b'Yedei Shamayim) for Bi'as Makdish, also for touching. 
          'Touching' must mean eating, since there is no Misah for 
          touching;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It calls eating 'touching' to teach that touching 
               Terumah is like eating it (whoever may not eat it 
               may not touch it).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'PETZU'A DAKA'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Petzu'a Daka ... (if he did not have Bi'ah 
          with his wife since he became a Petzu'a Dacha, she may 
          eat Terumah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who is our Tana, who permits a woman to eat 
          Terumah even if she is forbidden to her husband 
          mid'Oraisa?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Elazar):</font></b> Tana'im argue about this. Our 
          Mishnah is like R. Elazar and R. Shimon (56b).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Our Mishnah is even like R. 
          Meir. The case is, she already ate (before he became a 
          Petzu'a Daka).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar holds that the fact that she already ate 
               does not change matters. If it did, a Bas Yisrael 
               widowed from a Kohen would continue to eat!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan holds that there is different, since the 
               Kohen's acquisition of her lapses when he dies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> What constitutes a Petzu'a Daka?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is any man whose Beitzim were cut, even one of 
          them, even if they were punctured, shriveled, or 
          incomplete;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben Berokah says, anyone 
          who only has one Beitzah is a Seris Chamah (due to 
          sickness) and is Kosher (may marry).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This cannot be (due to illness)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> Rather, he is like a Seris Chamah, and 
               is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is it really true that one whose Beitzim were 
          punctured (is a Petzu'a Daka and he) cannot have 
          children?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A case occurred, a man climbed a date tree and his 
               Beitzim were punctured by a thorn. Semen came out 
               like pus, yet he fathered children afterwards!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE THREE VERSES WHICH TEACH THAT ONE WHO WAS TAMEI MAY EAT TERUMAH AFTER 'HE'EREV SHEMESH' </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara lists three sources in the Torah for the law that one who was Tamei may eat Terumah after He'erev Shemesh (sundown) and does not need to wait until he brings his Korban the following day. The three sources are the verses: 'He may not eat Kodshim <i>Ad Asher Yit'har</i>' (Vayikra 22:4), '<i>u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher</i>, and afterwards he may eat from the Kodshim' (Vayikra 22:7), and, 'She may not touch any Kodesh... <i>Ad Melos Yemei Taharah</i>' (Vayikra 12:4). (See Chart.)
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that all three verses are necessary. The first verse, 'Ad Asher Yit'har' (Vayikra 22:4) in the Parshah of Zav u'Metzora, does not suffice because if the Torah had written only that verse, one might have thought that he may eat Terumah after He'erev Shemesh only when he is not required to bring a Korban at all. When he is required to bring a Korban (such as a Zav who experienced three flows, or a Metzora Muchlat), he might have thought that he must wait until he brings his Korban the following day before he may eat Terumah. Therefore, another verse is necessary -- 'Ad Melos Yemei Taharah' (Vayikra 12:4) -- to teach that he may eat Terumah at sundown and does not need to wait until he brings his Korban the following day.
</p><p>
The Gemara does not explain why the verse, 'u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher' (Vayikra 22:7), is necessary. The verse of 'Ad Melos' teaches that even when one is required to bring a Korban he may eat Terumah at sundown, before he brings the Korban. The verse of 'Ad Asher Yit'har' teaches that Tevilah is required before one may eat Terumah (according to the first Tana who maintains that the verse refers to a Zav who experienced two flows and who becomes Tahor to eat Terumah and Kodshim without having to bring a Korban).
</p><p>
What new law does the verse 'u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher' teach? When the Gemara says that the verse teaches the time of day (sunset) at which a person becomes Tahor to eat Terumah, it is merely explaining why the verse would have been necessary had the Torah <i>not</i> written the verse of 'Ad Melos.' When the Torah writes, 'Ad Melos <i>Yemei Taharah</i>' -- until the <i>end of the days</i> of her Dam Taharah -- it thereby teaches that one becomes Tahor at the end of the day, and 'u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher' is unnecessary.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (end of DH d'Iy) asks this question and offers two answers. However, neither answer is viable according to <b>RASHI</b> (74b, DH Kan l'Terumah, and Berachos 2b, DH Dilma), as the <b>MAHARSHA</b> and <b>MAHARAM</b> explain.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Perhaps the reason why the verse of 'u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher' is necessary is as follows. The Gemara in Chulin (83a) teaches that for matters of Kodshim 'the night follows the day' ('ha'Laylah Holech Achar ha'Yom'), as certain Korbanos may be eaten for a twenty-four period, comprised of a day and the night that follows it. Accordingly, when the verse which discusses a Yoledes says, 'Ad Melos Yemei Taharah,' it is unclear whether 'the end of the day' refers to the arrival of morning (because this is a matter of Kodshim, for which the new day starts at <i>sunrise</i>), or whether 'the end of the day' refers to the arrival of <i>night</i>. The verse of 'u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher' teaches that the person becomes Tahor at <i>sunset</i> and not at sunrise. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE PROOF THAT ONE VERSE REFERS TO 'KODSHIM' </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara lists three sources in the Torah for the law that one who was Tamei may eat Terumah after He'erev Shemesh (sundown) and does not need to wait until he brings his Korban the following day. The three sources are the verses: 'He may not eat Kodshim <i>Ad Asher Yit'har</i>' (Vayikra 22:4), '<i>u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher</i>, and afterwards he may eat from the Kodshim' (Vayikra 22:7), and, 'She may not touch any Kodesh... <i>Ad Melos Yemei Taharah</i>' (Vayikra 12:4). (See Chart.)
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that all three verses are necessary. The first verse, 'Ad Asher Yit'har' (Vayikra 22:4) in the Parshah of Zav u'Metzora, does not suffice because if the Torah had written only that verse, one might have thought that he may eat Terumah after He'erev Shemesh only when he is not required to bring a Korban at all. When he is required to bring a Korban (such as a Zav who experienced three flows, or a Metzora Muchlat), he might have thought that he must wait until he brings his Korban the following day before he may eat Terumah. Therefore, another verse is necessary -- 'Ad Melos Yemei Taharah' (Vayikra 12:4) -- to teach that he may eat Terumah at sundown and does not need to wait until he brings his Korban the following day.
</p><p>
The Gemara presents two ways of understanding the verse in the beginning of the Parshah of Zav u'Metzora. According to some Tana'im, the verse refers to a Zav who experienced two flows, and to a Metzora who is a Metzora Musgar. When the verse says that he must wait 'Ad Asher Yit'har' -- 'until he becomes Tahor,' it means that at sundown, He'erev Shemesh, he becomes permitted to eat Terumah and Kodshim since he is not required to bring a Korban at all.
</p><p>
Another Tana (d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael) maintains that the verse refers to a Zav who experienced three flows, and to a Metzora who is a Metzora Muchlat. When the verse concludes that he must wait 'until he becomes Tahor,' it means that he must wait until he brings his Korban the following day. Before he brings his Korban he may not eat Kodshim.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that according to this Tana, the verse refers only to Kodshim. It cannot refer to Terumah, because a later verse (v. 7), 'u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher,' explicitly refers to Terumah and states that at sundown the person becomes Tahor. Since that verse teaches that one becomes Tahor at sundown for the purpose of eating Terumah, the verse which requires him to wait until he brings his Korban must refer to Kodshim and not to Terumah.
</p><p>
The Gemara's proof that the verse of 'Ad Asher Yit'har' (Vayikra 22:4) refers to Kodshim is difficult to understand. According to d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael, the Torah there (Vayikra 22:4) refers to two separate groups of Teme'im. It first discusses a Zav who experienced three flows and a Metzora Muchlat, both of whom must bring Korbanos. The verse says that neither may eat Terumah 'Ad Asher Yit'har,' until he becomes Tahor by bringing his Korban. The verse then discusses all other Teme'im who do not bring a Korban (such as a Tamei Mes and a Ba'al Keri). The verse says 'u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher' and permits him to eat Terumah at sundown. Consequently, the verse that says that one is Tahor at sundown refers to one who is <i>not obligated</i> to bring a Korban at all. Perhaps when he <i>is</i> obligated to bring a Korban (such as a Zav who experienced three flows), he may not eat Terumah until he brings his Korban just as he may not eat Kodshim until he brings his Korban. (The Gemara itself suggests this reasoning earlier.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara earlier mentions a third verse which clearly refers to Terumah: 'She may not touch any Kodesh... <i>Ad Melos Yemei Taharah</i>' (Vayikra 12:4). 
</p><p>
This verse implies that a Yoledes becomes permitted to eat Terumah at the end of the day ('Melos Yemei Taharah' -- 'the end of the days of her Taharah'), sundown. She does not need to wait until the next day, when she brings her Korban, in order to eat Terumah. Since this verse clearly permits a person to eat Terumah at sundown even when he is obligated to bring a Korban, the verse of 'Ad Asher Yit'har' which requires that one wait until he brings his Korban must refer to Kodshim and not to Terumah.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b>, however, gives a different explanation. Rashi writes that the source that one may eat Terumah after He'erev Shemesh and does not need to wait until he brings his Korban is the verse 'u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher' (Vayikra 22:7) and not 'Ad Melos Yemei Taharah' (Vayikra 12:4). Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand, because the verse 'u'Va ha'Shemesh' does not refer to one who is required to bring a Korban.
</p><p>
(b) Apparently, Rashi has a different approach to the Gemara, which may be inferred from his words in Berachos (2b, DH Dilma). The Gemara there asserts that the phrase '<i>u'Va ha'Shemesh</i> v'Taher' may refer either to 'the setting of the sun' or to 'the coming of the sun,' which Rashi explains to mean sunrise. It is clear from the Gemara that if the verse refers to sunrise, it is not the sunrise itself which makes the person Tahor; rather, the rising of the sun enables him to bring a Korban (since Korbanos may not be brought at night), and it is the <i>Korban</i> that makes him Tahor. 
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that the verse refers to sunset because the word 'v'Taher' implies that he becomes Tahor passively and does not have to do any act, such as offer a Korban, to become Tahor (in contrast to the more common term, 'va'Yetaher'). Hence, the verse means that the setting of the sun makes him Tahor. Moreover, the word 'v'Taher' implies the setting of the sun and its disappearance under the horizon.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> there rejects Rashi's explanation based on the Gemara here which derives from the verse 'Ad Melos Yemei Taharah' (Vayikra 12:4) that one does not need to wait until he brings the Korban, but only until He'erev Shemesh, and the verse of 'v'Taher' is not needed to teach this.
</p><p>
Rashi is consistent with his own reasoning in the Sugya here. Rashi understands that according to d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael, the Halachah that He'erev Shemesh permits one to eat Terumah is not derived from 'Ad Melos Yemei Taharah' (Vayikra 12:4). 'Ad Melos' may mean that she must wait until the <i>morning</i> and not until the evening (as mentioned in the previous Insight). If it means that she must wait until the morning, it likely refers to when she <i>brings her Korban</i> (as Rashi writes in Berachos). This is because d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael has a precedent in which the word 'Yit'har' refers to bringing a Korban and not just to waiting for a certain time to arrive. Accordingly, the only source that one becomes Tahor at sundown is the verse, 'u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher' (Vayikra 22:7). Although that verse discusses a person who does not need to bring a Korban, the Gemara in Berachos understands that the verse changed its wording from 'va'Yetaher to 'v'Taher' in order to teach that even one who is required to bring a Korban may eat Terumah before he brings the Korban, as long as He'erev Shemesh has arrived.
</p><p>
What, then, does the verse 'Ad Melos' teach? Why is that verse necessary? The answer is that one might have thought that the Yoledes becomes Tahor after the <i>first</i> evening passes after she gives birth. The verse teaches that she must wait until the <i>last</i> evening after all of her days of Taharah have passed. (That is, one would not have known the Halachah that she is a 'Tevulas Yom Aruch.')
</p><p>
This explains why Rashi here writes that according to d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael, the verse of 'u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher' (Vayikra 22:7) is the source that one who is Tamei -- and who needs to bring a Korban -- becomes Tahor to eat Terumah at sundown. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel declared that his children are Mamzerim 
          (surely his wife become pregnant through another man).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> A Petzu'a Daka b'Yedei Shamayim is Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> This is why it does not say 'ha'Petzu'a' 
               (connoting from the beginning), rather, 'Petzu'a'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Right after 'A Petzu'a Daka will not marry' it 
          says 'A Mamzer will not marry'. Just like a Mamzer is due 
          to man's actions, also a Petzu'a Daka.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The Torah forbids if any of them (the Ever, 
          Beitzim, or strings on which the Beitzim are suspended) 
          is Petzu'a (bruised), Dach (crushed) or Krus (cut off).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Petzu'a Daka applies in 
          that area? Perhaps it applies to the head!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> The Torah did not say how many 
          generations are forbidden. This implies that it is in 
          that area (that makes him sterile).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Perhaps it did not list generations because he 
          is forbidden but his offspring are permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Petzu'a Daka is written next to Krus 
          Shofchah. This shows that it applies to the same area.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that Krus Shofchah applies in 
          that area? Perhaps it applies to the lips!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> 'Shofchah (dripping)', in the place of 
          dripping.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps this refers to the nose!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'Shofach Krus' would connote that the place 
               that (normally) drips was cut. Rather, 'Krus 
               Shofchah' teaches that due to the cut it drips, but 
               if it were not cut, it would flow. The nose drips in 
               either case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> Right after 'A Petzu'a Daka will not 
          marry' it says 'A Mamzer will not marry'. Just like a 
          Mamzer results from that area, also a Petzu'a Daka.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH CUTS ARE A PROBLEM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> If it is punctured below the crown, 
          and the other side of the puncture is above the crown, 
          the man is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Asi):</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi says, the entire crown 
          must be intact.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If there remains from the crown (a thread's 
          width, he is Kosher).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Must the thread's width be on the 
          entire crown, or just on the majority?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah Tosfa'ah):</font></b> It must be on the majority, and 
          towards the body.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If the Ever is cut on a slant like a quill, 
          he is Kosher. If it is grooved like a gutter pipe, he is 
          forbidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In the latter case, it is cooled by the air (it 
               cannot be heated enough to cook the semen to enable 
               conception). In the former case, it is not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If it is like a gutter pipe, he is Kosher. 
          If it is like a quill, he is forbidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In the former case, it rubs (against the uterus and 
               gets heated). In the latter case, it does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Presumably, Rav Huna is correct. We are concerned 
          for air but not for rubbing, since further down it is 
          wider, like a barrel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ravina (to Mereimar):</font></b> Rav Papa ruled that he is Kosher 
          whether it is like a quill or a gutter pipe;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> However, he was unsure if this is above the crown 
               (towards the body) or below.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Certainly, this must be above. Below, even if 
          the Ever was cut off he is Kosher!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, Ravina was just testing Mereimar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  There was a man whose Ever was like a gutter pipe. Mar 
          bar Rav Ashi cut flesh to make it like a quill, and 
          declared that he is Kosher.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH PROBLEMS CAUSE STERILITY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A case occurred, a man's conduit for seed was closed, and 
          it would come out through the place for urine. Rav Bivi 
          bar Abaye intended to rule that he is Kosher.\Chazon Ish 
          12:7
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Papi):</font></b> This cannot be! Seed is cooked only 
          in its proper conduit (so he cannot have children)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> If the Ever was punctured 
          and sealed, if the seal tears during an emission of 
          semen, he is (sterile and) forbidden. If not, he is 
          Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> This cannot refer to a puncture below the crown. 
          There, even if cut, he is Kosher!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, the puncture is in the crown itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Mari bar Mar citing Shmuel):</font></b> If the crown was 
          punctured and sealed, he is forbidden only if the seal 
          tears when he has an emission.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava brei d'Rabah):</font></b> How do we cause him to have 
          an emission to check this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> We put warm barley bread by his 
          anus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> Is everyone like Yakov Avinu, who 
          called Reuven 'My first strength' because he never had an 
          emission before that?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> We pass colored women's clothing in 
          front of him, and this causes him to have an emission.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Is everyone (steeped in lust) like 
          Barzilai ha'Gil'adi?! (This is not enough to cause an 
          emission!) Rather, we do like Rav Yosef said.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If it is punctured, he is forbidden, because 
          the seed drips out. If it is sealed, he is Kosher, since 
          he can have children. <i>This</i> is a disqualification that 
          can revert to Kashrus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Which case does 'this' exclude?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It excludes a scab that developed over a bruise. 
          This is not a proper sealing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Idi bar Avin):</font></b> How do we seal a puncture?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> We cut around the puncture with barley 
          and rub the area with oil. We bring a big ant, have it 
          bite the area, and cut off its head.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Only barley may be used. Iron would cause a bruise 
               or inflammation.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This remedy helps only for a small puncture. If it 
               is big, the sealing will peel off.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> One who urinates through two 
          openings is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow him, nor (the 
          following law of) his father.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> Women who rub their genitals together 
               are disqualified from Kehunah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> Even R. Elazar, who says that Bi'as Zenus 
               makes a woman a Zonah, says so only about Bi'ah with 
               a man. Two women together is mere lewdness.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'ISUR' OF A 'PETZU'A' 'DAKA</font></b>
'(a)	(Mishnah): A Petzu'a Daka or Krus Shofchah is permitted to a 
     convert or freed slave; he is only forbidden to Kehal 
     (Yisraelim) - 'He will not enter Kehal Hash-m'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> May a Petzu'a Daka Kohen marry a 
          convert or freed slave?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he retains his Kedushah, he is forbidden. If he 
               lost his Kedushah, he is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa):</font></b> A Petzu'a Daka Yisrael 
          may marry a Nesinah (a convert from the seven Kena'ani 
          nations).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he retains his Kedushah, he would transgress 'Do 
               not intermarry with them'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> That Isur does not depend on Kedushah. 
          It is because their children might serve idolatry!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Isur is only while they are Nochrim. After 
               conversion the Torah permits them, but Chachamim 
               decreed against them;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim forbade only people who can have children.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> A Mamzer can have children. Why is he 
               permitted?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Mamzerim and Nesinim may intermarry.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Retraction (of statement 2):</font></b> Rather, Chachamim 
               forbade only people of Kosher lineage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction (of objection (d) - Rava):</font></b> 'Do not intermarry 
          with them' applies only after conversion. Before this, 
          marriage does not take effect!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> 'Shlomo married the daughter of 
          Paro, King of Mitzrayim'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> He converted her beforehand.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We did not accept converts in the days of David 
          and Shlomo!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is because we suspected that they convert 
          only for wealth. Paro's daughter was already wealthy!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DOES A KOHEN LOSE KEDUSHAH WHEN HE BECOMES A 'PETZU'A DAKA'?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks whether a Kohen retains his Kedushah of Kehunah or loses his Kedushah when he becomes a Petzu'a Daka. If he loses his Kedushah, he should be permitted to marry a woman to whom an ordinary Kohen is prohibited, such as a Giyores (convert), Gerushah (divorcee), or Zonah (harlot).
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? The Mishnah earlier (70a) clearly states that a Kohen who is a Petzu'a Daka may eat Terumah. The fact that he is permitted to eat Terumah shows that he retains the Kedushah of a Kohen. Why, then, does the Gemara here ask whether or not he is permitted to marry a Giyores?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHELKAS MECHOKEK</b> (EH 5:1) suggests that eating Terumah requires less Kedushah than any other aspect of Kehunah, for even a servant (Eved Kena'ani) of a Kohen may eat Terumah.
</p><p>
This answer is difficult to understand. The servant of a Kohen does not eat Terumah in his own right, but because he is the property of the Kohen. If the Petzu'a Daka loses his Kedushah, neither he nor his servant may eat Terumah. (Perhaps the Chelkas Mechokek means that the relationship of the Petzu'a Daka to his former self, so to speak (before he became a Petzu'a Daka) is no less than the relationship of a servant to his Kohen master.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PISCHEI TESHUVAH</b> (EH 5:1) cites the <b>BEIS MEIR</b> who suggests that the Kedushah of a Kohen with regard to matters of marriage is unrelated to the Kohen's right to eat Terumah. The Kohen's right to eat Terumah stems from his Kehunah and not from his Kedushah, while the prohibition to marry certain women stems from his Kedushah, as the Torah explicitly says in its discussion of whom the Kohen may marry (Vayikra 21:6-7).
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: THE STATUS OF A 'PETZU'A DAKA' WITH REGARD TO MARRIAGE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara asks whether a Kohen retains his Kedushah of Kehunah or loses his Kedushah when he becomes a Petzu'a Daka. If he loses his Kedushah, he should be permitted to marry a woman to whom an ordinary Kohen is prohibited, such as a Giyores (convert), Gerushah (divorcee), or Zonah (harlot). The Gemara proves that he may marry a Giyores from the fact that a Yisrael who is a Petzu'a Daka may marry a Nesinah, even though an ordinary Yisrael is prohibited from marrying a Nesinah because of the prohibition of 'Lo Sischaten Bam' (Devarim 7:3). Just as a Yisrael loses his Kedushas Yisrael when he becomes a Petzu'a Daka, a Kohen also loses his Kedushas Kehunah when he becomes a Petzu'a Daka.
</p><p>
Rava initially rejects this answer on the basis that the prohibition against marrying a Nesinah is not an Isur d'Oraisa but only d'Rabanan, and the Rabanan did not include a Petzu'a Daka in their prohibition against marrying a Nesinah. His allowance to marry a Nesinah is not because he loses Kedushah.
</p><p>
Rava retracts his view and affirms that the prohibition against marrying a Nesinah is an Isur d'Oraisa of 'Lo Sischaten Bam.' Nevertheless, a Yisrael who is a Petzu'a Daka is permitted to marry a Nesinah, presumably because he loses his Kedushah when he becomes a Petzu'a Daka. Similarly, a Kohen should lose his Kedushah and be permitted to marry a Giyores when he becomes a Petzu'a Daka.
</p><p>
In practice, does a Kohen Petzu'a Daka lose his Kedushah? Also, is a Yisrael Petzu'a Daka permitted to marry a Nesinah? 
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 16:2) rules in accordance with Rava's conclusion that the Isur of Nesinah is an Isur d'Oraisa and a Petzu'a Daka -- whether he is a Kohen or a Yisrael -- loses his Kedushah and is permitted to marry anyone whose Kedushah is compromised, even a Mamzeres. This also appears to be the opinion of <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by Tosfos to 79a, DH u'Nesinim), the <b>RAMBAN</b> (in <b>MILCHAMOS</b>), and other Rishonim.
</p><p>
(b) However, the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> rejects Rava's conclusion based on the Gemara later (79a) which relates that David ha'Melech enacted the prohibition against marrying Nesinim. This implies that the Isur is only mid'Rabanan. Accordingly, the fact that a Yisrael Petzu'a Daka may marry a Nesinah is no proof that he loses his Kedushah. He may be permitted to marry a Nesinah simply because the Rabanan did not include a Petzu'a Daka in their Gezeirah. <b>TOSFOS</b> (79a) cites others who come to the same conclusion. This is also the opinion expressed by <b>RASHI</b> in Kesuvos (29a) and Yevamos (37a). (See Insights to Yevamos 79:2.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 16:2) concludes that a Nesinah is prohibited only mid'Rabanan (as the Ba'al ha'Me'or rules), and a Yisrael Petzu'a Daka is permitted to marry a Nesinah simply because the Rabanan did not include a Petzu'a Daka in their Gezeirah (and not because he loses his Kedushah). Since a Petzu'a Daka retains his Kedushas Yisrael, he may not marry a Mamzeres.
</p><p>
However, the Rambam then rules that a Kohen who is a Petzu'a Daka <i>may</i> marry a Giyores. This ruling clearly implies that a Petzu'a Daka <i>does</i> lose his Kedushah! How are the two contradictory rulings of the Rambam to be understood? If the Rambam maintains that a Petzu'a Daka does not lose his Kedushah, why is a Kohen Petzu'a Daka permitted to marry a Giyores?
</p><p>
The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> explains that a Kohen Petzu'a Daka is permitted to marry a Giyores because the prohibition against marrying a Giyores is one which is not 'Shaveh ba'Kol' -- it does not apply to all Jewish men, but only to Kohanim.
</p><p>
Perhaps the intention of the Magid Mishneh is that a Petzu'a Daka loses the <i>extra</i> Kedushah which a normal Kohen has, and the loss of this extra Kedushah permits the Kohen to marry a Giyores. However, becoming a Petzu'a Daka does <i>not</i> remove the basic Kedushah of a Yisrael, and therefore he remains prohibited to marry a Mamzeres.
</p><p>
(The commentaries explain that the Rambam reached this conclusion because he understands, like the Ba'al ha'Me'or, that the Gemara later in Yevamos upholds Rava's original statement that a Nesinah is Asur mid'Rabanan. Nevertheless, he still retains the decisive ruling of Rav Sheshes that a Kohen loses his Kedushah, based on logical reasoning if not on proof from the Beraisa.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 5:1) rules like the Rambam that a Kohen loses his Kedushah when he becomes a Petzu'a Daka, and he is permitted to marry a Giyores but not a Mamzeres. The <b>REMA</b> rules like the Ra'avad that a Kohen who is a Petzu'a Daka loses his Kedushah entirely and is permitted not only to a Giyores but even to a Mamzeres.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If she converted, she was a Mitzris Rishonah, 
          and was forbidden! (The Torah forbids the first two 
          generations of Mitzri converts.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the Mitzriyim perished, and 
               other nations settled in Mitzrayim (and Paro's 
               daughter was from them).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Minyamin my 
               colleague was a Mitzri Rishon. He married a Mitzris 
               Rishonah, and planned to marry his son to a Mitzris 
               Sheniyah (second generation Mitzris), so his 
               grandchildren would be permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question (f) - Rav Papa):</font></b> Shlomo did not 
          marry Bas Paro - 'The forbidden nations ... Shlomo clung 
          to love (not marriage)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It says 'Va'Yischaten' (he married her)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Because he loved her excessively, the verse calls 
          it marriage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina - Mishnah):</font></b> A Petzu'a Daka or Krus 
          Shofchah is permitted to a convert or freed slave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> He is forbidden to a Nesinah (this 
               contradicts the Beraisa (c))!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Rav Ashi - Seifa of Mishnah):</font></b> He 
               is only forbidden to Kehal (Hash-m).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This implies that he may marry a Nesinah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer to both questions:</font></b> The implications in the Mishnah 
          contradict each other, so we cannot infer the law of a 
          Nesinah. (Therefore, we can say that the Mishnah agrees 
          with the Beraisa.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'ISUR' OF 'AMONIM' AND 'MO'AVIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (Male) Amonim and Mo'avim are forever 
          forbidden. Females are permitted immediately;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Mitzriyim and Edomim are forbidden until three 
          generations, males and females;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon permits females immediately.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Shimon:</font></b> A Kal va'Chomer permits them. When males 
               are forbidden forever (Amon and Mo'av), the females 
               are permitted immediately. When the males are 
               forbidden only for two generations, all the more so 
               females are permitted immediately!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> If you have a tradition for your law, we 
               accept it. If not, we can challenge your Kal 
               va'Chomer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Shimon:</font></b> I have a tradition.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the source that females of 
          Amon and Mo'av are permitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Sha'ul asked 'Who is this youth 
          (David)?'... Avner said 'I do not know.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Sha'ul certainly knew who David was - 'He 
               loved him greatly, he (David) carried his (Sha'ul's) 
               Kelim'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Sha'ul asked about David's father.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Sha'ul certainly knew who David's father 
               was - 'The man was a famous sage ...'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> This is Yishai, who was appointed over 
                    600,000!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, Sha'ul asked if David descends from 
               Peretz or from Zerach;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he comes from Peretz he will be king, since 
                    a king is Poretz (breaks fences) to make a path 
                    for himself;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> If he comes from Zerach, he is merely 
                    important.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why did Sha'ul inquire about David?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'Sha'ul clothed David in his (Sha'ul's) 
               garments, like his measure'. (This suggested that 
               David would be king, for) Sha'ul was 'From his 
               shoulder and above taller than the whole nation'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Doeg ha'Edomi:</font></b> Before asking if he is fit for 
               kingship, ask if he may marry into Yisrael!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Avner:</font></b> Why shouldn't he be?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Do'eg:</font></b> He descends from Rus the Mo'avis.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Avner:</font></b> We learned that an Amoni and a Mo'avi are 
               forbidden, but an Amonis and a Mo'avis are not!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Doeg):</font></b> If so, you should say that a Mamzer 
               is forbidden, but not a Mamzeres!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Avner):</font></b> 'MaMZeR' alludes to MuM ZaR (a 
               foreign blemish), which applies equally to women.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Doeg):</font></b> If so, you should say a Mitzri is 
               forbidden, not a Mitzris!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Avner):</font></b> The Isur of Mo'av is different, 
               since the Torah specified the reason - 'Because they 
               did not go out to greet you with bread and water';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This reason does not apply to women, for it is 
                    normal for men to go out to greet, but not for 
                    women.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Doeg):</font></b> The men should have gone out to 
               greet the men, and the women to greet the women!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b></b> Avner was silent.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>17. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'The king said 'ask whose son is this EleM 
               (youth)''. Before, he it called a 'Na'ar'!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>18. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Sha'ul hinted to Avner 'this law NisALMah 
               (is hidden) from you. Go ask in the Beis Medrash.'
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>19. </font></b></b> He asked. They said that Amoni is forbidden, but not 
               Amonis, and similarly Mo'avi but not Mo'avis.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) CONVERTS FROM EGYPT, AND THE RULERS OF ROME</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yehudah related that his colleague, Minyamin Ger Mitzri (a convert from Egypt) told him that he married a Mitzris Rishonah (a first-generation convert from Egypt), and he plans on marrying his son to a Mitzris Sheniyah in order that his grandson be a third-generation Mitzri who will be permitted to marry an ordinary Jew and fully join the Jewish community.
</p><p>
Why was Minyamin so careful to marry a Giyores Mitzris? He could have married an ordinary Jewess himself, because when Sancheriv conquered the nations he dispersed all of the different peoples (Yeshayah 10:13; Berachos 27a, Yoma 54a). Consequently, those who live in Egypt are not considered original Mitzrim, just as those who line in Moav or Amon are not considered Moavites or Amonites.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Sotah (9a) cites the Tosefta which is the source of Rebbi Yehudah's statement. Rashi there adds that the Tosefta records that Rebbi Akiva told Minyamin that he was in error. Since Sancheriv mixed up the nations, his status as a Mitzri is in doubt and he himself is permitted to join the Jewish community. This is also the ruling of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 12:25).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> quotes the <b>BEHAG</b> who rules differently. He cites another Tosefta in Yadayim in which Rebbi Yehoshua states that even today, a Jew may not marry a Ger Mitzri because a specific time limit was given for the dispersion of Mitzrayim. In Yechezkel (29:13), the prophet relates that forty years after Mitzrayim will be exiled, they will return to their land. Those forty years have already passed. Therefore, a Ger Mitzri is not the same as a Ger from current-day Moav, Amon, or Edom, whom an ordinary Jew is permitted to marry since the original nations have long been dispersed to other locations.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MORDECHAI</b> (#71) cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who asserts that Sancheriv did not disperse the people of Mitzrayim at all (or the Moavites, whom he left in Moav). He exiled only Amon and the other nations.
</p><p>
The Mordechai adds that this seems apparent from the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (9a) which discusses Antoninus and the Roman kings and calls them 'Bnei Edom.' If Sancheriv dispersed them, why does the Gemara call them descendants of Edom? It must be that Sancheriv did not disperse every nation.
</p><p>
How do the other Rishonim understand that Gemara?
</p><p>
1. The Mordechai cites the <b>SEMAG</b> (Lo Ta'aseh 104) who explains that offspring of the royal family, 'Zera ha'Meluchah,' always retain their identity regardless of where the royal descendants are exiled. Therefore, the Gemara calls the rulers of Rome 'descendants of Edom' because they were descended from the royal family of Edom and did not lose their identity as a result of exile. (Although Rome 'does not appoint a king who is the son of a king' (Avodah Zarah 10a), it could be that the rulers were part of one extended family, and thus they may be called 'Zera ha'Meluchah.' Alternatively, the official law did not permit an official <i>appointment</i> of the son as king after the father, but the father did make successful efforts to ensure that his son was powerful enough to be able to take the throne after him.)
</p><p>
2. Alternatively, Edom is different from the other nations. The Chachamim had a tradition that the Roman rulers descended from Edom. (See <b>RAMBAN</b>, end of Parshas Balak, Chavel edition. See also <b>IBN EZRA</b> to Bereishis 27:40, who maintains that Rome is a descendent of Yavan, and not of Edom. He apparently understands all of these Gemaras to be allegorical in nature, in the form of Asmachta.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS A 'MO'AVIS' PERMITTED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Doeg asked like above. They were silent. Doeg was about 
          to announce that David was forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Here it says 'Amasha, the son of`... Yisra 
          ha'Yisraeli who had Bi'ah with Avigayil Bas Nachash'. 
          Elsewhere he is called 'Yisra ha'Yishmaeli'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> This teaches that he girded his sword like 
          a Yishmaeli and said that whoever does not accept my 
          tradition will be pierced with a sword. 'I learned from 
          Shmuel ha'Navi that an Amoni and a Mo'avi are forbidden, 
          but not an Amonis or Mo'avis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> One is not believed to teach a law in such a 
          case!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Aba):</font></b> If a Chacham teaches a law relevant to a 
               case at hand (Tosfos - that affects himself), we 
               heed him only if he already taught the law before.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yisra was believed, since Shmuel and his Beis Din 
          were around (the law was easily verifiable).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Do'eg's question remains (the women should have 
          gone out to greet the women)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Chachamim of Bavel):</font></b> 'The honor of a Bas Melech 
          is (to stay) inside' (women should not go out even to 
          greet women).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael:</font></b> We learn this from ' ... 
          Where is your wife Sarah?' (It is praiseworthy that she 
          stayed in the tent.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  The following Tana'im also argue about the source that a 
          Mo'avis is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> An Amoni is forbidden, not 
               an Amonis; a Mo'avi, not a Mo'avis;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, 'Because they did not go out ...' - 
               it is the way of a man ...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> 'You opened my binds' - David said to Hash-m, two 
          binds which were on me, you opened - Rus the Mo'avis, and 
          No'oma the Amonis (the mother of Rechavam, who succeeded 
          Shlomo).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> '... Your wonders and thoughts are upon us' - not 
          upon me.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This teaches that Rechavam sat in David's lap, and 
               David told him 'these two verses were said for me 
               and you.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> 'Then I said, I have come; it is written in a 
          Sefer about me' - David said, when I was anointed, I 
          thought that my grandeur was just starting; I did not 
          realize, it was already written in the Torah about me.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'that were found' regarding Lot's daughters 
               (who gave birth to Amon and Mo'av), like it says, 'I 
               found David my servant'.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DAUGHTER OF A CONVERTED 'AMONI'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula, citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The daughter of a converted 
          Amoni may marry a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava bar Ula):</font></b> Like whom is this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is unlike R. Yehudah, for he says that a 
               convert's daughter is like a Chalal's daughter!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is like R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious! R. Yosi permits even the 
          daughter of two converts to a Kohen!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps that applies to converts that 
               may marry Yisraelim, but not to forbidden converts.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the source to make such a 
               distinction?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We learn from the daughter of a Kohen Gadol 
               from a widow.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> We cannot learn from there, for the Bi'ah 
               is forbidden!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> (This does not cause the Isur!) A Chalal's 
               daughter is forbidden even though the Bi'ah was 
               permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> We cannot learn from a Chalal, since he 
               himself was conceived through sin!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> A Kohen Gadol was not conceived through sin! 
               We may learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah (what is common 
               to both). Each case (a Kohen Gadol married to a 
               widow, and Chalal) has something not found in the 
               other. The common side is that they are unlike the 
               majority of the congregation, and their daughters 
               are forbidden to Kohanim. We learn that the same 
               applies to an Amoni's daughter!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> We cannot learn. A Kohen Gadol to a widow 
               and a Chalal both involve sin (but no sin led to an 
               Amoni's daughter)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava bar Ula):</font></b> Perhaps you teach about an 
          Amoni who married a Bas Yisrael. Even though Bi'ah is 
          forbidden, the daughter may marry a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ula):</font></b> Correct! The following shows that R. 
          Yochanan discussed such a case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravin, citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The daughter of a converted 
          Amoni or Mitzri Sheni is permitted (to a Kohen);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> She is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Reish Lakish learns from a Kohen Gadol and a widow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  The following shows why R. Yochanan permits.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MAY A FEMALE CONVERT FROM MOAV JOIN THE JEWISH PEOPLE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses how David ha'Melech -- a descendant of Ruth, a Moavite convert -- became permitted to marry into the Jewish people. In a Halachic debate initiated by Shaul ha'Melech, Doeg asserted that the Torah's prohibition against allowing converts from Moav to marry into the Jewish people applies equally to female converts as it applies to male converts. He argued that the reason the Torah gives for the prohibition against accepting male converts from Moav is that the men of Moav did not offer food to the Jews during their sojourn in the wilderness. Although it is not the manner for women to offer food to men, the Moavite women should have offered food to the Jewish women. Since the Moavite women did not offer food to the Jewish women, they are not to be accepted into the Jewish people.
</p><p>
The Beis Din was prepared to announce that David, a descendant of a female Moavite convert, was prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman, when Amasa spoke up and declared that he had heard from the Beis Din of Shmuel ha'Navi that a Moavite woman is permitted to join the Jewish people. Amasa added, 'Anyone who does not accept this as Halachah will killed by the sword!'
</p><p>
What did Amasa intend to accomplish with his threat? The Halachah is that the members of one Beis Din may override another Beis Din's ruling if they have proof for their argument that disqualifies the other Beis Din's ruling. Here, Doeg had a valid, logical argument. What evidence did Amasa have to refute Doeg's argument?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>BRISKER RAV</b> (Megilas Ruth) and the <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> propose an explanation based on several rulings of the <b>RAMBAM</b>. 
</p><p>
The Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) writes that when a Beis Din issues a ruling based on the thirteen principles through which Torah law is derived, a subsequent Beis Din that determines that the thirteen principles should be applied differently may rescind the earlier Beis Din's ruling. This is based on the verse that obligates the people to follow the rulings of the Beis Din of their own generation, 'who will be in those days' (Devarim 17:9; Rosh Hashanah 25b). 
</p><p>
The Rambam earlier (Hilchos Mamrim 1:3) writes that a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai cannot be subject to dispute. In his Introduction to Perush ha'Mishnayos, the Rambam adds that if Tana'im disagree about a certain point and one of them cites as proof a tradition received through a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, that proof is irrefutable and everyone must accept it.
</p><p>
The Rambam also writes (Hilchos Mamrim 3:2) that one who denies any part of the oral tradition ('Mesorah she'Ba'al Peh') is considered a heretic and permission is granted to execute him ('whoever kills him has done a great Mitzvah -- Asah Mitzvah Gedolah').
</p><p>
Finally, the Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 12:18) writes that the Halachah that a Moavite woman is permitted to join the Jewish people is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
</p><p>
Based on these rulings of the Rambam, the debate recorded in the Gemara here is understood. 
</p><p>
Initially, the Chachamim were unaware of the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that permitted a Moavite woman to join the Jewish people. They thought that Shmuel ha'Navi had derived that ruling by applying the thirteen principles. Doeg, therefore, was entitled to dispute the ruling based on his understanding of the thirteen principles. Amasa argued that no one is entitled to argue with Shmuel's ruling because it was not based on Shmuel's own reasoning and application of the thirteen principles. Rather, it was a tradition received as a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
</p><p>
Accordingly, Amasa declared, 'Anyone who does not accept this as Halachah will be killed by the sword,' because a person who rejects a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, which is part of the Mesorah she'Ba'al Peh, has the status of a heretic and is liable to be executed, as the Rambam writes.
</p><p>
(Although the Gemara afterwards discusses the refutation to Doeg's proof (why the Moavite women were not expected to greet the Jewish women and offer them food), it does so only to explain why the verse does not contradict the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Its intention is not to explain the basis for <i>why</i> Moavite women converts are accepted today, for that indeed is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.)
</p><p>
The Brisker Rav adds that the verse in Megilas Ruth relates that the Go'el did not want to marry Ruth 'lest I will destroy my descendants' (Ruth 4:6). <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Go'el was concerned that his descendants would become prohibited to marry into the Jewish people because of the prohibition against accepting a Moavite woman (or her descendants) into the Jewish people. Why, though, was he concerned only about his descendants? If he maintained that a Moavite woman may not marry into the Jewish nation, he should have said that he did not want to marry Ruth because perhaps <i>he</i> might transgress the prohibition against marrying a Moavite convert! (<b>MAHARSHA</b> here; see <b>IYUN YAKOV</b>.)
</p><p>
The Brisker Rav answers that the Go'el thought that the Heter to accept a Moavite woman was based on the thirteen principles. Consequently, he was concerned that although the Beis Din in his generation decided that a Moavite woman convert is permitted, perhaps a later Beis Din will find an argument to refute that ruling and rule that a Moavite woman is <i>forbidden</i> to join the Jewish people. As a result, his descendants will become prohibited from joining the Jewish people retroactively. Therefore, he said that he cannot marry Ruth 'lest I will destroy my descendants.'
</p><p>
Boaz, however, realized that the allowance to accept a Moavite woman convert was a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. (Indeed, Boaz is counted in the chain of trustees of the Oral Tradition, as recorded by the Rambam in his Introduction to Mishneh Torah.) As such, the law can never be revoked.
</p><p>
<b>RAV YEHUDAH LANDY</b> adds that even Boaz did not realize at the time that the lenient ruling was based on a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. His confidence that no later Beis Din would revoke the ruling and prohibit a Moavite woman was based on a different reason.
</p><p>
The only basis to revoke the ruling would be Doeg's argument, that the Moavite women were expected to greet the Jewish women, and since they did not do so they may not join the Jewish nation. The Gemara's answer to that argument is that women are not expected to go out to greet even other women, for they must conduct themselves with modesty and avoid public fanfare (see, however, the <b>MAHARSHAL's</b> explanation of the Gemara's answer).
</p><p>
It is reasonable to assume that Doeg did not accept that argument because the attribute of modesty had no place in the mores of Moav. (On the contrary, promiscuity was the foundation of the Moavite nation, as Lot's daughter conceived her son, Moav, through her father and unabashedly publicized that fact in the name she gave her child; see Bereishis 19:37.) Boaz, however, saw that Ruth excelled in the attribute of modesty (Rashi to Ruth 2:5, based on the Gemara in Shabbos 113b). He had firsthand proof for the veracity of the Gemara's response to Doeg's argument; he saw that the Moavite women indeed had the potential for acting with modesty, and thus they had grounds on which to justify their lack of hospitality towards the Jewish women. Consequently, he felt confident in marrying Ruth.
</p><p>
(This approach also explains the Yerushalmi (Yevamos 8:3) which relates that Boaz told Ruth, 'Had you come two or three days earlier, you would not have been able to marry a Jew, for it is only now that we canonized the Halachah that a Moavite woman is permitted to marry a Jew.' It was only because of the <i>modesty</i> which Ruth displayed that the courts ruled to allow Moavite women to join the Jewish people.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (R. Zakai - Beraisa):</font></b> 'He will marry a virgin 
          from his nations' - this includes a Mechunah convert (her 
          parents come from the same nation).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1A - R. Yochanan:</font></b> I expound '<i>me</i>'Amav (<i>from</i> 
          his nations)' to permit a virgin that comes from two 
          nations, and you learn only Mechunah?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What are the two nations?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> An Amoni married an Amonis. These 
                    are considered two nations because the men are 
                    permitted and the women are forbidden.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> This is like R. Zakai (but R. 
                    Yochanan disagreed)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, an Amoni (or Mitzri Sheni) married a 
               Bas Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1B - R. Yochanan:</font></b> I expound '<i>me</i>'Amav' to 
          permit a virgin that comes from two nations, and one of 
          those nations has in it two nations, and you learn only 
          Mechunah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to this version, how does R. Yochanan 
          learn that a Mitzri Sheni's daughter is permitted? 
          ('Me'Amav' does not discuss Mitzriyim, for it is not like 
          two nations; men and women are forbidden equally.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He learns from an Amoni who married a 
               Bas Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> We cannot learn from Amonim, for (even if 
               she were considered an Amonis,) the females are 
               permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The child of a Mitzri Sheni from a 
               Mitzris Shenis is permitted, even though females 
               (Mitzriyos) are forbidden. This shows that this 
               factor is irrelevant!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> There, Bi'ah is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The child of an Amoni from a Bas Yisrael is 
          permitted even though Bi'ah is forbidden! We learn from a 
          Tzad ha'Shavah of these two.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> I had heard Rav Yehudah say 'Amav' - 
          '<i>me</i>Amav' and I did not understand. (Now, I understand.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah - (R. Zakai - 
          Beraisa):</font></b> An Amonis is permitted. Her son from an Amoni 
          is forbidden. Her daughter from an Amoni is permitted 
          (the entire Beraisa will be explained);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This applies after they converted; but her daughter 
               from an Amoni is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan:</font></b> Do not teach this in the Beis Medrash!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> I agree that an Amonis is permitted - 'Amoni', not 
               an Amonis;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> I agree that her son from an Amoni is forbidden, 
               since he is an Amoni;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> You said 'Her daughter from an Amoni is 
               permitted' - to whom?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It is not to Yisrael. If her mother is 
                    permitted, all the more so the daughter (she 
                    was born in Kedushah)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> She is permitted to a Kohen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> You said 'This applies after they 
               converted; but her daughter from an Amoni is 
               forbidden' - to what does this refer?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If an Amoni married an Amonis, that is a 
                    convert Mechunah (she is Kesherah)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, an Amoni married a Bas Yisrael (and 
               you forbid). 
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan:</font></b> Do not teach this in the Beis Medrash (it is 
          wrong)!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS A 'MITZRIS' FORBIDDEN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Mitzri or Edomi is forbidden ...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do Chachamim challenge R. Shimon's Kal 
          va'Chomer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> Arayos disproves the 
          Kal va'Chomer. They are forbidden only until three 
          generations (the Torah permits a man to his great 
          granddaughter), yet Arayos through males and females 
          (e.g. the daughters of one's son <i>and</i> daughter) are 
          forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We cannot challenge from Arayos, for they are 
          Chayavei Kerisos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn from Mamzerim. Even a Mamzeres is 
          forbidden, even though this is not Chayavei Kerisos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> You cannot learn from Mamzerim, for all 
          generations are forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah. In Arayos and 
          Mamzerim, both males and females are forbidden. The same 
          applies to Mitzriyim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Tzad ha'Shavah is invalid, since both 
          sources involve Chayavei Kerisos (a Mamzer results from 
          Kares)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question (c)):</font></b> Rather, Chachamim ask from a 
          Chalal who results from Chayavei Aseh, like R. Eliezer 
          ben Yakov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What was R. Shimon's answer 'No, rather...'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> I do not hold like R. Eliezer ben Yakov (so I 
          hold that the Kal va'Chomer is valid). You, who (reject 
          the Kal va'Chomer because you) hold like him should know 
          that I have a tradition to permit the females.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> I received my law on tradition. 
          Also, the verse supports me - 'Sons' are forbidden, not 
          daughters.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> 'Sons' are forbidden, not 
          daughters;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, 'Banim that will be born to them ...' - 
          the verse ascribes (the Isur) to birth (to the mother. If 
          she were permitted, also her children would be!)
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS A 'MITZRIS' FORBIDDEN? (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan:</font></b> Had R. Yehudah not said that the verse 
          ascribes to birth (so female are forbidden) he would not 
          have been able to defend himself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah holds that converts are part of Kehal 
               Hash-m. If a Mitzris is permitted, whom may a Mitzri 
               Sheni marry to permit his children?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #1:</font></b> Perhaps the Torah teaches that 
               b'Di'eved, if he married, his children are 
               permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> The Torah does not discuss a b'Di'eved 
               case.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Mamzerim are b'Di'eved, and the Torah 
               discusses them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Torah teaches Isurim that come 
               b'Di'eved, but not leniencies.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Torah teaches that a child of Machazir 
               Gerushaso (after she was married in between) is 
               Kosher!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Primarily, the Torah wrote her Isur. We 
               infer from it that her children are Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> Why did the Torah need to mention 
          both 'children' and 'generations'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Had it said only 'Banim', one might have thought 
          that the first two children of a Mitzri are forbidden, 
          and the third is permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had the Torah said only 'Dor Shelishi', one might 
               have thought that the Torah permits the third 
               generation <i>of Yisraelim</i> born after Matan Torah to 
               marry (any generation of converted) Mitzriyim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  'Lahem' - we count generations from them. 'Lahem' - we 
          follow whichever is disqualified.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The Torah needed to write both 'Lahem' and 'That will be 
          born':
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it said only 'That will be born', we would think 
               to count three generations starting with their 
               children;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it said only 'Lahem', we would think that if a 
               pregnant Mitzris converted, her son is also a Mitzri 
               Rishon. Therefore, it says 'that will be born' to 
               teach that he is a Sheni.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  The Torah needed to write 'Lahem' regarding Mitzriyim and 
          also 'Lo' regarding Mamzerim:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it said only 'Lahem' regarding Mitzriyim (to 
               forbid a child if either parent is a Mitzri), we 
               would think that this is because Mitzriyim come from 
               improper seed (i.e. of Nochrim, but this does not 
               apply to Mamzerim);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it said only 'Lo' by Mamzerim (to forbid a child 
               if either parent is a Mamzer), we would think that 
               this is because all generations are forbidden (but 
               we are not so stringent about Mitzriyim).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DO WE COUNT GENERATIONS FROM THE MOTHER OR FATHER?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah, citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If a Mitzri 
          Sheni married a Mitzris Rishonah, the child is a 
          Shelishi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that we follow the father.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yosef - Mishnah - R. Tarfon):</font></b> Mamzerim can 
          purify their seed: If a Mamzer marries a slave, the child 
          is a slave. If he frees the child, the child is 
          permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that we follow the mother!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There is different, for it says 'the woman 
          (slave) and her children will be to her master.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava - Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Minyamin was a 
          Mitzri Rishon. He married a Mitzris Rishonah, and planned 
          to marry his son to a Mitzris Sheniyah, in order to 
          permit grandchildren.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If we follow the father, he could even marry his son 
               to a Mitzris Rishonah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, R. Yochanan said the correct text says 
          that he will marry him to a Rishonah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Dimi, citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If a Mitzri Sheni married 
          a Mitzris Rishonah, the child is a Sheni.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that we follow the mother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> R. Yochanan taught that if a man that 
          designated a pregnant animal for his Chatas, and it gave 
          birth, he may atone with the mother or the child.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Granted, if a fetus is not considered a limb of the 
               mother, it is as if he set aside two animals for 
               Acharayos (in case one cannot be offered, he will 
               offer the other);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Oshaya said that in such a case he may atone 
                    with either one, and the other grazes (is 
                    permitted).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But if a fetus is like a limb of the mother, when it 
               is born we apply to it the law of a child of a 
               Chatas, and it must die (it cannot be offered)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rav Dimi was silent (presumably, we follow the 
               mother only if the fetus is like a limb of her).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> (Really, R. Yochanan holds that a fetus 
          is not a limb of the mother.) Perhaps the law of 
          Mitzriyim is different - 'That will be born' teaches that 
          it depends on birth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Dimi:</font></b> I saw your Rebbi (Rabah) there when R. Yochanan 
          gave this explanation (surely, you heard from him)! Had 
          the Torah not ascribed the Isur to birth, we would follow 
          the father, like the norm.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rava said that if a (pregnant) Nochris 
          converted, her child need not immerse. Why not (if we 
          normally follow the father)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It is due to R. Yitzchak's law.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, a Chatzitzah 
                    (interruption) invalidates Tevilah only if it 
                    covers most of the body, and it bothers the 
                    person. (The fetus does not mind that his 
                    mother surrounds him, so her Tevilah is also 
                    Tevilah of the fetus.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHICH GENERATION IS PERMITTED AFTER A MITZRI CONVERTS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses when a Ger Mitzri is permitted to marry a Jew and become a full member of the Jewish people. The Torah states that the third-generation descendant of a Ger Mitzri is fully accepted into the Jewish people (Devarim 23:9). The Gemara explains that the verse uses the term 'Lahem' twice. One of those terms teaches that the count of the three generations <i>begins from and includes</i> the original convert.
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and says that it is necessary for the verse to say both 'Asher Yivaldu' ('who will be born') and 'Lahem' ('to them'). Had it said only 'Asher Yivaldu,' one might have thought that there must be three generations of descendants <i>after</i> the original convert, and only the third generation <i>of descendants</i> -- which is the <i>fourth</i> generation when the original convert is included in the count -- is permitted. 'Lahem' teaches that the third generation, which is the <i>second</i> generation of descendants (i.e. the original convert's grandchildren), is permitted. On the other hand, had the verse said only 'Lahem,' one might have thought that if a pregnant woman converts, the fetus -- together with the mother -- is considered the first generation of converts. Therefore, the Torah says 'Asher Yivaldu' to teach that the fetus is considered the <i>second</i> generation, and the children it later bears are permitted to marry into the Jewish people.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that when the Gemara says that both 'Asher Yivaldu' and 'Lahem' are necessary, it means that one should not think that 'Asher Yivaldu' <i>contradicts</i> 'Lahem' and implies that only the third generation of descendants (not including the original convert) is permitted. Rather, 'Asher Yivaldu' means something else entirely and does not contradict 'Lahem.'
</p><p>
Why does Rashi write that the point of the Gemara is to resolve an apparent contradiction in the verse? Why would one have explained the verse in a way in which the words are contradictory?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi is bothered by the wording of the Gemara. Normally, whenever the Gemara says 'Itztrich,' 'it (the verse) is necessary,' it means that two verses seem to teach the same thing, and one verse would have sufficed. The Gemara proceeds to demonstrate that the verses actually do not teach the same thing, but they teach two different lessons.
</p><p>
The words of the verse which the Gemara here discusses, however, do not teach the same (or even similar) lessons at all. On the contrary, according to the straightforward meaning of the verse, they contradict each other. 'Asher Yivaldu' implies that the third generation <i>of children</i> (four generations from the convert himself) is permitted, while 'Lahem' implies that the third generation <i>including</i> the convert himself is permitted. Why, then, does the Gemara use the term 'Itztrich,' which is normally used when two verses apparently teach the same thing?
</p><p>
In response to this question, Rashi explains that the Gemara's question is that there is a contradiction in the words of the verse, and not that there is an unnecessary repetition. The Gemara means that one should not think that one of the phrases in the verse implies a seemingly <i>incorrect</i> statement (as it contradicts the other phrase). Rather, the second verses is 'needed' ('Itztrich') to teach a different Halachah altogether.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Rav Kahana taught that this is when the 
               Chatzitzah covers a majority, but if the entire body 
               is covered the Tevilah is invalid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A fetus is different. Since he grows in his 
          mother, she is not a Chatzitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravina citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> For Nochrim (to decide which 
          nation they are), we follow the father. After conversion, 
          we follow Pesulim in either parent.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  For Nochrim we follow the father, like a Beraisa teaches:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) - Question:</font></b> What is the source that if a 
               Nochri fathered a child from a Kena'anis (of the 
               seven nations), that the child may be bought for a 
               slave (he need not be killed)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'Also from the children of the residents 
               that live with you, from them you may buy slaves.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this even applies to a Kena'ani 
               who had a child from a Nochris?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Asher Holidu b'Artzechem' - those born 
               (to mothers) in your land, not from those (fathered 
               by Kena'anim from Nochriyos) who came to live in 
               your land.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Ravina taught that after conversion, we follow 
          Pesulim in either parent. What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a Mitzri married an Amonis, there is no problem 
               with her. Amoni is Asur, not an Amonis!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, an Amoni married a Mitzris;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the child is a boy, we consider him an Amoni. If 
               the child is a girl we consider her a Mitzris.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PROHIBITION OF 'MAMZERIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Mamzerim and Nesinim are forbidden forever, 
          both males and females.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Reish Lakish):</font></b> A Mamzeres is permitted after 10 
          generations.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  He learns from a Gezeirah Shavah 'Asiri-Asiri' from Amoni 
          and Mo'avi. Just like there, females are permitted, also 
          here.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> There, females are permitted immediately. He 
          should learn the same to Mamzerim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (The verse explicitly forbids Mamzerim (of both 
          genders) until 10 generations.) The Gezeirah Shavah 
          teaches that the Isur is permanent. We do not forbid more 
          than the source, i.e. males.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> Mamzerim and Nesinim are forbidden 
          forever, both males and females.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Reish Lakish holds like the Tana who says Dun 
          Minah u'Minah (we learn all laws of the case being 
          learned from the source. Amoni teaches that Mamzerim are 
          forever forbidden, and also that females are permitted);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Tana of the Mishnah says Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra 
               (we only learn one law from the source. Other laws 
               are according to the law of the matter being 
               learned. Amoni teaches only that the Isur is 
               permanent.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the law of a Mamzeres after 10 
          generations?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Eliezer:</font></b> If you show me a third generation Mamzer, I 
          will declare him to be Kosher!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He holds that Mamzerim do not live (to have 
               generations).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> Mamzerim do not live.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> They are forbidden forever.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Zeira citing Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Known Mamzerim 
          live; unknown Mamzerim do not. Those that are not known 
          well do not live past three generations.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Ami announced that a certain man was a Mamzer; the man 
          cried.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Ami:</font></b> I have given you life!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'ISUR' OF THE 'NESINIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chana bar Ada):</font></b> David decreed against (marrying) 
          Nesinim - 'The king ... said that the Giv'onim are not 
          from Bnei Yisrael.' (They are called Nesinim because they 
          were given to be slaves to cut wood and draw water.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did he decree?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'There was a famine for three straight years in 
          the days of David'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first year he suspected that it is due to 
               idolatry amidst Yisrael - 'And you will serve 
               foreign gods ... and there will not be rain'. He 
               checked and did not find idolatry.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The second year he suspected that it is due to 
               immorality - 'The early and late rains were 
               withheld, and you had the countenance of a harlot'. 
               He checked, and did not find.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The third year he suspected that it is due to people 
               who publicly pledge Tzedakah and do not give it - 
               'Clouds and wind, but no rain; a man glorifies 
               himself in false gifts.' He checked, and did not 
               find. He concluded that it is due to himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'And David sought Hashem's countenance' - 
               how did he do so?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Reish Lakish):</font></b> He asked through the Urim 
               v'Tumim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How is this learned from the verse?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> It says '<b>PNEI</b> Hash-m', and 
                    by the Urim v'Tumim it says 'li'FNEI Hash-m'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> 'Hash-m said that it is due to Sha'ul and the house 
               of blood, that he killed the Giv'onim.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It is due to Sha'ul, i.e. that he was not 
                    eulogized properly;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We do not find that Sha'ul killed the 
               Giv'onim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Since he killed the Kohanim of Nov, who used 
               to supply food and water to the Giv'onim, the verse 
               considers it as if he killed them (Rashi. Maharsha - 
               the Giv'onim used to supply food and water to the 
               Kohanim. Sha'ul deprived them of this great merit.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Would Hash-m punish for not properly 
               eulogizing Sha'ul, and also for Sha'ul's sin?!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Yes!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> 'Seek Hash-m ... His judgment 
                    they carried out' - when Hash-m judges a 
                    person, He recounts his achievements.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>APPEASING THE 'GIV'ONIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  David:</font></b> Sha'ul died many years ago, so it is improper 
          abnormal to eulogize him now. We can appease the 
          Giv'onim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> David:</font></b> 'What can I do for you, to atone?'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Giv'onim:</font></b> 'We don't want silver or gold ... give us 
               seven of Sha'ul's children, and we will hang them.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> David tried appeasing them; they refused.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> David:</font></b> There are three Simanim of Yisrael - they are 
               merciful, have a sense of shame, and bestow Chesed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  They are merciful - 'He will give you mercy, 
                    and make you merciful';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> They have shame - 'In order that fear of Hash-m 
                    should be on your faces'.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>They bestow Chesed - 'That he will command his 
                    children...(to do Tzedakah)'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Whoever has these three Simanim is fitting to cling 
               to Yisrael. (The Giv'onim do not, so we will not 
               marry them - 'the Giv'onim are not from Bnei 
               Yisrael.')
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'The king took ... Armon and Mefivoshes and 
          five sons of Michal' - why did he take these?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> He passed them in front of the Aron. 
          Whomever the Aron absorbed would be killed; whomever the 
          Aron expelled would live.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chana bar Katina):</font></b> 'The king had mercy on 
          Mefivoshes ben Yehonason' (this shows that David 
          decided)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> He did not pass him in front of the Aron.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Did he show favoritism?! (This is like killing 
          someone else!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, he passed him in front of the Aron and 
          the Aron absorbed him. David requested mercy, and the 
          Aron expelled him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Still, this is favoritism!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, he prayed that the Aron should not absorb 
          him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'Fathers will not die ... (and sons will not 
          die due to the sins of their fathers)!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> It is better to uproot a 
          letter of the Torah (transgress) than to publicly 
          desecrate Hashem's name (if people will see that 
          injustice to convert was not avenged).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'From the beginning of the harvest ... until 
          the rain (the bodies were hanging)'. It says 'You may not 
          let him (someone executed) hang overnight'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is better to uproot a letter of 
          the Torah in order to publicly sanctify Hashem's name.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Passersby would ask about the people hanging. They 
               would learn that they were sons of kings who harmed 
               converts.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Passersby:</font></b> There is no nation as fit to cling to as 
               Yisrael! If sons of kings are punished thusly, all 
               the more so, commoners! If for harming converts 
               thusly, for harming Yisrael all the more so!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  Immediately, there were 150,000 new converts - 'Shlomo 
          had 70,000 workers carrying on the shoulder, and 80,000 
          quarrying in the mountain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps these workers were Yisraelim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> 'Shlomo did not give a slave from Yisrael'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Maybe they were just hired workers?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction:</font></b> Rather, we learn from 'And Shlomo counted ... 
          ha'Gerim...150,000'.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DECREE AGAINST THE 'GIV'ONIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> David did not decree against the Nesinim. Moshe 
          did - 'From the woodchopper to the one who draws your 
          water'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Moshe decreed only for his generation. David 
          decreed for all generations.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Yehoshua decreed on them before David - 
          'Yehoshua made them woodchoppers and water drawers for 
          the congregation and the Mizbe'ach'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yehoshua decreed only for when there is a 
          Mikdash. David decreed even for when there is no Mikdash.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE THREE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara teaches that the Jewish people personify three attributes: they are merciful, they are bashful, and they perform acts of kindness. The <b>MAHARAL</b> (here and in Nesiv ha'Bushah #1) explains that the Jewish people inherited these three Midos from their forefathers, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov.
</p><p>
The verse, 'And He will give you mercy' (Devarim 13:18), teaches that the Jewish people are imbued with the Midah of Rachamim, mercifulness. Similarly, Yakov Avinu said to his sons, 'May Hash-m give you mercy' (Bereishis 43:14), when he prayed that Hash-m grant his descendants mercy in the eyes of others, in return for Yakov's own exemplary Midah of Rachamim. Yakov's mercy is also demonstrated in the description of the way he tended the flocks of Lavan (Bereishis 31:38-40).
</p><p>
The verse, '... so that awe of Him should be upon your faces' (Shemos 20:17), teaches that the Jewish people excel in the Midah of Bushah, bashfulness. The Gemara teaches that awe of Hash-m, Yir'as Hash-m, is the source for the Midah of Bushah. Similarly, the Torah describes Yitzchak's relationship with Hash-m with the term 'Pachad Yitzchak,' 'the <i>fear</i> of Yitzchak' (Bereishis 31:42), because Yitzchak personified the Midah of Yir'as Hash-m.
</p><p>
The verse which demonstrates that the Jewish people are Gomlei Chesed is the verse in which Hash-m praises Avraham for teaching his descendants 'to do acts of kindness and justice' (Bereishis 18:19). The Torah describes some of Avraham Avinu's exemplary acts of Chesed in the beginning of Parshas Vayera.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the three Midos which characterize the Jewish people were inherited from the forefathers, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov. (See also Insights to Beitzah 25:3.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  In Rebbi's day, they wanted to permit the Nesinim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebbi:</font></b> We can permit our share, but who will permit the 
          share of the Mizbe'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  This argues with R. Chiya bar Aba.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> Yisrael's share is always 
               forbidden (until Yisrael permits it). The 
               Mizbe'ach's share is forbidden only when there is a 
               Mikdash.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'YIBUM' AND 'CHALITZAH' OF A 'SERIS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yehoshua):</font></b> I heard that a Seris does 
          Chalitzah, and one does Chalitzah to his widow; and a 
          Seris does not do Chalitzah, and one does not do 
          Chalitzah to his widow. I cannot explain these.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Akiva:</font></b> I will explain! A Seris Adam (castrated by man) 
          does Chalitzah, and one does Chalitzah to his widow, 
          because he was once able to have children. A Seris Chamah 
          (from birth) does not do Chalitzah, and one does not do 
          Chalitzah to his widow, since he was always sterile;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Eliezer:</font></b> No. Rather, a Seris Chamah does Chalitzah and 
          one does Chalitzah to his widow, because he can be cured. 
          A Seris Adam does not do Chalitzah and one does not do 
          Chalitzah to his widow, since he cannot be cured.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ben Besira testified about a Seris Adam in 
          Yerushalayim named Ben Megosesa. His widow did Yibum, 
          like R. Akiva's opinion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  A Seris does not do Chalitzah nor Yibum. Also an Ailonis 
          does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If a Seris did Chalitzah, he did not disqualify her (from 
          Kehunah). If he had Bi'ah with her, he disqualified her 
          (since he is Eshes Ach without the Mitzvah of Yibum).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Similarly, if an Ailonis did Chalitzah she is not 
          disqualified. If she had Bi'ah with the Yavam she is 
          disqualified.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> R. Akiva says that Chayavei Lavin are 
          like Chayavei Kerisos, and Chayavei Kerisos do not do 
          Chalitzah or Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Ami):</font></b> The case is, she is a convert. R. 
          Akiva holds like R. Yosi, who says that converts are not 
          considered Kehal Hash-m (and are permitted to a Seris).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, they should be allowed to do Yibum!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Indeed, they can! Since R. Yehoshua 
               discussed Chalitzah, R. Akiva also discussed 
               Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Yehudah testified about a 
               Seris Adam whose widow did Yibum, to fulfill the 
               words of R. Akiva.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rabah - Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven is a Petzu'a Daka, 
          Krus Shofchah, Seris Adam, or is too old to have 
          children, he does Chalitzah or Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven died leaving a widow, and a brother gave a 
               Ma'amar or Get or did Chalitzah, it takes effect. If 
               a brother did Yibum, he acquires her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Reuven's brother died leaving a widow, and Reuven 
               gave a Ma'amar, Get or did Chalitzah, it takes 
               effect. If he did Yibum, he acquires her, but may 
               not stay married - 'A Petzu'a Daka or Krus Shofchah 
               will not enter Kehal Hash-m'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This shows that the widow is a Bas Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rabah):</font></b> Rather, the case is, he became a 
          Petzu'a Daka after she fell to Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> The Isur of Petzu'a Daka should 
          discharge the Mitzvah of Yibum!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Gamliel):</font></b> (Leah fell to Yibum to a man 
               married mid'Rabanan to her sister Rachel (a minor)). 
               If Rachel does Mi'un, Leah may do Yibum. If not, 
               Leah waits until Rachel grows up, and Leah is exempt 
               because she is the Yavam's Achos Ishto.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that the Isur of Achos Ishto discharges 
               the Mitzvah of Yibum. The same should apply to the 
               Isur of Petzu'a Daka!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Tana holds like R. Akiva, and 
          that R. Akiva says that Mamzerim come only from Chayavei 
          Lavin of Sher (kin), not from other Chayavei Lavin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Yibum is 'To establish a name for his brother', 
          and the men (in Rabah's Beraisa) cannot do this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> If we required the Mes to be fertile when 
          he died, Yibum would never apply, since he became a Seris 
          Chamah right before he died (he was too weak to have 
          children! Rather, it suffices that he was once able to 
          have children.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rava's reasoning is difficult for R. Eliezer!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A man does not become a Seris Chamah before 
          death. He is just weak.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MARRYING 'NESINIM'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara concludes that the decree against marrying the Nesinim (see Background to the Daf) was comprised of three stages. In the first stage, Moshe Rabeinu prohibited his generation from marrying the Nesinim. In the second stage, Yehoshua extended the prohibition for as long as the Beis ha'Mikdash stands. In the third stage, David ha'Melech extended the prohibition to apply even in the absence of the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>

The Gemara relates that the Beis Din in the generation of Rebbi sought to allow the Nesinim to become part of the Jewish people. Rebbi vetoed the proposal on the grounds that the Nesinim work as servants for the Mizbe'ach (for they were appointed to be woodchoppers and water-drawers to supply the needs for the sacrificial service on the Mizbe'ach; see Yehoshua 9:3-27), and Beis Din is not authorized to abolish the Mizbe'ach's benefit from the Nesinim.
</p><p>
The Gemara does not explain the exact nature of the Gezeirah enacted against the Nesinim. Was it a Gezeirah of Avdus (servitude) which required that they must be servants, or was it a Gezeirah of Isur (prohibition) which excluded them from marrying into the Jewish people?
</p><p>
The Gemara gives two contradictory inferences. The Gemara states that Moshe Rabeinu and Yehoshua enacted Gezeiros against the Nesinim, but the verses relate only that they designated them as servants but not that they specifically prohibited the Nesinim from marrying Jews. Also, the Gemara relates that Rebbi did not want to permit the Nesinim because they are the <i>property</i> of the Mizbe'ach which Beis Din is not entitled to take away.
</p><p>
That the Gezeirah was one of servitude is also supported from the fact that in the days of Rebbi, the Beis Din wanted to permit them on the basis of the principle of 'Hefker Beis Din Hefker,' as <b>RASHI</b> writes. They did not seek to revoke a decree of an earlier generation (which a later Beis Din is not authorized to do unless it is greater than the original Beis Din). This implies that the primary Gezeirah was that they were designated as servants; the prohibition against marrying Jews was merely a secondary result of their status as servants.
</p><p>
However, other sources indicate that the primary Gezeirah was not one of servitude, but a prohibition against marrying Jews. The Mishnah in Kesuvos (29a) teaches that when a Nesinah is raped, the perpetrator is required to pay the Torah-prescribed penalty, but when a Shifchah (maidservant) is raped, the perpetrator is not required to pay (even if she was a Besulah at the time of the rape, as Tosfos cites in the name of the Yerushalmi). This indicates that a Nesinah does not have the status of a Shifchah, and no decree was issued to designate the Nesinim as servants. The Gezeirah only prohibits them from marrying into the Jewish nation.
</p><p>
How are these contradictory sources to be reconciled?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Nesinim) cites some who suggest that Moshe Rabeinu and Yehoshua enacted a decree of Avdus for the Nesinim, but their decree applied only while the Beis ha'Mikdash stood. David ha'Melech's decree applied after the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, but it did not involve servitude. Rather, he prohibited the Nesinim from marrying Jews because they demonstrated corrupt character traits.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, why did Rebbi state that Beis Din cannot permit the Nesinim because of the 'Chelek ha'Mizbe'ach,' if today the decree is not one of Avdus but solely a prohibition against marrying them?
</p><p>
Apparently, Rebbi's intention was to say that when the Beis ha'Mikdash will be rebuilt, Yehoshua's Gezeirah of Avdus will take effect again and the Nesinim will be obligated to serve the Mizbe'ach. If Beis Din permits them now to marry into the Jewish nation, when the Beis ha'Mikdash will be rebuilt there will be no way to identify the Nesinim who are supposed to be servants of the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, why did the Beis Din in the times of Rebbi propose to repeal David ha'Melech's Gezeirah? His Gezeirah prohibited the Nesinim from marrying Jews and was not a Gezeirah of Avdus. The Gemara (Beitzah 5a) teaches that a later Beis Din may not revoke a decree enacted by an earlier Beis Din unless the later Beis Din is greater than the earlier one in wisdom and in numbers.
</p><p>
Perhaps the Beis Din sought to repeal David ha'Melech's decree because the nature of the Nesinim had changed and they no longer demonstrated corrupt character traits. Some Rishonim maintain that when the <i>reason</i> behind an earlier prohibition no longer exists or applies, a later Beis Din <i>may</i> revoke the decree even though it is not greater in wisdom and numbers (see Insights to Beitzah 5:2).
</p><p>
According to this explanation, however, the Gemara's question (79a) is a weak one. The Gemara asks that it was Moshe Rabeinu who enacted the Gezeirah against the Nesinim, and not David ha'Melech. The Gemara should answer simply that Moshe Rabeinu enacted a Gezeirah of Avdus and David ha'Melech enacted a Gezeirah against marrying the Nesinim. 
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos cites another explanation which asserts that all three enactments (of Moshe Rabeinu, Yehoshua, and David ha'Melech) were Gezeiros <i>only</i> of servitude. However, the Nesinim obviously were not given the status of bona fide slaves, as is evident from the Mishnah in Kesuvos (29a). (The <b>RASHBA</b> writes that they indeed were given the status of bona fide slaves, but since they had no <i>specific</i> master the normal laws which prohibit slaves to marry ordinary Jews did not apply to them.) However, since the decree required that they be limited to menial labor (like ordinary slaves), it was appropriate to prohibit them from marrying into the Jewish people, just as real slaves are prohibited from marrying into the Jewish people. 
</p><p>
This approach explains why the Gemara finds it necessary only to prove that Moshe Rabeinu decreed that they be servants, but not that he instituted an enactment against marrying them. This also explains why the Beis Din in the times of Rebbi proposed allowing Jews to marry them. The prohibition against marry the Nesinim was merely a result of the fact that they were made into servants. Once they no longer have the status of servants (because of 'Hefker Beis Din Hefker'), there is no prohibition against marrying them.
</p><p>
According to both of these approaches, it is clear that the prohibition of 'Lo Sischaten Bam' (Devarim 7:3) does not apply to Nesinim. This supports the view of the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (76a) who points out that the Gemara here apparently contradicts the conclusion of the Gemara earlier (76a) that the prohibition of 'Lo Sischaten Bam' applies to Nesinim. The Gemara here sides with the opinion that 'Lo Sischaten Bam' applies to a Nochri from the seven Canaanite nations only <i>before</i> he converts, but not after he converts. Accordingly, it does not apply to Nesinim, who are converts. (See Insights to Yevamos 76:2.)
</p><p>
Alternatively, only the first generation of converts from the seven nations are prohibited, but their children are permitted. Hence, today's Nesinim are permitted even if the prohibition of 'Lo Sischaten Bam' applies to a member of the seven nations after he converts (<b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RITVA</b>).
</p><p>
Rashi favors this ruling in a number of places (Yevamos 37a, DH Nesini; Kesuvos 29a, DH Nesinah; see also Rashi to Yevamos 70a, DH Mishum Rabeinu, and Menachos 43a, DH Mishum Zonah). Rashi writes that the prohibition against marrying the Nesinim is unrelated to the Isur d'Oraisa of 'Lo Sischaten Bam.' (When Rashi earlier in Yevamos (37a) writes that the Nesinim have 'a <i>type of</i> Avdus,' he likely refers to the second explanation of Tosfos, that the Chachamim enacted an Isur d'Rabanan against marrying them because of their pseudo-state of Avdus.)
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos cites a third explanation in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b>. Rabeinu Tam asserts that the Gemara here is consistent with the conclusion of the Gemara earlier (76a) that the Nesinim are Asur mid'Oraisa because of 'Lo Sischaten Bam.' The discussion of Gezeiros in the Gemara here involves only the Gezeiros of Avdus, and not of the Isur of Chasnus. Even when the Beis Din in the days of Rebbi sought to permit the Nesinim, it sought only to remove their state of Avdus; the Beis Din did not attempt to remove the Isur mid'Oraisa against marrying Nesinim. Rebbi protested that their Avdus should not be removed, lest the people forget that the Nesinim have an obligation of Avdus to the Mizbe'ach when the Beis ha'Mikdash is rebuilt.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, it is clear why the principle of 'Hefker Beis Din Hefker' would have been able to remove the prohibition; the Beis Din sought only to remove the Gezeirah of Avdus. (Even according to Rabeinu Tam, the Nesinim were not true servants but only pseudo-servants, and they were not prohibited to marry into the Jewish people because they were servants, as is evident from the Mishnah in Kesuvos.)
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> follows this opinion in a number of places (Yevamos 49a, DH ul'Rebbi Sima'i; 68a, DH Kuti v'Nasin; Sotah 44a, DH ked'Rabah; Makos 13b, DH Nesinah; see also Rashi to Sanhedrin 82a, DH Ovedes Kochavim). (Rashi in those places apparently contradicts what he writes in the places cited above, end of (b). This matter needs further elucidation.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO IS A 'SERIS'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is a Seris Chamah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef):</font></b> It is one who was a Seris 
          from birth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that he was a Seris from birth?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> When he urinates, it does not make an 
          arch.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What causes a man to be a Seris Chamah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> His mother baked in the heat of the afternoon, 
          and drank mixed beer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yosef:</font></b> I had heard my mother say, 'Anyone who 
               was stricken from birth'. Now I know what she 
               referred to.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest he got better in 
          the interim (and if he was once fertile, Yibum and 
          Chalitzah apply to him)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since he was and is a Seris at the beginning and 
          the end, we are not concerned lest he was better in the 
          middle.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Mari - Beraisa - R. Chanina ben Antigonus):</font></b> 
          We check (a firstborn animal with a blemished eye) three 
          times within 80 days. (We are concerned lest it improved 
          in the middle!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We are concerned that one limb recovered in 
          between, but not that the entire body did.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> No, rather (a Seris Chamah does 
          Chalitzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Mishnah - Beis Hillel):</font></b> If a 20-year old 
          man did not bring two hairs, he proves that he is 20, and 
          (that) he is a Seris. He does not do Chalitzah or Yibum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a 20-year old woman did not bring two hairs, she 
               proves that he is 20, and (that) she is an Ailonis. 
               She does not do Chalitzah or Yibum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai says, the age for both of them is 18;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer says like Beis Hillel (20) for a man and 
               like Beis Shamai (18) for a woman, since women 
               mature faster.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rami bar Dikuli):</font></b> R. Eliezer retracted his 
          opinion.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Which did he retract?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> A Seris Chamah does 
               Chalitzah and Chalitzah is done to his wife, because 
               in Alexandria they have a cure for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Elazar):</font></b> R. Eliezer did not retract. The 
          Mishnah (of 18 and 20 years) discusses when they are 
          considered adults to be punished for sins.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN DOES A 'SERIS' BECOME AN 'ADULT'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> If one ate Chelev between the age of 12 and 18, 
          then brought Simanim of being a Seris, and later brought 
          hairs, (s)he becomes an adult retroactively. (Rashi, 
          Tosfos - we discuss a female; Ramban - we discuss a 
          male.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> (S)he was a minor when (s)he ate.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> (R. Meir says that there is no fine 
          for raping or enticing a minor.) According to Rav, R. 
          Meir should say that there is a fine for an Ailonis 
          (since retroactively she was a Na'arah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> No, she jumps from being a minor to a 
          Bogeres. She was never a Na'arah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> I should merit that such teachings be said in 
          my name!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> A Seris cannot become a Ben Sorer 
          u'Moreh (a rebellious son), because Ben Sorer u'Moreh 
          applies after he brings hairs below. The laws of Na'arah 
          Me'orasah do not apply to an Ailonis, since she jumps 
          from being a minor to a Bogeres.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Avahu):</font></b> One with signs of being a Seris or Ailonis is 
          not considered an adult until 20. Until 20 years we do 
          not consider a baby born after eight months of pregnancy 
          (to be alive - Rashi; Nimukei Yosef - to be an adult).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> An eight-month baby cannot live!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> An eight-month baby is like a rock. One 
               may not move him on Shabbos, but his mother may bend 
               down to let him nurse, because of danger (to both of 
               them).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WAITING TWENTY YEARS TO DETERMINE IF A BABY WILL LIVE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Avahu teaches, 'Whe	n a person has the signs (Simanim) of a Seris or an Aylonis, and when a baby is born after eight months of gestation, we do not rely on its external signs to determine the person's status until he reaches the age of twenty.' The Gemara asks that a baby born after its eighth month cannot survive until the age of twenty. Why, then, does Rebbi Avahu say that we wait until he reaches the age of twenty to determine his status? The Gemara explains that Rebbi Avahu refers to a baby born fully developed; his hair and nails are developed like those of a full-term newborn. (This answer is in accordance with the Girsa of Rashi. According to the Girsa of the Rif (see Bach), however, the Gemara answers that Rebbi Avahu refers to a baby whose hair and nails are <i>not</i> fully developed. This Girsa will be explained below.)
</p><p>
The Gemara then cites a dispute between Rebbi and the Rabanan. The Rabanan assert that any baby born in the eighth month is an eighth-month baby. (An eighth-month baby is assumed to have physical deficiencies which render it inviable.) Rebbi argues that only a baby born in the eighth month <i>with signs of prematurity</i> (its hair and nails are undeveloped) has the status of an eighth-month baby. If the baby's hair and nails are fully developed, even though it was born in the eighth month it is presumed to be a healthy, viable baby (it is considered a 'seventh-month baby' which was born one month late.)
</p><p>
The Gemara's intent in citing the dispute between Rebbi and the Rabanan is to explain the statement of Rebbi Avahu about a baby born in the eighth month. How, though, does their dispute shed light on Rebbi Avahu's statement? It is still unclear why it is necessary to wait twenty years to determine whether the child is an eighth-month baby. If the child lives, he obviously is not an eighth-month baby. Why must we wait twenty years?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains the Sugya in the most straightforward sense: it is necessary to wait twenty years in order to determine that the person is fit to live and that he is not a Nefel, a stillborn. Before twenty years have passed, we must suspect that the child is an eighth-month baby even though he was born with fully-developed hair and nails. If he lives until the age of twenty, we assume that he was a seventh-month baby that was born a month late. (Although Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that a baby which survives for <i>thirty days</i> is not a Nefel, apparently Rebbi Avahu argues and maintains that we must wait twenty years in order to verify that the child is not a Nefel.)
</p><p>
This approach is very difficult to understand, as the <b>RITVA</b> and other Rishonim ask. How can the status of a healthy, fully-grown, nineteen-year-old man be in doubt, such that he might not have the status of a 'living person'? It seems unreasonable to apply the stringencies of an eighth-month baby to such a person (for example, Shabbos may not be desecrated to save his life, or he is Muktzah and may not be touched on Shabbos)! Moreover, how can Rebbi Avahu, an Amora, disagree with the Tana, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, without any source to support his view?
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi means that according to Rebbi Avahu, although a baby born in the eighth month which survives for thirty days certainly is not considered an eighth-month baby (and therefore is not Muktzah on Shabbos), there still exists a strong possibility that he is a Tereifah and that he will not survive until the age of twenty.
</p><p>
A Tereifah certainly is considered a living person and is treated like one (Shabbos may be desecrated in order to save his life). The fact that he is a Tereifah affects only specific Halachos (for example, if a Tereifah's ox killed another person, the Tereifah is exempt from the payment of Kofer; see Sanhedrin 78a).
</p><p>
Rebbi Avahu means that a child born in the eighth month is not considered to be free of defects (that is, not a Tereifah) before the age of twenty. Until he reaches the age of twenty there remains a doubt that perhaps he is a Tereifah. Certainly, however, he is not treated like 'a stone' (as he is treated within thirty days after birth); the fact that he lived passed the first thirty days indicates that he is not a Nefel (with regard to the Halachos relevant to a Nefel, such as the exemption from mourning for him if he dies after thirty days). However, after thirty days, he is considered a Safek Tereifah until he reaches the age of twenty. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(This approach explains the words of Rashi when he writes that the mother of an eighth-month baby may feed her baby on Shabbos without touching it 'because there is a danger for <i>both of them</i>.' Why does Rashi add that she may feed the baby not only because of the danger to her health, but also because of the danger to the baby's health? An eighth-month baby is not considered a living person, and thus concern for the baby's health should not permit the desecration of Shabbos! Indeed, Rashi elsewhere (and Rashi on the Rif here) does not mention the danger to the baby at all (as the <b>BACH</b> here points out). <b>RABEINU AVRAHAM MIN HA'HAR</b> cites the comments of Rashi as they appear in our texts, and he rejects Rashi's explanation because of this question. Perhaps Rashi understands that the Beraisa which allows the mother to 'bend over and feed' the baby refers to both an eighth-month baby which was born <i>with</i> the signs of an eighth-month baby, and one that was born fully developed in the eighth month. The latter is not a definite Nefel; there is a chance that he will survive and be a Tereifah, or that he will survive and not even be a Tereifah. Although the child is 'Muktzah,' one certainly may desecrate Shabbos to save his life because of the chance that the child will survive despite its premature birth.)
<br> 
<br>(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos) explains simply that when Rebbi Avahu says that 'we do not... determine the person's status until he reaches the age of twenty,' he does not refer to his statement about an eighth-month baby, but only to his earlier statement about the Simanim of a Seris and an Aylonis. When a baby is born after eight months, certainly we do not have to wait 'until he is twenty years old' to determine that he is not going to live. Rebbi Avahu means merely that we do not rely on physical signs alone to determine whether a baby is an eighth-month baby.
</p><p>
The Ramban's explanation is consistent with his Girsa of the Gemara. According to the Ramban's text, Rebbi Avahu refers to a child born undeveloped, <i>without</i> completed hair and nails. Rebbi Avahu teaches that even though the child has signs of an eighth-month baby, when we do not know for certain that the child was in utero for eight months we may not assume that he will die.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> and the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by many Rishonim) explain that Rebbi Avahu does not discuss whether or not a particular eighth-month baby will survive in the first place. He discusses only the laws of Seris and Aylonis. Rebbi Avahu teaches that if a child was born in the eighth month, even though his Simanim are complete (his hair and nails are fully developed) he is weaker than an ordinary child and has Halachic similarities to a Seris. Due to the weakness of his constitution, he does not reach puberty until he reaches the age of twenty. Any pubic hairs that grow before that age are deemed to be mole hairs and do not indicate the onset of puberty; he reaches that state only when two hairs grow <i>after</i> the age of twenty.
</p><p>
(According to the way <b>TOSFOS CHAD MI'KAMAI</b> quotes the Ra'avad, the Ra'avad suggested a second, similar explanation which he ultimately rejected in favor of the first. According to his second explanation, the weakness of the eighth-month baby <i>takes the place of</i> Simanei Seris. He is considered a Seris if two pubic hairs do not grow before the age of twenty <i>even though</i> he displays no other signs of a Seris. (Normally, when there are neither pubic hairs nor Simanei Seris, the child is not considered a Seris until the age of thirty-five; see Chart.) The fact that he was born in the eighth month takes the place of Simanei Seris.) 
</p><p>
(d) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> prefers the Girsa of the Rif (as cited by the <b>BACH</b>), according to which Rebbi Avahu discusses a case in which the newborn did <i>not</i> have fully-developed hair and nails. He explains (like Rabeinu Chananel) that Rebbi Avahu teaches the laws of a Seris and not the laws of who is considered a living person.
</p><p>
The Ba'al ha'Me'or suggests, however, that when Rebbi Avahu mentions an eighth-month baby, he does not refer at all to an actual baby born after eight months. Rather, he means that the signs of a <i>Seris</i> are <i>the same</i> as the signs of an eighth-month baby! An eighth-month baby is recognizable by his limp hair and incomplete fingernails. Rebbi Avahu teaches that although the Beraisa (80b) which lists the signs of a Seris does not mention underdeveloped fingernails, that nevertheless is one of the signs of a Seris. When the Beraisa (80b) lists limp, underdeveloped hair as one of the signs of a Seris, it means that underdeveloped hair <i>and nails</i> indicate a Seris.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, there are Simanim that he is viable:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> What is an eight-month baby?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> It is one who was not in the womb the 
               proper time;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rebbi):</font></b> There are Simanim of this. His 
               hair and nails are unfinished;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If they are finished, we assume that he is a 
                    seven-month baby that delayed a month before 
                    being born.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A case occurred, and a woman gave birth 12 
          months after her husband went overseas. Rabah Tosfa'ah 
          ruled that the child is Kosher;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Is this like Rebbi, who says that a baby may delay 
               in the womb (unlike Chachamim)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel agrees, so they are like a 
          majority.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> Any child that 
               lives 30 days is viable. (Even if he was born in the 
               eighth month, we say that he was a seven-month baby 
               that came out late).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Any male who did not bring two hairs within 20 
          years is a Seris Chamah, even if he brings hairs later. 
          The (other) Simanim are:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He has no beard;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> His hair is soft;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> His skin is smooth;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, his urine does not foam;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Some say, when he urinates it does not make an arch;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Some say, his semen is watery;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> Some say, his urine does not putrefy;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b> Others say, when he bathes in winter his body does 
               not give off steam;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, his voice is stricken, 
               and one cannot discern his gender from it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Any female who did not bring two hairs within 20 years is 
          an Ailonis, even if she brings hairs later. The Simanim 
          are:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She has no breasts;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Bi'ah is painful for her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, she does not have curved 
               hips.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, her voice is deep, and 
               one cannot discern her gender from it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> One must have all the Simanim of a Seris to 
          be a Seris.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> One of them suffices.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When he has two hairs in the beard, all agree that 
               he is a Seris only if he has all the Simanim. They 
               argue when he lacks two hairs in the beard.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rabah bar Avuha said 'Check Rav Nachman. If he 
          gives off steam when he bathes, I will marry my daughter 
          to him.' Was this like Rav Huna?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, it is even like R. Yochanan. Rav Nachman had 
          a beard.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'SEIFA' IS LIKE R. AKIVA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Seris does not do Chalitzah or Yibum. Also, 
          an Ailonis ...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah discusses a Seris similar to an Ailonis. Just 
          like an Ailonis is b'Yedei Shamayim, also the Seris.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This Seifa was taught anonymously. It is like R. Akiva, 
          who says that a Seris Adam does Chalitzah, but a Seris 
          b'Yedei Shamayim does not.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 'SIMANIM' OF A 'SERIS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa lists the Simanim (signs) of a Seris and Aylonis. Rav Huna and Rebbi Yochanan disagree about what makes a person a Seris. Rav Huna maintains that only when a person has all of the signs does he have the status of a Seris. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that even one sign is enough to determine that a person is a Seris.
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and says that if the person has 'two hairs in his beard,' all agree that he must have all of the Simanei Seris to be considered a Seris.
</p><p>
The Gemara's statement is difficult to understand. One of the signs of a Seris is that he <i>has no beard</i>. If he has two hairs in his beard, by definition he is not a Seris and does not have all of the Simanim of a Seris.
</p><p>
Moreover, Rebbi Yochanan maintains that if he does not have two hairs in his beard, he needs only one Siman to be considered a Seris. Why does he need even one Siman to be considered a Seris? The lack of hairs in his beard is itself a Siman that he is a Seris, and one Siman suffices to make him a Seris according to Rebbi Yochanan. (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH d'Havi and DH Ki)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that if the person's beard is comprised of only two hairs, it is not called a 'beard.' He is considered 'beardless' and may still have all of the signs of a Seris.
</p><p>
When Rebbi Yochanan says that one who does not have two hairs in his beard needs only one Siman to be considered a Seris, he means that the absence of hairs in his beard itself suffices as a Siman to make him a Seris. He does not need any other Siman since he has no beard.
</p><p>
(b) According to other Rishonim (see <b>RITVA</b> and <b><b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b>), the Gemara does not refer specifically to facial hairs in one's beard. Rather, it refers to two hairs anywhere on the body. (These Rishonim either did not have the word 'Zakan' in their text of the Gemara (like the Girsa of the Vilna Ga'on), or they interpreted that word to mean the 'Zakan ha'Tachton,' the lower hairs.)
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> points out that this explanation answers the questions of Tosfos here. According to this explanation, the Gemara refers to hairs elsewhere on the body and not in one's beard. Rebbi Yochanan means to say that a person who has two hairs on his body must have <i>all</i> of the Simanim of a Seris to qualify as a Seris, including the <i>complete lack</i> of facial hair.
</p><p>
The second question is answered as well. <i>In addition</i> to not having two pubic hairs, the person must have at least one other sign of a Seris -- such as the lack of a beard -- in order to be deemed a Seris. The fact that he lacks pubic hair alone does not render him a Seris.
</p><p>
According to this understanding, even when a person has two pubic hairs he may be a Seris if he has <i>all</i> of the Simanei Seris. Why, then, does the Beraisa (80a, 80b) state that a twenty-year-old becomes a Seris with Simanim when he does <i>not</i> have hairs?
</p><p>
According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Beraisa may refer to a Seris who has only <i>some</i> of the Simanei Seris, in which case he is a Seris only if he does not have two hairs. If, however, he has hairs, he is <i>not</i> considered a Seris until he has <i>all</i> of the Simanim.
</p><p>
However, according to Rav Huna -- who maintains that when one lacks hairs he still needs all of the Simanim to be considered a Seris -- why does the Beraisa specify that a Seris does <i>not have two hairs</i>? What difference does it make whether he has hairs or not? Once he has all the Simanim, he should be a Seris even if he has two hairs!
</p><p>
Apparently, the Vilna Ga'on understands that according to Rav Huna, even the presence of all of the Simanei Seris does not suffice to render him a Seris if he has two pubic hairs. When the Gemara says that everyone agrees that 'if he has two hairs, he must have all of the Simanim,' it means that he must have <i>at least</i> all of the Simanim to be a Seris. However, all of the other Simanim do not actually render him a Seris, according to Rav Huna. (M. Kornfeld) 
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO DISQUALIFIES A 'YEVAMAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Seris did Chalitzah, he did not 
          disqualify her (from Kehunah. If he had Bi'ah with her, 
          he disqualified her.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> A Yavam Seris disqualifies a Yevamah through 
          Bi'ah (because it is Eshes Ach without the Mitzvah of 
          Yibum), but a stranger does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> This refutes Rav Hamnuna:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> If a Shomeres Yavam had Bi'ah with a 
               stranger, she may not do Yibum. (She is like an 
               Eshes Ish who was Mezaneh; she becomes a Zonah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, also a stranger who has Bi'ah with her 
          disqualifies her. Since the Reisha discusses the Yavam, 
          also the Seifa does.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Also an Ailonis that did Chalitzah (is not 
          disqualified, unless she had Bi'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> If she did not have Bi'ah, she is Kesherah to 
          Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  This is unlike R. Yehudah, who says that every Ailonis is 
          a Zonah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TUMTUM' AND 'ANDROGINUS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Seris Chamah Kohen who married a Bas Yisrael 
          permits her to eat Terumah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, an Androginus Kohen who 
          married a Bas Yisrael permits her to eat Terumah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, a Tumtum who was torn and found to be a 
          male does not do Chalitzah, since he is like a Seris.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  An Androginus may marry a woman, but he may be married to 
          a man;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says, one is stoned for Bi'ah with an 
          Androginus, like with a man.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> This is obvious (that the wife of a 
          Seris Chamah Kohen eats Terumah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that only a man who can 
          have children permits others to eat Terumah. The Mishnah 
          teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, an Androginus ...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> He permits his wife to eat Terumah, but 
          not Chazah v'Shok (the chest and foreleg of a Shelamim, 
          which are given to Kohanim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> He permits her to eat even Chazah v'Shok.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does Reish Lakish permit her to eat 
          Terumah, but not Chazah v'Shok? Both are forbidden 
          mid'Oraisa to a Zar!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He permits her to eat Terumah only nowadays, when 
          it is only mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does he forbid her when the Mikdash stands and 
          Terumah is mid'Oraisa? If so, why did he teach that she 
          may not eat Chazah v'Shok? He should have distinguished 
          within Terumah itself, that she may only eat Rabbinic 
          Terumah, but not Terumah mid'Oraisa!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is what he taught! He permits her to eat 
          Rabbinic Terumah nowadays, but not when there is Chazah 
          v'Shok (i.e. when the Beis ha'Mikdash stands), even 
          Rabbinic Terumah, lest she come to eat Terumah 
          mid'Oraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan (to Reish Lakish):</font></b> Do you hold that Terumah 
          is only mid'Rabanan nowadays?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Reish Lakish:</font></b> Yes. I learn from a Beraisa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> A ring (of pressed figs of Terumah that 
               was mixed with rings of Chulin) becomes Batel (one 
               may eat from the mixture. If Terumah (of grain) was 
               mid'Oraisa, we would be stringent about all Terumah 
               and say that something sold by number is not Batel!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (R. Yochanan - Beraisa):</font></b> A piece (of a Korban 
          that was mixed with other pieces) becomes Batel (even 
          though it is an Isur mid'Oraisa)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Do you think that the Mishnah (brought below) says 
               '<i>All</i> that (i.e. even sometimes) is counted (is 
               never Batel)'? The text is, '<i>That</i> which (always) 
               is counted'!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT CAN BECOME 'BATEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> About which Mishnah do they argue?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> Bundles of clover of Kil'ai 
          ha'Kerem (crossbreeds in a vineyard) must be burned. If 
          they became mixed with (permitted) bundles, all must be 
          burned;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHAT TYPE OF TERUMAH MAY AN ANDROGINUS GIVE TO HIS WIFE?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about the intent of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah. Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon state that when a Kohen who is an Androginus marries a Bas Yisrael, he entitles his wife to eat Terumah. Rebbi Yochanan says that the Tana'im in the Mishnah refer to Terumah d'Oraisa. Since there is no doubt that the Androginus is a male, he has the right to eat Terumah and to grant that right to his wife. Reish Lakish disagrees and says that the Tana'im refer only to Terumah d'Rabanan, such as Terumah nowadays when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing. They maintain that there is a doubt whether the Androginus is a male or female, and because of this doubt the Androginus does not enable his wife to eat Terumah d'Oraisa.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan asks how Reish Lakish knows that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan. Reish Lakish cites a source from a Beraisa which states that if a pressed date-cake ('Igul') of Terumah becomes mixed with pressed date-cakes of Chulin (or a date-cake of Terumah Teme'ah becomes mixed with date-cakes of Terumah Tehorah), the Terumah date-cake becomes Batel b'Me'ah (if there is at least one hundred times more Chulin than Terumah in the mixture). Normally, in a situation of an Isur d'Oraisa, if the object of Isur is a 'Davar Chashuv' (such as a 'Davar sheb'Minyan,' something which is sold by count and not by estimate), the laws of Bitul do <i>not</i> apply. Reish Lakish derives from the Beraisa -- which discusses Terumah nowadays and rules that the laws of Bitul <i>do</i> apply in the case of the date-cake of Terumah -- that the Isur of a non-Kohen eating Terumah nowadays is only mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan responds that Reish Lakish is mistaken about the reason why the Igul is Batel. It is Batel <i>not</i> because it is a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' and only mid'Rabanan, but because it is <i>not</i> a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' at all. Only something which is <i>always</i> sold by number ('Es she'Darko Limanos') is a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' which is not Batel, while pressed date-cakes are only <i>sometimes</i> sold by number ('Kol she'Darko Limanos'). Rebbi Yochanan proves this from another Beraisa in which the Tana Kama says that if a piece of meat ('Chatichah') of a Korban Chatas that is Tamei becomes mixed with a hundred Chatichos that are Tahor, it is Batel even though eating the meat of a Chatas is forbidden by an Isur d'Oraisa. It is Batel because a Chatichah of Chatas is not something that is <i>always</i> counted (it is not 'Es she'Darko'). Similarly, the reason why Bitul applies in the case of the pressed date-cake is because it is not something that is always counted.
</p><p>
The Gemara eventually concludes that according to Reish Lakish the reason why the Chatichah of Chatas is Batel is because it is completely disintegrated. As such, it is not something that is even <i>sometimes</i> counted ('Kol she'Darko'). 
</p><p>
A number of points in the Gemara are unclear.
</p><p>
(a) Why does Reish Lakish insist that Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon permit the Androginus to give his wife only Terumah d'Rabanan? Even if it is true that Rebbi Yosi maintains that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan, what indication is there in the Mishnah to that effect? How does Reish Lakish know that Rebbi Yosi does <i>not</i> mean that an Androginus may give Terumah <i>d'Oraisa</i> to his wife?
</p><p>
(b) Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan attempt to prove from different Beraisos (which discuss the Bitul of an Igul and of Chatas) whether Terumah nowadays is d'Oraisa or d'Rabanan. How can they prove the opinion of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon from those Beraisos, when those Beraisos make no mention of Rebbi Yosi or Rebbi Shimon? How are those Beraisos related in any way to the statement of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah? It is clear that there are different opinions among the Tana'im: some maintain that Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa, and others maintain that it is mid'Rabanan. The Beraisos do not prove anything about the opinion of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon.
</p><p>
(c) Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan also disagree about the opinion of Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in Orlah (3:6) which the Gemara here cites. According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Meir maintains that something that is 'Es she'Darko Limanos' is Batel. According to Reish Lakish, Rebbi Meir maintains 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' is Batel.
</p><p>
In what way is Rebbi Meir's opinion in Orlah related to the Mishnah here? The Mishnah here expresses the view of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon, not the view of Rebbi Meir. Perhaps Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon disagree with Rebbi Meir and follow the view of the Chachamim in Orlah who rule that only six items qualify as a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' and are not Batel.
</p><p>
Moreover, according to Reish Lakish, how does the Beraisa of Igul prove that the Igul of Terumah is Batel because Terumah today is only d'Rabanan? Perhaps the Igul indeed is Terumah d'Oraisa, and the Beraisa allows it to become Batel because the Beraisa follows the opinion of the Chachamim who do not apply the principle of 'Davar sheb'Minyan' to anything other than six specific items.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>1. The most straightforward approach to these questions is that of <b>TOSFOS</b>, who explains the Sugya as follows.
</p><p>
(a) Reish Lakish insists that Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon do not permit Terumah d'Oraisa because a Beraisa later (83a) quotes Rebbi Yosi who states that the Chachamim did not come to a conclusive decision about whether an Androginus is considered a male or a female. Rebbi Yosi's statement implies that he maintains that an Androginus indeed is a Safek-male. For this reason, Reish Lakish says that Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah here must maintain that an Androginus Kohen may feed only Terumah d'Rabanan to his wife. The Halachah is lenient and considers the Androginus to be a male with regard to an Isur d'Rabanan. In contrast, with regard to an Terumah d'Oraisa, the Halachah requires that one be stringent because of the principle that a Safek Isur d'Oraisa must be treated stringently.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan, who says that Rebbi Yosi considers an Androginus to be a definite male, maintains that it is preferable to learn the Mishnah in its most straightforward sense -- that an Androginus may feed all Terumah to his wife, including Terumah d'Oraisa. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Beraisa which quotes Rebbi Yosi's statement that an Androginus is a Safek was taught before (or after) Rebbi Yosi changed his mind about the matter (82b, 83a). Moreover, he prefers to interpret the Mishnah in this way because he has proof from another source that Rebbi Yosi maintains that Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa (as the Gemara says at the beginning of 82b). (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH v'Ein)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Amar Lei) explains that Reish Lakish had a tradition that the Beraisa which says that an Igul is Batel represents the view of Rebbi Yosi. He proves from the Beraisa that since Rebbi Yosi says that an Igul is Batel, Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah here must maintain that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan, and that is the only type of Terumah which Rebbi Yosi permits the Androginus to give to his wife.
</p><p>
When Rebbi Yochanan responds by quoting the Beraisa which states that a Chatichah of Chatas is Batel, he means to say that this Beraisa expresses the view of Rebbi Yosi. The Beraisa he quotes is actually only the first part of a Beraisa recorded in its entirety later (81b). The first part of the Beraisa (the part which Rebbi Yochanan quotes) expresses the view of the Tana Kama. That Tana Kama presumably is Rebbi Yosi, because in the second part of the Beraisa the Tana who argues with the Tana Kama is Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yosi is often the Tana with whom Rebbi Yehudah argues.
</p><p>
(The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> suggests a slightly different explanation for how Rebbi Yochanan knows that the Tana Kama with whom Rebbi Yehudah argues is Rebbi Yosi. The Tosfos ha'Rosh disagrees with the assumption that Rebbi Yehudah's  counterpart in Halachic debates is usually Rebbi Yosi. Rather, he asserts that Rebbi Meir is usually the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yehudah, an assertion which is evident from many Sugyos in Shas. Since Rebbi Yosi presumably agrees with the ruling of Rebbi Meir with regard to 'Davar sheb'Minyan,' if it can be proven that <i>Rebbi Meir</i> maintains 'Es she'Darko,' it may be assumed that Rebbi Yosi also maintains 'Es she'Darko' and not 'Kol she'Darko.')
</p><p>
(c) Still, however, why do Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan say that their argument depends on the intention of Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in Orlah? Perhaps Rebbi Yosi follows the view of the Chachamim there who maintain that any item becomes Batel, even if it is an Isur d'Oraisa, and that is why the Igul and the Chatichah are Batel.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'ha'Lo) answers that Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan infer from the fact that the two Beraisos (which they assert express the view of Rebbi Yosi) discuss specifically the Bitul of <i>Igul</i> and <i>Chatichah</i> that Rebbi Yosi maintains that a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' is not Batel. If Rebbi Yosi follows the view of the Chachamim who say that a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' is Batel, why does he choose to discuss the case of Igul -- an object which is 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' -- in order to teach that even a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' is Batel? If he follows the view of the Chachamim, he should discuss a case of 'Es she'Darko' and teach that even though it is <i>always</i> counted, it is still Batel. Also, why does he discuss the case of a Chatichah of Chatas which is 'Kol she'Darko'? He should discuss an object which is 'Es she'Darko' (always counted) in order to teach that a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' is Batel. It must be that he maintains that a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' indeed is <i>not</i> Batel, like Rebbi Meir. The only reason why the Igul and the Chatichah of Chatas are Batel is that they are items which are <i>sometimes</i>, but not always, sold by count.
</p><p>
This is the essence of Rebbi Yochanan's inference that Rebbi Yosi, who discusses the Bitul of a Chatichah of Chatas, maintains 'Es she'Darko' and not 'Kol she'Darko.' 'Es she'Darko' is a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' and is not Batel, and 'Kol she'Darko' is not a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' and thus is Batel.
</p><p>
Reish Lakish asserts that the Beraisa which says that an Igul is Batel teaches that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan. Reish Lakish, like Rebbi Yochanan, infers from the fact that Rebbi Yosi chooses to discuss the case of an Igul (which is 'Kol she'Darko') that he must maintain that an object which is 'Es she'Darko' would <i>not</i> be Batel (even though it is only an Isur d'Rabanan), because it is a 'Davar sheb'Minyan.' Rebbi Yosi maintains that since such an item is always counted, one may not be lenient even in the case of an Isur d'Rabanan. Had the Igul been an Isur mid'Oraisa, it would not have been Batel because the rule with regard to an Isur d'Oraisa is that 'Es she'Darko Limanos' is not Batel (according to Reish Lakish). It is only the combination of the two factors (that the object is 'Kol she'Darko' and not 'Es she'Darko,' and that it is only an Isur d'Rabanan) which allows the Igul to become Batel (see Chart). 
</p><p>
2. The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> cites a different approach in the name of <b>RABEINU NESANEL</b> to answer these questions.
</p><p>
(a) He explains that according to Reish Lakish, Rebbi Yosi discusses Terumah d'Rabanan because mid'Rabanan an Androginus has the status of a male (mid'Oraisa he is either a Safek male, or he has the status of a 'Biryah Bifnei Atzmo').
</p><p>
(Rabeinu Nesanel does not explain how Reish Lakish knows that this is Rebbi Yosi's opinion. Apparently, Reish Lakish infers this from the end of the Mishnah in which Rebbi Yosi says, 'Androginus Nosei...,' as the Gemara points out later, 82b.)
</p><p>
Reish Lakish infers from this that since Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah maintains that Terumah today is mid'Rabanan, and the Mishnah does not mention any dissenting opinion that Terumah today is d'Oraisa, the Mishnah's intent is to teach that the Halachah is that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the dispute between Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan is whether, l'Halachah, Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan or d'Oraisa.
</p><p>
(b) When Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan attempt to prove from the Beraisos of Igul and Chatichah whether Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan or d'Oraisa, their intention is to prove the Halachah from <i>Stam Mishnayos</i> (the case of Igul appears in the Mishnah in Terumos 4:10, and the case of Chatichah was apparently part of a Beraisa which supplemented the Mishnah in Terumos (the beginning of which is cited in Beitzah 3b)).
</p><p>
(c) The reason why the Gemara assumes that the Mishnah which discusses Igul follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir is because the Beraisa cited by the Gemara in Beitzah (3b) explains that the Mishnah in Terumos (4:10) which Reish Lakish quotes expresses the opinion of Rebbi Meir.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, they are Batel if there are 201 bundles in 
          all.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, all that it is normally counted, forbids 
          (it is never Batel);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, only six things are never Batel - nuts of 
          Parech, pomegranates of Badan, sealed barrels (of wine), 
          leeks, large stalks of cabbage, and Greek gourds;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva adds a seventh, loaves of a homeowner.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Some of these (the first three) are forbidden (the first 
          three years of the tree) due to Orlah. The others are 
          forbidden if they were Kil'ayim b'Kerem.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan says, the text (of R. Meir's words) is 
               'That which is counted';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish says, it says 'All that is counted'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the Beraisa about 'a piece'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Tamei piece of a Chatas or of 
          Lechem ha'Panim was mixed with 100 Tahor pieces, it is 
          Batel;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, it is not;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If a Tahor piece of a Chatas or Lechem ha'Panim was 
               mixed with 100 Tahor Chulin pieces, all agree that 
               it is not Batel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Reish Lakish):</font></b> (Even though pieces are 
          counted,) the Reisha teaches that it is Batel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chiya brei d'Rav Huna):</font></b> The case is, the piece 
          was dissolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does R. Yehudah say that it is not 
          Batel?
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN IS 'TUM'AH' 'BATEL'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah holds like he taught elsewhere, that 
          there is never Bitul Min b'Mino (when everything is the 
          same species).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> If it wasn't dissolved, it is not Batel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does the Seifa discuss a Tahor piece 
          of Chatas mixed with Chulin? It should distinguish 
          between Tamei pieces:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'This applies only if it was dissolved. If not, it 
               is not Batel'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Tana prefers to teach about a Tahor piece 
          among Tahor pieces.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Reish Lakish, what is the 
          difference between the Reisha and the Seifa? (If it is 
          dissolved, in any case it should be Batel!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> The Reisha 
          discusses Tum'ah due to liquids, which is only 
          mid'Rabanan. The Seifa discusses Bitul (to permit a Zar 
          to eat Kodshei Kodoshim, an Isur) mid'Oraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> If it became Tamei (mid'Oraisa) through a 
          Sheretz, it would not be Batel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Seifa teach about a Tahor piece of 
          Chatas mixed with Chulin? It should distinguish within 
          the case of Tamei pieces:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is Batel if the Tum'ah was from liquids. If the 
               Tum'ah was due to a Sheretz, it is not Batel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> The Tana prefers to teach about a Tahor piece 
          among Tahor pieces.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rabah):</font></b> The Reisha permits (through Bitul to 
          eat a Tamei piece, which is) Chayavei Lavin. The Seifa 
          discusses (Bitul that would permit a Tamei to eat 
          Kodshim, which is) Chayavei Kerisos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> But Rabah taught that within mid'Oraisa laws 
          we do not distinguish between Chayavei Lavin and Chayavei 
          Kerisos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  This is left difficult.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Seifa discusses Davar she'Yesh 
          Lo Matirim (it is permitted in another situation). Such a 
          thing is never Batel, even if it is mixed with 1000 
          pieces.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Rav Ashi's answer makes no sense!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> For a Kohen, the piece is always permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> For a Yisrael, it is always forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> Rav Ashi's answer is rejected.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TERUMAH' NOWADAYS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan does not hold that Terumah is 
          mid'Oraisa nowadays!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> There were two baskets, one of Chulin and 
               one of Terumah. In front of them were two Sa'im 
               (measures), one of Terumah and one of Chulin. The 
               Sa'im fell into the baskets. The Chulin basket is 
               still permitted, because we say that the Terumah 
               fell into the Terumah and the Chulin into the 
               Chulin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> This is only if there was more 
               Chulin (in the basket) than a Se'ah (even if Terumah 
               fell in, it is the minority).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is even if there is not more 
               Chulin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Granted, Reish Lakish requires a majority even for 
               mid'Rabanan laws. But how can R. Yochanan be lenient 
               about an Isur mid'Oraisa?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This Beraisa is like Chachamim (who say that 
          Terumah is mid'Rabanan nowadays). R. Yochanan said above 
          that R. Yosi holds that Terumah is mid'Oraisa nowadays:
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'BITUL' IN THE CASE OF A 'HEFSED MU'AT'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the beginning of the Beraisa (81b), the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah disagree about whether a Tamei piece of meat ('Chatichah') of a Korban Chatas which becomes mixed with a hundred Tahor pieces is Batel. In the end of the Beraisa, everyone agrees that if a Tahor piece of meat of a Korban Chatas becomes mixed with a hundred pieces of <i>Chulin</i>, it is not Batel. The Gemara explains the Beraisa according to both the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan and the opinion of Reish Lakish.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (81b, DH Divrei, and 82a, ul'Reish Lakish) explains that according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Beraisa discusses whole pieces which are considered 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' (see previous Insight). The Beraisa rules that an object which is 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' <i>is</i> Batel because it does not have the status of a 'Davar sheb'Minyan.' In the second case of the Beraisa, the piece of Chatas is not Batel because it is a 'Hefsed Mu'at' -- it involves only a minimal loss since one can sell the entire mixture to a Kohen (who may eat both meat of Chatas and Chulin).
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that according to Reish Lakish who maintains that the Tana'im in the Beraisa maintain that an object which is 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' <i>is</i> considered a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' and is <i>not</i> Batel, the Beraisa must be discussing disintegrated pieces which are no longer a 'Davar sheb'Minyan.' However, if the Beraisa is discussing disintegrated pieces, why in the second case of the Beraisa is the Tahor piece that becomes mixed with Chulin <i>not</i> Batel?
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? The Gemara just said that according to Rebbi Yochanan, the piece of Chatas is not Batel in Chulin (even though it is not a 'Davar sheb'Minyan') because it is a Hefsed Mu'at, a minimal loss. Similarly, according to Reish Lakish the reason the piece of Chatas that becomes mixed with Chulin is not Batel is that it is a Hefsed Mu'at! The fact that the piece is disintegrated and is no longer a 'Davar sheb'Minyan' is not relevant; Hefsed Mu'at provides a different reason for why it is not Batel.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> 
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Tehorah, DH Tehoros) implies that the Gemara understands that Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan argue about this very point: should the law in the case of Chatas mixed with Chulin be more stringent (because it is only a Hefsed Mu'at) or not? According to Reish Lakish, the Gemara (beginning of 82a) proves that when a piece of Chatas becomes mixed with Chulin, and both the Chatas and the Chulin are Tahor, the law is not more stringent but rather more <i>lenient</i>, since the Chatas in the mixture may be eaten by Kohanim. In contrast, in the first case of the Beraisa in which a Tamei piece of Chatas becomes mixed with Tahor pieces, even Kohanim may not eat the mixture and thus the law is more stringent. For this reason, the Gemara assumes that Reish Lakish does not explain that the law is more stringent in the Beraisa's second case because it involves a 'Hefsed Mu'at.' Rather, the Gemara suggests other reasons for the more stringent ruling in the second case (for example, the Seifa involves an Isur d'Oraisa while the Reisha involves only Tum'ah mid'Rabanan).
</p><p>
However, this explanation is problematic. As Rashi himself asks, if the law is more stringent when the mixture may be eaten (by Kohanim) without Bitul, why does Rebbi Yosi allow an Igul of Terumah to become Batel? Even if it is not Batel, a Kohen may eat the mixture! Rashi answers that the law is not stringent in the case of an Igul because the requirement to separate Terumah from fruits is only mid'Rabanan. Rashi's answer is problematic, however, because throughout the Sugya the Gemara assumes that Terumah of fruits is just as stringent as Terumah of grains; if the latter is d'Oraisa, the former will be treated stringently as well. This was the very basis for Reish Lakish's proof (from the case of the Igul that is Batel) that the obligation to separate <i>all</i> Terumah nowadays is only mid'Rabanan. (<b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> 81b, <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> ibid.)
</p><p>
Moreover, according to Rashi the logical reasoning of Rebbi Yochanan and that of Reish Lakish are diametrically opposed. Rebbi Yochanan says that the law must be more stringent with a mixture of Terumah in Chulin, while Reish Lakish says that the law must be more lenient. (<b>MAHADURA BASRA</b>)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (81b, DH Divrei) suggests another explanation for the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa of the Beraisa.
</p><p>
According to Tosfos, Rebbi Yochanan understands that the reason for the more stringent ruling in the Seifa is that a cut of meat is a 'Davar Chashuv.' While it might not be an object which is 'Es she'Darko,' it nevertheless is important in its own right since it is a 'Chatichah ha'Re'uyah l'Hiskabed,' a portion fit to be served to guests as a display of honor to them. Such an item does not become Batel (Chulin 97b).
</p><p>
Why, then, is the cut of Chatas meat Batel in the Beraisa's first case, in which a Tamei piece of Chatas becomes mixed with Tahor pieces of Chatas? Tosfos explains that the meat of a Chatas cannot be called 'Re'uyah l'Hiskabed,' because Kohanim do not give meat of Korbanos to their guests as a display of honor. Rather, the meat of Korbanos is divided equally among the Kohanim who serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash; it is not served to guests. Since the meat is not considered fit to be served to guests, it <i>can</i> become Batel. In the case of the Seifa of the Beraisa, in which a Tahor piece of Chatas becomes mixed with <i>Chulin</i>, if the laws of Bitul would be applied the meat would <i>not</i> be considered meat of a Korban and would be fit to be served to guests. Therefore, the meat is considered a 'Chatichah ha'Re'uyah l'Hiskabed' and cannot become Batel.
</p><p>
Tosfos asks, however, that according to this explanation it should make no difference whether Chatas <i>Tahor</i> or Chatas <i>Tamei</i> becomes mixed with Chulin. In both cases the piece of Chatas should not become Batel. Why, then, does the Seifa of the Beraisa mention specifically Chatas <i>Tahor</i> which falls into Chulin? (According to Rashi, the reason why the Beraisa mentions Chatas Tahor is clear: it is only when Kohanim are able to eat the meat that the Chatas is not Batel (according to Rebbi Yochanan) or is more easily Batel (according to Reish Lakish). See, however, <b>RASHASH</b> and <b>PORAS YOSEF</b> on the words of Rashi here. See also <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b>.)
</p><p>
(c) Other Rishonim (see <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> and <b>RAMBAN</b> in Milchamos) have a different Girsa in the Gemara, in which the Gemara does not preface its question with the words, 'And according to Reish Lakish....' They explain that according to both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, the Gemara has not yet found an explanation for the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa.
</p><p>
(A third Girsa is recorded by the <b>GE'ONIM</b>, as cited by the Rashba. According to that Girsa, the Gemara seeks the difference between the Reisha and Seifa only according to <i>Rebbi Yochanan</i>. According to the way the Ramban (in Milchamos) explains the Gemara, the Gemara indeed <i>cannot</i> explain the difference between the Reisha and Seifa according to Reish Lakish, because he maintains that a Gezeirah should have been enacted that a Tamei piece mixed with Tahor pieces is not Batel, just as a piece of Chatas in Chulin is not Batel. Hence, the Gemara seeks to explain the difference only according to Rebbi Yochanan.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'BITUL' MID'ORAISA OF TERUMAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which discusses a case of two baskets. One contains Chulin and one contains Terumah. Two dishes, one of Chulin and one of Terumah, fell into the two baskets, and it is not known which dish fell into which basket. One may assume that the Terumah fell into the basket of Terumah, and that the Chulin fell into the basket of Chulin. The Gemara explains that one may be lenient in this case because even if the Terumah fell into the basket of Chulin, the mixture would be prohibited only mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
Why would Terumah mixed with Chulin be prohibited only mid'Rabanan? Reish Lakish explains that mid'Oraisa the Terumah is Batel b'Rov, since the basket of Chulin contains more Chulin than the amount of Terumah that might have fallen into it.
</p><p>
However, the Halachah is that Terumah is Batel only when there are one hundred parts more Chulin than Terumah. The Sifri derives from the verse, 'Es Mikdesho Mimeinu' (Bamidbar 18:29), that if the amount that one consecrated as Terumas Ma'aser falls into the original produce from which it was removed, the entire mixture becomes forbidden because the Terumah constitutes one part out of a hundred (that is, the mixture is one part Terumah and 99 parts Chulin). This Derashah teaches that when Terumah falls into one hundred parts (one part Terumah and one hundred parts Chulin), it is Batel. (See <b>TOSFOS</b> 73a, DH Mah, and <b>RASHI</b> to Chulin 99a, DH she'Nisbashlu.)
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Gemara here say that as long as there is more Chulin in the basket, the Terumah is Batel mid'Oraisa? Terumah is Batel mid'Oraisa only when there is at least one hundred parts more Chulin in the mixture.
</p><p>
(When the Gemara says that there is a majority of Chulin in the mixture, it cannot mean that there is one hundred times more Chulin than Terumah, because if this is the Gemara's intention there would be no question that the Terumah is Batel, and the Beraisa would not need the Heter of 'we say that the Terumah dish fell into the Terumah basket.' Even if the Terumah clearly fell into the basket of Chulin (and there was no basket of Terumah present), the basket of Chulin would be permitted because the Terumah is Batel in one hundred parts of Chulin.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (73a, DH Mah she'Ein) proves from the Gemara here that the Sifri's teaching is only an 'Asmachta,' and the requirement for one hundred parts more Chulin is only mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, even Terumah is Batel b'Rov. This seems to be the understanding of all of the other Rishonim as well.
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 15:16) suggests a novel approach. Perhaps the Sifri indeed teaches mid'Oraisa, Terumah is <i>not</i> Batel b'Rov. Why, then, does Reish Lakish say that there must be more Chulin than Terumah, if the Terumah still would not be Batel mid'Oraisa until there is a hundred times more Chulin than Terumah?
</p><p>
The Or Same'ach explains based on the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shechitah 5:3) that an Isur which is written explicitly in the Torah is treated with greater gravity than an Isur which is not written explicitly in the Torah (but is still d'Oraisa; see also <b>RAN</b> to Nedarim 8a, DH Ha Ka Mashma Lan, and <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> to Kesuvos 40a, DH Hachi Nami). The prohibition against eating a mixture of Terumah in a majority of Chulin (but less than one hundred times more Chulin) is not written explicitly in the Torah, while the prohibition against eating a mixture which is <i>mostly</i> Terumah is explicitly forbidden by the Torah. Therefore, Reish Lakish is justified in saying that since there is a majority of Chulin, mid'Oraisa the mixture may be treated leniently.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Seder Olam):</font></b> 'That your fathers 
               inherited, and you will inherit' - there was a first 
               inheritance and a second, but not a third (i.e. the 
               second Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael never ceased).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Yosi taught Seder Olam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Elsewhere, R. Yochanan requires a majority for 
          mid'Rabanan Isurim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Mikveh had exactly 40 Sa'im, and a 
               Se'ah (of fruit juice) was put in and a Se'ah was 
               removed, it is Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> (We may add and remove) until a 
               majority.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> R. Yochanan requires that a majority 
               remains. (Tosfos - this is only a Pesul mid'Rabanan 
               regarding Temed. Alternatively, even regarding fruit 
               juice, each Se'ah added is Batel and mid'Oraisa it 
               is Kosher.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> No, he requires that a majority is not removed 
          (but half may be removed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Only regarding Terumah he does not require a 
          majority, for we can make a favorable assumption (the 
          Terumah fell into the Terumah).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS AN 'ANDROGINUS' DEFINITELY A MALE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  (On 81a, Reish Lakish said that an Androginus permits his 
          wife to eat Terumah, but not Chazah v'Shok.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> An Androginus may marry (a woman. 
          This shows that he is a Vadai male. If so, he should 
          permit his wife to eat Chazah v'Shok)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> It means, if he married...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> It says Nosei (he may marry)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question:</font></b> How will you explain 'Lo Nisa (a 
               man may not marry him)'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> (If he is a Vadai male, you must say that) 
               that is b'Di'eved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Likewise, 'Nosei' is b'Di'eved!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No! He may marry a woman connotes 
          l'Chatchilah, but even b'Di'eved he may not stay married 
          to a man! (The question against Reish Lakish remains.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> In the Seifa, R. Eliezer is Mechayev a man who 
          has Bi'ah with an Androginus like with a male. This 
          implies that the first Tana is in doubt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, all agree, that he is a Vadai male. They 
          argue about whether or not one is Chayav Skilah (death by 
          stoning) for Bi'ah in the place of his female genitals;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana is Mechayev. R. Eliezer is Mechayev 
               only (for Bi'ah in the anus,) like with a normal 
               male.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES THE 'HALACHAH' FOLLOW OUR 'MISHNAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> Our Mishnah is wrong (regarding the opinion of R. 
          Yosi), because a Beraisa teaches differently.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> An Androginus is a species unto 
               himself. Chachamim did not conclude if he is a male 
               or female.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Rather, we should rely on the Mishnah and say 
          that the Beraisa is wrong!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In the Mishnah, R. Yosi agreed with R. Shimon. In 
          the Beraisa, R. Yosi speaks alone. This shows that he 
          retracted from what he said in the Mishnah. (Nimukei 
          Yosef - if the Tana of the Beraisa held that R. Shimon 
          agrees with R. Yosi, he would have cited both of them. 
          Rather, he holds that R. Shimon argues. (He did not need 
          to explain R. Shimon, for the Mishnah did. He just comes 
          to teach that R. Yosi retracted - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>.))
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow the Beraisa, for 
          the Mishnah teaches differently.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shmuel should say the opposite, that the 
          Halachah follows the Beraisa against the Mishnah, since 
          Shmuel is concerned for the opinion of an individual!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He is concerned only when this does not uproot a 
          Mishnah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>PLACES WHERE THE 'HALACHAH' FOLLOWS R. YOSI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Bei Rav citing Rav):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yosi 
          regarding Androginus (like above) and grafting (this will 
          be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yosi regarding 
          birthpangs and Kidush (becoming Asur due to Kil'ayim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Grafting - (Mishnah):</font></b> In the year before Shemitah, we do 
          not plant, insert shoots into the ground, or graft 30 
          days before Rosh Hashanah. If one did, he must uproot it;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, any grafting that is not absorbed within 
          three days will never be absorbed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, two weeks are required.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The opinion that says 30 days requires 30 
          (days for absorption) and 30 (days before Rosh Hashanah 
          due to Tosefes Shevi'is. Some Isurim of Shemitah apply to 
          the end of the sixth year);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The opinion that says three days requires three 
               (days for absorption) and 30 (days for Tosefes 
               Shevi'is). The last opinion requires two weeks and 
               30 (days).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Shmuel taught that the Halachah follows R. Yosi regarding 
          birthpangs and Kidush.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Birthpangs - (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> For how long before a 
          birth do we attribute blood that accompanies labor pains 
          to the birth (so it does not make her Yoledes b'Zov)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (R. Meir):</font></b> It is for 40 or 50 days;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It is from the beginning of 
               the month of the birth;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #3 (R. Yosi and R. Shimon):</font></b> It is no more 
               than two weeks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Kidush - (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> If one draped his vine over 
          his neighbor's grain, he forbids it and must pay;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon and R. Shimon say, a person cannot forbid what 
          is not his.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHY A 'TUMTUM' DOES NOT PERFORM CHALITZAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah (81a), Rebbi Yehudah states that a Tumtum does not perform Chalitzah even if he is found to be a male, because he has the status of a Seris (a 'Seris Chamah,' who is a Seris from birth) who is exempt from Chalitzah. The Gemara cites the opinion of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah who says that a Tumtum may not perform Chalitzah because <i>perhaps</i> he has the status of a 'Seris Chamah.' The Gemara points out that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah disagree about a case in which the dead husband has no brothers except for the Tumtum. According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Yevamah may remarry without Chalitzah. According to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the Yevamah may not remarry until she performs Chalitzah (mi'Safek) with the Tumtum, since the Tumtum is only a doubtful Seris. 
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> earlier (81a) comments that when Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah states that a Tumtum who is found to be a male may not perform Chalitzah, he refers to 'when there is another brother.' This implies that when there are no other brothers to perform Chalitzah, the Tumtum <i>does</i> perform Chalitzah with the Yevamah.
</p><p>
Rashi's words are difficult to understand. The Gemara here clearly explains that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Tumtum does not perform Chalitzah even if he is the only brother.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> here and the <b>YASHRESH YAKOV</b> (81a) explain that Rashi does not mean that Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah refers only to a case in which there are other brothers. Certainly the same Halachah applies when there are no other brothers; the Tumtum does not do Chalitzah and the Yevamah may remarry. Rather, Rashi is making an inference from the wording of Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah. Rebbi Yehudah does not say about the Tumtum that 'Lo Choletz' ('he <i>does not</i> perform Chalitzah'), as the Mishnah earlier (79b) says, which means that the Yevamah does not need Yibum or Chalitzah. Rather, he says, 'Lo Yachlotz' ('he <i>should not</i> do Chalitzah'), which is the same wording which Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah uses. This implies that when there are other brothers, the Tumtum should not do Chalitzah.
</p><p>
This explanation, however, does not explain <i>why</i> Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah says 'Lo Yachlotz.' He should have said 'Lo Choletz' to imply that the Tumtum does not do Chalitzah <i>at all</i>, even when there are no other brothers.
</p><p>
Apparently, Rebbi Yehudah uses this terminology to emphasize that he is <i>responding</i> to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says 'Lo Yachlotz' for a different reason -- the Tumtum is a Safek Seris. Rebbi Yehudah responds that the reason the Tumtum should not perform Chalitzah is <i>not</i> that the Tumtum is a Safek Seris, but because he is a certain Seris. By using the term 'Lo <i>Yachlotz</i>,' Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah alludes to the existence of a second opinion, that of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah (who indeed maintains that the Tumtum does not perform Chalitzah only when there are other brothers), without having to mention it explicitly.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does Shmuel rule regarding Androginus?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel told Rav Anan that because of the Mishnah 
          we do not rule like the Beraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does Shmuel rule regarding grafting?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel told Rav Anan like the opinion that says 
          three and 30 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does Rav rule regarding birthpangs?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This question is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does Rav rule regarding Kidush?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Rav Huna said in the name of Rav that 
          the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> Why rely on that? Rav Ada said that 
          Rav rules like R. Yosi!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Our question was according to Bei Rav, which 
          refers to Rav Huna!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'CHALITZAH' OF A 'TUMTUM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Yehudah says, a Tumtum (who was found to be 
          a male... is like a Seris)....
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Ami):</font></b> How will R. Yehudah explain the Tumtum 
          of Biri? His covering was torn and he had seven children!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah says that he did not father those 
          children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah):</font></b> A Tumtum does not do 
          Chalitzah, lest he be torn and it is found that a Seris 
          Chamah did Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Why is this the only concern? (Perhaps 'he' is 
          a female!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, we are concerned lest he be torn and 
          found to be a female, and even if he is a male, lest he 
          be found to be a Seris Chamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How is this different than R. Yehudah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> They argue about forbidding other brothers 
          to do Yibum, and doing Chalitzah when there are no other 
          brothers. (R. Yehudah holds that he definitely a female 
          or a Seris Chamah, so in any case his Chalitzah has no 
          effect.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ANDROGINUS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> One is Chayav Skilah for Bi'ah 
          with an Androginus in either of his openings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> One is Chayav Skilah for 
          Bi'ah with an Androginus like with a male;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This applies to Bi'ah in the opening which even 
               males have. One is exempt for Bi'ah in the place of 
               his female genitals.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav rules like the following Tana.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Simai):</font></b> One is liable to be stoned for 
               Bi'ah with an Androginus in either opening.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Simai's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> 'Do not lie with a male like <i>lyings</i> with 
          a woman' refers to an Androginus, with whom one can lie 
          in two ways.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, even though there are two ways to lie 
               with him, 'Es Zachar' teaches that one is liable 
               only like with a (normal) male.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Chachamim's source forbidding Mishkav 
          Zachar with a regular man?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They learn from '<i>V</i>'Es' (Bach's text).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah with 
          a woman is considered Bi'ah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn from '(Mishkevei) Ishah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Shizbi):</font></b> R. Eliezer does not consider an Androginus 
          to be a proper male, for if so an Androginus animal could 
          become a Korban!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that it cannot be a Korban?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Beraisa):</font></b> Any of the following birds (is Pasul 
          for a Korban. If it was offered, it is a Neveilah (it 
          died through Melikah, which is not Shechitah), so it) is 
          Metamei one who eats it and his clothes:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A bird that had Bi'ah with a man;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One that was designated to be offered to idolatry or 
               was worshipped;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> One that was given to a harlot for her services or 
               was exchanged for a dog;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A Tumtum or Androginus;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says, if it was a Tumtum or Androginus his 
          clothes do not become Tamei;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer says, wherever it says 'Male' or 'female' 
               (e.g. by animal Korbanos), this excludes Tumtum and 
               Androginus. The Torah does not specify the gender of 
               birds, so Tumtum and Androginus are not excluded.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. ELIEZER'S OPINION ABOUT 'ANDROGINUS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - Beraisa - R. 
          Eliezer):</font></b> The following animals do not become Kodesh or 
          make Kodesh (this will be explained):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A crossbred animal;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Tereifah (i.e. it cannot survive);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> One born by Caesarian section;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A Tumtum or Androginus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> It cannot become Kodesh, even through 
               Temurah (if one said that it should be in place of a 
               Korban). It does not make Kodesh through Temurah 
               (even if it was born to a Korban and one said that 
               another animal should be in place of it, the latter 
               animal remains Chulin).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> One is Chayav Skilah for Bi'ah 
          with an Androginus like with a male.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> When I learned by R. Elazar ben 
          Shamu'a, his Talmidim allowed me to learn from him only 
          one thing in our Mishnah, that R. Eliezer says that one 
          is liable for Bi'ah with an Androginus, like with a male.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***<b>PEREK YESH MUTAROS</b>***
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A WOMAN FORBIDDEN TO HER HUSBAND OR 'YAVAM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Some women are permitted to their husbands and 
          forbidden to their Yevamim. Some are forbidden to their 
          husbands and permitted to their Yevamim. Some are 
          permitted to both. Some are forbidden to both;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The following are permitted to their husbands and 
          forbidden to their Yevamim:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A regular Kohen who married a widow, and his brother 
               is a Kohen Gadol;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Chalal who married a Kesherah, and his brother is 
               (a Kohen) Kosher;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A Yisrael who married a Bas Yisrael, and his brother 
               is a Mamzer;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A Mamzer who married a Mamzeres, and his brother is 
               a Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The following are forbidden to their husbands and 
          permitted to their Yevamim:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Kohen Gadol who was Mekadesh a widow, and his 
               brother is a regular Kohen;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Kosher (Kohen) who married a Chalalah, and his 
               brother is a Chalal;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A Yisrael who married a Mamzeres, and his brother is 
               a Mamzer;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A Mamzer who married a Bas Yisrael, and his brother 
               is a Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The following are forbidden to both:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Kohen Gadol who married a widow, and his brother 
               is a Kohen Gadol or a regular Kohen;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Kosher (Kohen) who married a Chalalah, and his 
               brother is Kosher;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A Yisrael who married a Mamzeres, and his brother is 
               a Yisrael;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A Mamzer who married a Bas Yisrael, and his brother 
               is a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  All other women are permitted to their husbands and their 
          Yevamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If a woman is a Sheniyah to her husband but not to the 
          Yavam, she is forbidden to her husband and permitted to 
          the Yavam;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she is a Sheniyah to her Yavam but not to her 
               husband, she is forbidden to her Yavam and permitted 
               to her husband;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If she is a Sheniyah to both, she is forbidden to 
               both;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  A Sheniyah does not receive any of the following - a 
          Kesuvah; fruits (of her property); food; Bala'os (Tosfos 
          - compensation for depreciation of her property; Rashi - 
          remnants of her property);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Her child is Kosher. We force her husband to divorce 
               her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  The following women have a Kesuvah - a widow married to a 
          Kohen Gadol, a divorced woman or Chalutzah married to a 
          regular Kohen, a Mamzeres or Nesinah married to a 
          Yisrael, and a Bas Yisrael married to a Mamzer or Nasin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why does the Reisha discuss a regular 
          Kohen who <i>married</i> a widow? Even if he was Mekadesh her 
          she is forbidden to the Yavam (a Kohen Gadol)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Because he married her, she is forbidden 
               by an Aseh (she is not a virgin) and a Lav. Had he 
               only been Mekadesh her, the Aseh of Yibum overrides 
               the Lav of a widow to a Kohen Gadol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Our entire Perek discusses women 
               forbidden only by a Lav, and the Aseh of Yibum does 
               not override the Lav!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> The Seifa discusses a Kohen Gadol who married 
          a widow (therefore we also taught Nisu'in in the Reisha);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There, through Nisu'in he made her a Chalalah. Had 
               he only been Mekadesh her, she would be permitted to 
               the Yavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Rather than teaching Nisu'in similar to the 
          Seifa, we should teach about Kidushin, similar to the 
          middle case, a Kohen Gadol who was Mekadesh a widow and 
          has a brother who is a regular Kohen!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, the Reisha discusses Nisu'in for 
          similarity to the next case, a Chalal who married a 
          Kesherah, and his brother is Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if he married her, and made her a 
               Chalalah. Had he only been Mekadesh her, she would 
               be permitted to his brother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does it teach about a Kohen who married a 
          widow? Even if he married a virgin, when he dies, she is 
          a widow and forbidden to his brother the Kohen Gadol!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A WOMAN WHO IS PROHIBITED TO HER HUSBAND BUT PERMITTED TO HER YAVAM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah lists women who are permitted to their husbands but prohibited to their Yevamim, and women who are prohibited to their husbands but permitted to their Yevamim. An example of a woman who is prohibited to her husband but permitted to her Yavam (her husband's brother) is a woman who is a Mamzeres who married a Yisrael (who is not a Mamzer) whose brother is a Mamzer. She is prohibited to her husband but permitted to his brother when she falls to Yibum.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier in Yevamos (11b) discusses a case of 'Machzir Gerushaso,' in which the woman's husband dies and she falls to Yibum. The Gemara derives through a Kal v'Chomer that she remains prohibited to her husband's brother and may not do Yibum with him (and perhaps her Tzarah may also not do Yibum): since the woman is prohibited to her husband to whom she was once permitted, certainly she is prohibited to her husband's brother to whom she was always prohibited (when there was no Chiyuv of Yibum) because of the Isur of 'Eshes Ach.'
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara here not apply the same Kal v'Chomer? The Kal v'Chomer should teach that a Mamzeres who married a Yisrael should be prohibited to do Yibum with her husband's brother, even though a Mamzer is allowed to marry a Mamzeres.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara in Sotah (6a) asks this question. The Gemara explains that the Kal v'Chomer applies only when the wife becomes prohibited to her husband <i>after</i> they were married (as the Girsa of the <b>BACH</b> (11b, #2) explicitly states). In a case in which she was prohibited to him before the marriage, his brother is not more prohibited to her than her husband is. Hence, the Kal v'Chomer does not teach that the brother becomes prohibited from marrying her.
</p><p>
The Gemara, however, mentions the case of a Petzu'a Daka who dies childless, whose wife is permitted to do Yibum with his brother. What is the Halachah in a case in which the husband becomes a Petzu'a Daka <i>after</i> he and his wife were already married? The Gemara implies that the Halachah in all cases of Petzu'a Daka is the same -- the wife is permitted to do Yibum with his brother. Why does the Kal v'Chomer not apply to prohibit her to his brother?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (84b, DH Shiyer Petzu'a Daka) explains that the Kal v'Chomer prohibits her to the Yavam only when something happens to <i>her</i> which causes the Isur to take effect (such as in the case of 'Machzir Gerushaso,' or the case of a Sotah). If the Isur is created as a result of something which happens to her <i>husband</i>, the Kal v'Chomer does not prohibit her to his brother because <i>she</i> is not the one who has become Asur to her husband (and thus she does not become Asur to his brother), but it is her husband who has become Asur to her.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> in Sotah (6a, DH Leika Isura) implies that the Kal v'Chomer prohibits her to the Yavam only according to the opinion that 'Nisu'in Rishonim Mapilin,' the relationship of Yibum is an extension of the marriage between the deceased husband and the woman. Since an Isur was present during the marriage, the brother may not do Yibum because the marriage from which it stems was one of Isur. In contrast, according to the opinion that does not maintain that 'Nisu'in Rishonim Mapilin,' the Kal v'Chomer indeed may not apply.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHY DOES YIBUM NOT OVERRIDE AN 'ISUR LAV'?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that in the case of Yibum, the Mitzvas Aseh of Yibum does not override a Lo Ta'aseh (an exception to the general principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh'). <b>RASHI</b> (v'Ha Kulei) writes that this is derived from the verse, 'v'Alsah Yevimto ha'She'arah' (Devarim 25:7).
</p><p>
However, the Gemara earlier (20b) concludes that the law that Yibum does not override a Lo Ta'aseh is <i>not</i> derived from any verse but is only an Isur d'Rabanan. The Rabanan prohibited the act of Yibum where it would involve transgressing a Lo Ta'aseh (the Gezeirah of 'Bi'ah Rishonah Atu Bi'ah Sheniyah'). Why, then, does Rashi here write that the law is derived from a verse? (<b>RASHBA</b>, <b>RITVA</b>, <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> in Gilyon ha'Shas to Sanhedrin 53a)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi maintains that although the Gemara earlier (20b and 61a) concludes that the prohibition to do Yibum in this case is mid'Rabanan, the Gemara in many other places clearly indicates that the reason why the Aseh of Yibum does not override a Lo Ta'aseh is that it is possible to avoid the Lo Ta'aseh altogether by doing Chalitzah instead ('Efshar b'Chalitzah'). (See Insights to Yevamos 20:1 and 20:4.)
</p><p>
However, this still does not explain the words of Rashi here. Rashi does not write that the reason why Yibum does not override a Lo Ta'aseh is because it is possible to do Chalitzah instead. Rashi writes that the Aseh of Yibum does not override a Lo Ta'aseh because of the verse (which the Gemara earlier cites only as a Havah Amina).
</p><p>
Apparently, Rashi understands that the Gemara here (at this stage of the Sugya) maintains that the Aseh of Yibum does not override a Lo Ta'aseh because of the verse which the Gemara earlier mentions (in the Havah Amina). Rashi infers this from the fact that the Gemara mentions the logic that the Tana of the Mishnah may be of the opinion that 'Nisu'in Rishonim Mapilin.' Accordingly, if the Yevamah was permitted to the Yavam at the time she married the Yavam's brother, she may do Yibum with him even if she has become prohibited to him with a Lo Ta'aseh by the time of Yibum (for example, the Yavam is the Kohen Gadol, and the woman becomes prohibited to him as an Almanah when her husband dies).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> questions the Gemara's suggestion that the logic of 'Nisu'in Rishonim Mapilin' is a reason to be <i>lenient</i>. The concept of 'Nisu'in Rishonim Mapilin' teaches a stringency: if she was prohibited to her husband at any time during the marriage, she <i>remains prohibited</i> at the time of Yibum. The concept is never utilized to teach a leniency, that if she was <i>permitted</i> at the time of the marriage, she should remain permitted at the time of Yibum.
</p><p>
Rashi is also bothered by this question. The reason why a woman may not do Yibum with a Yavam to whom she is prohibited with a Lo Ta'aseh cannot be merely that Chalitzah may be done instead, because this reason would also apply when the Nisu'in (which caused the Yibum) took effect before the Isur. In such a case the logic of 'Efshar b'Chalitzah' still applies. Similarly, the reason cannot be the Gezeirah d'Rabanan of 'Bi'ah Rishonah Atu Bi'ah Sheniyah,' because that Gezeirah still applies in this case.
</p><p>
Therefore, Rashi writes that the Gemara here understands that the reason why the Mitzvah of Yibum does not override a Lo Ta'aseh is the verse, 'v'Alsah Yevimto ha'She'arah.' The verse teaches that there are <i>some</i> women who may not do Yibum even though they should. The Gemara establishes that they are the women who are prohibited to their Yevamim because of Isurei Lavim. However, if the verse is the only source to exclude some women from Yibum, perhaps it applies only to cases in which the Isur Lav <i>preceded</i> the Nisu'in, and it does not apply where the Isur Lav took effect <i>after</i> the Nisu'in, in which case the Mitzvah of Yibum indeed overrides the Lo Ta'aseh. This is the grounds for the Gemara's Havah Amina that if the woman became prohibited to her husband after the Nisu'in, she remains permitted to the Yavam. (Based on the <b>KEREN ORAH</b>)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The Tana holds that the start of the 
               marriage makes a woman fall to Yibum (if she was a 
               virgin then, she would be permitted to do Yibum).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> The Tana taught that a Kesherah married 
               to a Chalal is forbidden to her Kosher Yavam, even 
               though at the start of the marriage she was 
               permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It discusses a widow for similarity to the Seifa, 
          a Kohen Gadol who married a widow and his brother is a 
          Kohen Gadol or regular Kohen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if he married a widow. If she was a 
               virgin, she was permitted to her husband!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>OMISSIONS OF THE 'MISHNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> According to Rav Dimi, who said that 
          the child of a (Mitzri) Sheni from a Rishonah is a Sheni, 
          the Mishnah should also have taught the following case:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a Sheni married two Mitzriyos, a Rishonah and a 
               Sheniyah, and had a son from each, they are a Sheni 
               and a Shelishi, respectively;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If one of the sons marries a woman like himself (a 
               Sheni or Shelishi), she is permitted to him and 
               forbidden to his brother;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If one of the sons marries a woman like his brother, 
               she is forbidden to her husband and permitted to his 
               brother;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A convert is permitted to both. An Ailonis is 
               forbidden to both.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Tana omitted this case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, surely he omitted another case. What is 
          it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He omitted a Petzu'a Daka.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is not an omission. It is Chayavei Lavin, 
          and Chayavei Lavin were already taught!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Multiple cases of Chayavei Lavin were taught!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support #1:</font></b> After teaching about a regular Kohen who 
          married a widow, it also teaches a Chalal who married a 
          Kesherah (even though the latter does not teach anything 
          new).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, that case is needed to teach Rav Yehudah's 
          law:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> A Kesherah (Bas Kohen) is permitted 
               to a Chalal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support #2:</font></b> After teaching about a Chalal who married a 
          Kesherah, it also teaches a Yisrael who married a Bas 
          Yisrael and has a brother that is a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> No, it was necessary to teach Chayavei Lavin 
          that are Shavah b'Chol (apply to all of Yisrael), and 
          Lavim that are not (e.g. Isurei Kohanim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It also teaches about a Yisrael who married a 
          Mamzeres and has a brother that is a Yisrael (this is 
          also Shavah b'Chol)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> This shows that extra cases were taught even 
          if they teach nothing new. The Tana did not teach every 
          case that could have been taught (so we can say that he 
          also omitted Mitzri brothers).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY A 'BAS' 'KOHEN' MARRY A 'CHALAL'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> A Bas Kohen may marry a Chalal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Mishnah):</font></b> A Chalal who married a Kesherah...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Assumption:</font></b> 'Kesherah' refers to a Bas Kohen who is 
               permitted to a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it refers to a Bas Yisrael;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does 'Kesherah' mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> She is permitted to Kahal (Yisrael).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Objection If so, 'he has a Kosher brother' also means 
          that he is permitted to Kahal. This implies that a Chalal 
          is forbidden to Kahal!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, 'Kosher' means, a Kohen. Similarly, 
               'Kesherah' means a Bas Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Not necessarily! One does not depend on the 
          other!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravin bar Nachman - Beraisa):</font></b> 'Lo Yikchu (they 
          will not marry)' is repeated, to teach that women are 
          also commanded not to marry unfitting men.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> A woman is forbidden only when he is 
          forbidden to marry her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A different verse teaches this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'A man or woman that will do any sin' 
               equates women to men for all punishments.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WOMEN ARE COMMANDED AS MEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> If we learned from there, one would think that 
          this applies only to Mitzvos that are Shavah b'Chol.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Tum'ah is not Shavah b'Chol, yet we need a 
          verse to teach that women (Kohanos) are not forbidden to 
          become Tamei!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Bnei Aharon' are forbidden not to become Tamei, but 
               women (Benos Aharon) are not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This Isur applies only to Kohanim, and if not for 
               the verse, it would apply to women!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> It would apply to women due to Rav 
                    Yehudah's teaching!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, we would have learned this from 'Lo Yikchu '.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question 4:j, 84b):</font></b> (Indeed, 'A man or a 
          woman' teaches that even a Lav she'Einah Shavah b'Chol 
          applies to women.) 'Lo Yikchu' is needed so we will not 
          learn from Tum'ah that women are exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Are Kesheros forbidden to marry Chalalim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Papa - Mishnah):</font></b> Ten lineages came up from 
          Bavel: Kohanim, Leviyim, Yisraelim, Chalalim, converts, 
          freed slaves, Mamzerim, Nesinim, Shtuki (one whose mother 
          is known, but not his father) and Asufi (a baby found 
          abandoned; his parents are unknown);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim may intermarry. 
               Leviyim, Yisraelim, Chalalim, converts and freed 
               slaves may intermarry. Converts, freed slaves, 
               Mamzerim, Nesinim, Shtuki and Asufi may intermarry.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah does not permit Kohanos and Chalalim to 
               intermarry!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> The Mishnah 
          teaches cases in which the men may marry the women and 
          the women may marry the men. Since a Kohen may not marry 
          a Chalalah, it did not teach that Kohanim and Chalalim 
          may intermarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Idi bar Avin citing Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Kesheros 
          may marry Chalalim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO RECEIVES A 'KESUVAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Sheniyos mid'Rabanan (do not receive a 
          Kesuvah...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Bnei Biri):</font></b> If a woman is a Sheniyah to her 
          husband but not to her Yavam, does she receive a Kesuvah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since we learned that a Yevamah collects her Kesuvah 
               from the property of the deceased, she does not have 
               one;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since we enacted a Kesuvah from the Yavam when 
               there is no property from the deceased, here also!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa):</font></b> A Yevamah collects her 
          Kesuvah from the property of the deceased. If he left no 
          property, they enacted a Kesuvah from the Yavam;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she was a Sheniyah to the deceased, she does not 
               have a Kesuvah from the Yavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> If a widow married a Kohen Gadol, 
          or a divorcee or Chalutzah married a regular Kohen, does 
          she receive food?
<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><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> If she is still married, she must 
                    leave him. Should she be fed?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The case is, he went overseas and she 
               borrowed money for food.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Food is a provision of a Kesuvah. Since she has 
                    a Kesuvah, she has provisions;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Or, perhaps she has a Kesuvah, since she gets 
                    it when she leaves (and we want her to leave), 
                    but she does not get food, for it helps her 
                    remain married!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> She is not fed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> She is fed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa refers to after his death.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Answer (R. Yochanan - Beraisa):</font></b> She is fed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (R. Elazar):</font></b> She is standing to be divorced!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (R. Yochanan, for himself - Beraisa):</font></b> She is fed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (R. Elazar):</font></b> The Beraisa refers to after his 
          death.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH WOMEN HAVE NO 'KESUVAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a widow married a Kohen Gadol, or a 
          divorcee or Chalutzah married a regular Kohen, she has a 
          Kesuvah, fruits (of her property), food, and Bala'os 
          (remnants of or compensation for depreciation of her 
          property);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She is disqualified and her child is disqualified. 
               We force him to divorce her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A Sheniyah mid'Rabanan does not have a Kesuvah, fruit, 
          food, or Bala'os;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She is Kesherah and her child is Kosher. We force 
               him to divorce her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> Why did they say that a widow married to a 
          Kohen Gadol has a Kesuvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> It is because he is 
          disqualified (Tosfos - their child is a Chalal; Rashi - 
          while married to her, he is like aChalal) and she is 
          disqualified. Whenever both are disqualified, they fined 
          him to pay a Kesuvah;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHY A WOMAN LOSES HER KESUVAH FOR MARRYING A MAN TO WHOM SHE IS ASUR MID'RABANAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara cites a dispute among Tana'im concerning the reason why a woman loses her Kesuvah when she marries a man to whom she is prohibited only mid'Rabanan. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar maintains that she loses her Kesuvah because she persuaded the man to marry her (Rashi explains that it is assumed that a woman wants to get married more than a man does). When the man is forbidden to her by an Isur d'Oraisa, she will not initiate the relationship because she does not want to disqualify herself or her children from Kehunah by marrying that man. If she nevertheless marries him, it is assumed that <i>he</i> persuaded <i>her</i> to marry him, and therefore the Rabanan do not penalize her by revoking her Kesuvah.
</p><p>
Rebbi disagrees and says that she loses her Kesuvah for a different reason. When a woman marries a man to whom she is prohibited mid'Rabanan, the Rabanan decreed that she does not receive her Kesuvah as a way of strengthening their Isur d'Rabanan. They were not stringent in the case of an Isur d'Oraisa, because an Isur d'Oraisa does not need to be strengthened. According to Rebbi, it is irrelevant who initiated the courtship.
</p><p>
The Gemara attempts to find a case in which a woman marries a man to whom she is forbidden by an Isur d'Oraisa, but who does not disqualify her or her children from Kehunah (in which case she does not refrain from initiating the courtship). Such a case will be the practical difference between the reason of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar and the reason of Rebbi.
</p><p>
Rav Ashi says that such a situation exists in the case of 'Machzir Safek Sotah,' in which a man lives with his wife even though she is forbidden to him because she is a Safek Sotah (she was accused of adultery but has not yet undergone the process of the Mei Sotah). The woman is forbidden to her husband mid'Oraisa but she has nothing to lose by remarrying him, and thus she initiates the courtship. According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, she loses her Kesuvah even though the Isur is an Isur d'Oraisa. According to Rebbi, she does not lose her Kesuvah.
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects this suggestion because according to one Tana, Rebbi Masya ben Charash, she <i>does</i> stand to lose by remarrying him and thus she does <i>not</i> initiate the courtship. (Consequently, according to both Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar and Rebbi, she does not lose her Kesuvah.) Rebbi Masya ben Charash maintains that if the husband of a woman who is a Safek Sotah lives with his wife, she becomes a Zonah and is disqualified from Kehunah and may not eat Terumah.
</p><p>
Mar bar Rav Ashi concludes that the practical difference between Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar exists in the case of a Sotah Vadai, a woman who definitely committed adultery. She is forbidden to her husband by an Isur d'Oraisa, but she has nothing to lose by returning to him because she already has the status of a Zonah and is disqualified from Kehunah and may not eat Terumah. Hence, she will initiate the courtship. According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar she loses her Kesuvah, and according to Rebbi she does not lose her Kesuvah.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara assert that in the case of a Safek Sotah, the woman stands to lose by returning to her husband? A Safek Sotah, like a definite Sotah, is also forbidden from marrying a Kohen and from eating Terumah. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ha Lo Margela Lei) explains that a Safek Sotah may prove that she is innocent by drinking the Mei Sotah and thereby become permitted to her husband (and to Kohanim and to Terumah). If, however, she lives with her husband in her state of Safek Sotah before she drinks the Mei Sotah, she will become permanently disqualified (as a Zonah) from marrying Kohanim, according to Rebbi Masya ben Charash.
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation is unclear and leaves a number of questions unanswered.
</p><p>
(a) How does Rashi understand Rav Ashi's case of a Safek Sotah who returns to live with her husband? Does he understand that the case involves a Safek Sotah who was <i>divorced</i> from her husband and now returns to him? If this is the case, why does Rashi write that she does not want to live with her husband because she will not be able to drink the Mei Sotah? Once she is divorced she cannot drink the Mei Sotah anyway, regardless of whether she returns to her husband or not (as the Gemara on 95a implies). She has nothing to lose by remarrying her husband, and thus she <i>will</i> initiate the courtship and she <i>should</i> lose her Kesuvah according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. (<b>TOSFOS</b>)
</p><p>
(See, however, Insights to Yevamos 95:1 with regard to how Rashi learns the Sugya there. Even if the Gemara later provides no proof that a Safek Sotah whose husband divorced her is not permitted to return to her husband after she drinks the Mei Sotah, there is logical basis for this assertion. The Torah discusses only giving Mei Sotah to one's wife, not to one's divorcee.)
</p><p>
Moreover, why does Rashi write that the woman wants to become permitted to <i>Kehunah</i> and to eat Terumah through drinking the Mei Sotah and proving her innocence? If she was divorced from her husband, she already is disqualified from Kehunah because she is a Gerushah.
</p><p>
(b) On the other hand, if Rashi understands that Rav Ashi's case refers to a Safek Sotah who was <i>not</i> divorced, and '<i>Machzir</i> Safek Sotah' does not mean that her husband <i>remarries</i> her after he divorces her but that he <i>reunites</i> with her after she has become a Safek Sotah, another set of questions arises:
</p><p>
1. What Kesuvah is there to speak of in such a case? The Safek Sotah receives no Kesuvah! If she reunites with her husband and lives with him, she may not drink the Mei Sotah because her husband is not 'Menukeh me'Avon' (as the Gemara says on 58a). Since she cannot drink the Mei Sotah, she loses her Kesuvah. How, then, can Rebbi maintain that in such a case she <i>does</i> receive her Kesuvah? (<b>RASHBA</b>, <b>RITVA</b>)
</p><p>
2. Why does the Gemara say that only according to Rebbi Masya ben Charash the Safek Sotah will not initiate the relationship because she stands to lose? Even according to those who disagree with Rebbi Masya, the Safek Sotah will not initiate the relationship because she stands to lose her husband by becoming prohibited to him! Although it is true that she will not become disqualified from Kehunah through the relationship, having a relationship with her husband disqualifies her from drinking the Mei Sotah, and once she becomes a Safek Sotah who cannot drink the Mei Sotah she must separate from her husband. (<b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>, <b>NEHOR SHRAGA</b>)
</p><p>
Moreover, if she lives with her husband she will become disqualified from Kehunah and from eating Terumah according to all Tana'im and not only according to Rebbi Masya ben Charash, because she is a Safek Sotah who is unable to drink the Mei Sotah. If she would refrain from living with him and instead drink the Mei Sotah, she would have a chance of remaining permitted to marry a Kohen and to eat Terumah. (<b>TOSFOS</b>)
</p><p>
3. If the Safek Sotah indeed may no longer drink the Mei Sotah when her husband divorces her and then remarries her, and as a result she does <i>not</i> stand to lose anything by remarrying him because she is disqualified from Kehunah anyway (as a Gerushah), why does Mar bar Rav Ashi explain that the practical difference between Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar and Rebbi is in a case of a Sotah Vadai? He could say instead that the difference between them is in a case of a Safek Sotah who was divorced and then remarried her husband! In such a case, Rebbi would maintain that she receives her Kesuvah, and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar would maintain that she does not receive her Kesuvah because she initiates the relationship since she has nothing to lose. (<b>RAMBAN</b>)
</p><p>
4. Finally, why does the Gemara assume that according to Rebbi Masya ben Charash, the Safek Sotah will not initiate the relationship because returning to her husband will disqualify her from Kehunah, and if she does not return to her husband she will not become a Zonah and can become permitted to Kehunah through drinking the Mei Sotah? This assumption is true only if she actually is free of sin; drinking the Mei Sotah will exonerate her of all suspicion. However, perhaps she <i>did</i> sin and thus does <i>not</i> want to drink the Mei Sotah. In that case, she <i>will</i> initiate the relationship with her husband because she does not stand to lose anything (on the contrary, she stands to gain by not having to drink the Mei Sotah). Even Rebbi Masya ben Charash should agree that she might initiate the relationship, and thus she should lose her Kesuvah even according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. (<b>RASHBA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> rejects Rashi's explanation and explains that the Gemara refers to a case in which the husband divorced his wife who is a Safek Sotah and now remarries her.
</p><p>
Although she is <i>already</i> forbidden to Kohanim, to Terumah, and to her husband, <i>and</i> she may not drink the Mei Sotah, she still is afraid to initiate the relationship according to Rebbi Masya ben Charash for the simple reason that through this relationship she will acquire the title of 'Zonah.' No woman wants the shameful title of 'Zonah,' as there is a type of Zonah (one who willfully committed Z'nus) who is forbidden even to a Yisrael.
</p><p>
While this approach sufficiently explains the Sugya, it does not resolve the difficulties with Rashi's approach. 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and other Rishonim explain that Rashi understands that 'Machzir Safek Sotah' does not mean that she was divorced and then remarried, but that her husband 'reunited' with her (without having divorced her) after she became a Safek Sotah.
</p><p>
1. The Ramban answers the first question (that she already forfeited her Kesuvah by not being able to drink the Mei Sotah) by explaining that her husband writes for her a new Kesuvah when he reunites with her. According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, she will lose that new Kesuvah since she is the one who initiates the relationship.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> suggests that perhaps the Halachah is that when a man lives with his wife who is a Safek Sotah, she indeed does <i>not</i> lose her original Kesuvah even though she may not drink the Mei Sotah. She does not lose her Kesuvah because it is her husband who is to blame for her inability to drink the Mei Sotah, since he is not 'Menukeh me'Avon.'
</p><p>
2. A possible answer to the second question (that even according to those who disagree with Rebbi Masya ben Charash, the Safek Sotah will not initiate the relationship because she will thereby become prohibited to her husband who will not be 'Menukeh me'Avon'), perhaps Rashi maintains that a Safek Sotah is prohibited to her husband only <i>out of doubt</i>, mi'Safek, due to the possibility that she actually sinned. If she knows that she did not sin and that she is not truly prohibited to her husband, she does not care if she will not be able to drink the Mei Sotah. Hence, she will initiate the relationship and reunite with her husband. (See Tosfos to 11a, DH Tzaras Sotah.) 
</p><p>
However, she still should not want the union because people will <i>think</i> that she is prohibited to her husband even though she knows that she really is permitted to him (Aruch la'Ner). Moreover, she should not want to initiate the relationship because doing so will disqualify her from Kehunah and from Terumah (since she will not be able to drink the Mei Sotah to establish her innocence), and no Kohen will want to marry her.
</p><p>
Perhaps another approach may be suggested to resolve these questions, as well as the question of why she receives a Kesuvah after she returns to live with her husband. Rashi follows his own view as expressed elsewhere (58a, DH Amar Rav Papa; see also Insights to Yevamos 95:1), where he writes that there is a Tana who does not agree with the law of 'Menukeh me'Avon.' That Tana maintains that when a man is not 'Menukeh me'Avon' (he lived with his wife after she became a Safek Sotah) his wife <i>may</i> drink the Mei Sotah. Rashi may understand that the Gemara here follows the view of that Tana, and that is why she may drink the Mei Sotah -- and receive her Kesuvah -- even after she lives with her husband, and thus she has nothing to lose by reuniting with him. (The Gemara could have challenged this case by citing the other Tana who maintains that she may <i>not</i> drink the Mei Sotah when her husband is not 'Menukeh me'Avon,' but the Gemara asks a different question instead: according to Rebbi Masya ben Charash, she will not initiate the relationship because of the Isur Zonah that it will create for her.)
</p><p>
3. Why does the Gemara conclude that the only difference between Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar and Rebbi is the case of a Sotah Vadai, when the case of a Safek Sotah who was divorced (she is forbidden mid'Oraisa to return to her husband, but since she may no longer drink the Mei Sotah she is already disqualified from Kehunah and therefore she will initiate the relationship) is also a practical difference between them? The <b>RAMBAN</b> answers that the Gemara indeed could have mentioned that case, but it sufficed to mention one case.
</p><p>
A simple answer to this question may be suggested based on Rashi's opinion elsewhere. Rashi here (DH Sotah Vadai) points out that the case in which Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar and Rebbi disagree must be consistent with the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Akiva maintains that the child from a union of an Isur Lav is a Mamzer. The reason why the Gemara considers the cases of Safek Sotah and Sotah Vadai is that even Rebbi Akiva agrees that a child born from the Isur Lav of those unions is <i>not</i> a Mamzer, as the Gemara says earlier (49b). When the Gemara (49b) teaches that the child of a Sotah is not a Mamzer, Rashi explains that it is because Kidushin remains in effect between a man and his wife who is a Sotah even after she sinned. The original Kidushin is not uprooted, as is evident from the fact that the Torah requires that the husband give her a Get. Since the Kidushin is not discontinued, the child from that union is not a Mamzer.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Kidushin (68a, DH ha'Kol Modim) writes that according to Rashi's explanation, only when the child is born to the Sotah from her <i>original marriage</i> to her husband is the child not a Mamzer. If, however, the husband divorces the Sotah and then remarries her, the Kidushin does <i>not</i> take effect and the child from that union <i>is</i> a Mamzer. Tosfos refutes this assertion based on the Gemara here which implies that when one remarries his wife who is a Sotah after he divorces her, even Rebbi Akiva agrees that the child is <i>not</i> a Mamzer.
</p><p>
Rashi, however, avoids that question. When the Gemara refers to 'returning' a Safek Sotah, it does not mean that the husband divorced her and remarries her, but rather it means that he merely <i>reunites</i> with her. (Similarly, when the Gemara refers to 'returning' a Sotah Vadai, it means <i>reuniting</i> with a Sotah Vadai who was never divorced in the first place, as implied by Rashi here.) Therefore, according to Rashi, there is good reason for the Gemara not to suggest the case of a Sotah who was divorced and then remarried, for in such a case the child would be a Mamzer according to Rebbi Akiva, and thus she certainly will not initiate the relationship.
</p><p>
4. The <b>RITVA</b> addresses the fourth question, that according to Rebbi Masya ben Charash perhaps she will initiate the relationship in a case in which she is guilty of sin. The Ritva answers that the very fact that the husband did not send her away but remained with her shows that he investigated the matter and found that his wife was not disloyal. Thus, the likelihood that she was unfaithful is negligible and is not taken into consideration.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> Why did they say that a Sheniyah mid'Rabanan 
          does not have a Kesuvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> It is because he and 
          she are Kesherim. In such cases, she is fined and has no 
          Kesuvah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to both questions - Rebbi):</font></b> Torah Isurim do 
          not need strengthening (so she receives her Kesuvah). 
          Rabbinic Isurim need strengthening (so she is fined).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Another answer - a Kohen Gadol entices a widow to marry 
          him, but a Sheniyah entices the man to marry her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who taught this other answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar taught it. He explains 
          that when they are disqualified he must pay a Kesuvah, 
          for (presumably) he enticed her. When they are Kesherim 
          she has no Kesuvah, for (presumably) she enticed him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rebbi taught it. He was bothered why a 
          Chalutzah has a Kesuvah, since it is a Rabbinic Isur!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He answered that since he disqualifies her 
               mid'Rabanan, he entices her. A woman loses her 
               Kesuvah only in cases where she enticed him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In what case do R. Shimon ben Elazar and Rebbi 
          argue?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> They argue about a Mamzeres or 
          Nesinah married to a Yisrael:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she has a Kesuvah when the Isur is mid'Oraisa, 
               she has a Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it depends on who entices whom, she has no 
               Kesuvah, for she entices him (since her grandchild 
               can be permitted, e.g. if her son marries a Shifchah 
               and frees the child).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> According to R. Eliezer, who says that a 
          Mamzer's child from a Shifchah is a Mamzer slave (and her 
          grandchild cannot become permitted), she would not entice 
          him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> They argue about Machazir (one who 
          remarries) Gerushaso after she married someone else:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she has a Kesuvah when the Isur is mid'Oraisa, 
               she has a Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it depends on who entices whom, she has no 
               Kesuvah, for she entices him (since her child is 
               Kosher).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> According to R. Akiva, who says that the child 
          of Chayavei Lavin is a Mamzer, she will not entice him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Papa):</font></b> They argue about a non-virgin 
          married to a Kohen Gadol:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is a Torah Isur, but she entices (since her 
               child is Kosher).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> According to R. Eliezer ben Yakov, who says 
          that a Chalal results from Chayavei Aseh, she will not 
          entice him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> They argue about one that remarries 
          his Safek Sotah (she was secluded and is forbidden to 
          him).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is a Torah Isur, but she entices (since she 
               remains Kesherah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> According to R. Masya ben Charash, who says 
          that even if he has Bi'ah with her on the way to drink 
          Mei Sotah he makes her a Zonah, she will not entice him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(u)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #5 (Mar bar Rav Ashi):</font></b> They argue about one that 
          remarries his Vadai Sotah (she is already a Zonah due to 
          adultery).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WOMEN THAT MAY NOT EAT 'TERUMAH' OR 'MA'ASER'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The following may not eat Terumah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Bas Yisrael who is Mekudeshes to, pregnant from, 
               or Shomeres Yavam to a Kohen;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Bas Kohen who is Mekudeshes to, pregnant from, or 
               Shomeres Yavam to a Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The following do not eat Ma'aser (Rishon):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Bas Yisrael who is Mekudeshes to, pregnant from, 
               or Shomeres Yavam to a Levi;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Bas Levi who is Mekudeshes to, pregnant from, or 
               Shomeres Yavam to a Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Similarly, if a Bas Levi is Mekudeshes to, pregnant from, 
          or Shomeres Yavam to a Kohen, or a Bas Kohen is 
          Mekudeshes to, pregnant from, or Shomeres Yavam to a 
          Levi, she may not eat Terumah no Ma'aser.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WIDOWS THAT EAT 'TERUMAH' AND 'MA'ASER'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Even a non-Levi may eat Ma'aser!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Our Mishnah is like R. Meir, who 
          permits Ma'aser Rishon only to Leviyim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> Terumah is given to (and eaten 
               by) a Kohen, and Ma'aser to a Levi;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer ben Azaryah permits Ma'aser even to a 
               Kohen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This implies that someone forbids (a 
               Kohen to eat Ma'aser. This is unreasonable!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> R. Eliezer ben Azaryah permits <i>giving</i> 
               Ma'aser even to a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Meir's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rava citing a tradition):</font></b> A verse 
          equates Ma'aser Rishon to Terumah to teach that just like 
          Terumah is forbidden to a Zar, so Ma'aser is forbidden to 
          a non-Levi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Just like a Zar that eats Terumah is 
               Chayav Misah (b'Yedei Shamayim, if he was Mezid) and 
               adds a fifth (when paying for what he b'Shogeg), the 
               same applies to (a non-Levi who eats) Ma'aser!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'They will die for it (Terumah) ... and 
               add a fifth on it' - 'for it' and not for Ma'aser; 
               'on it' and not on Ma'aser.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, Ma'aser is equated to Terumah to teach 
          that just like failure to separate Terumah is Tovel 
          (forbids eating the produce), also regarding Ma'aser 
          Rishon:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 (Beraisa - R. Yosi) Question:</font></b> One might 
               have thought that one is liable for Tevel only if 
               nothing was separated. What is the source to 
               Mechayev if Terumah was separated, but not Ma'aser 
               Rishon, or Ma'aser Rishon but not Ma'aser Sheni or 
               (even) Ma'aser Oni?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It says 'You cannot eat in your gates' and 
               'They will eat in your gates';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The latter verse refers to Ma'aser Oni. Likewise, 
               the former forbids produce that still 'contains' 
               (i.e. is Tevel to) Ma'aser Oni.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Had we learned only from these verses, one might 
               have thought that eating such Tevel is only a Lav. 
               Ma'aser is equated to Terumah to teach that one is 
               Chayav Misah for it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Question:</font></b> We learn that Ma'aser Rishon is 
          Tovel like R. Yosi does! (Why is the Hekesh to Terumah 
          needed?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yosi teaches only that there is a Lav for such 
          Tevel. The Hekesh teaches that there is Misah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Mishnah cannot be R. 
          Meir!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Seifa):</font></b> A Bas Levi (pregnant from or Mekudeshes to 
               or Shomeres Yavam) to a Kohen, or a Bas Kohen to a 
               Levi may not eat Terumah nor Ma'aser.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since R. Meir permits a Kohen to eat Ma'aser, there 
               is no reason why she may not eat!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> 'She does not eat (Ma'aser)' 
          means that she cannot authorize separating (Terumas 
          Ma'aser from her husband's Ma'aser).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This implies that after Nisu'in she may 
          authorize!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'You will eat ... and your household' 
               teaches that a Bas Yisrael married to a Levi may 
               authorize separating (Terumas) Ma'aser;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps this teaches that she may eat!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We already know this from a Kal va'Chomer:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Terumah is stringent, yet a Bas Yisrael married 
                    to a Kohen may eat it. Ma'aser is lenient, all 
                    the more so a Levi's wife may eat it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Mar brei d'Ravna):</font></b> 'She does not eat 
          (Ma'aser)' means that she does receive it (from 
          Yisraelim) at the granaries.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We understand according to the opinion that the 
          reason why women don't receive at the granaries is 
          because it will lead to seclusion;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But according to the opinion that it is lest she be 
               divorced (and continue to receive), even if a Bas 
               Levi is divorced from a Kohen, she may still eat 
               Ma'aser!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question:</font></b> If a Bas Kohen is divorced (from a 
               Kohen), she is also allowed to eat Terumah (so why 
               does this opinion say that she does not collect 
               while married?)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer to both questions:</font></b> You must say that we decree 
          lest a Bas Yisrael continue to collect after she was 
          divorced by a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, even after Nisu'in she should not 
          receive!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is true! Since the Reisha discusses 
          Kidushin, also the Seifa does.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DO 'KOHANIM 'RECEIVE 'MA'ASER'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> Terumah is given to a Kohen, and 
          Ma'aser to a Levi;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer ben Azaryah says, (it is given) to a Kohen.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 24 PLACES IN THE TORAH IN WHICH KOHANIM ARE CALLED 'LEVIYIM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi who says that in 24 places the Torah refers to Kohanim as 'Leviyim.' <b>RASHI</b> in Chulin (24b) suggests that they are called 'Leviyim' because they perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash, as the word 'Levi' also means 'those who help serve' (as in Bamidbar 18:2). The Gemara cites one example of such a verse (Yechezkel 44:15).
</p><p>
What are the other 23 places in which the Torah refers to Kohanim as 'Leviyim'? The Acharonim discuss this question and have great difficulty identifying all 24 places.
</p><p>
The <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> in Bechoros (4b) writes that he searched and found only <i>eleven</i> places where the word 'Leviyim' refers to Kohanim and not to Leviyim. However, <b>RAV DAVID COHEN</b> shlit'a (in <b>OHEL DAVID</b>, end of volume 1) writes that he counted the places where the word 'Leviyim' refers either to Kohanim by themselves or to Kohanim and Leviyim together, and he found 76 places where the Torah refers to Kohanim as 'Leviyim.'
</p><p>
Rav David Cohen asks further that there can be no set number of places in which the word 'Leviyim' means both Kohanim and Leviyim, because the Gemara here cites a dispute about whether the verses in the Torah which discuss giving Ma'aser to a Levi include Kohanim as well. Accordingly, the number of verses in which 'Leviyim' refers to Kohanim is subject to this dispute and cannot be the same according to all Tana'im. Why does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi assume that everyone agrees that there are exactly 24 places in which the word 'Leviyim' refers to Kohanim?
</p><p>
Rav David Cohen also points out that Rashi in Yehoshua (3:3) records a different count in the name of the Midrash (Bereishis Rabah). According to the Midrash, there are 48 places in which the word 'Leviyim' refers to Kohanim. (The Midrash, however, does not quote this statement in the name of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.) 
</p><p>
How is the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi to be reconciled with the empirical count?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MEGADIM CHADASHIM</b> (Berachos 51a) asserts that the Gemara does not intend to give an exact number, but rather it means to say that there are <i>many</i> places in which the Torah refers to Kohanim as 'Leviyim.' The number 24 is an exaggeration.
</p><p>
According to this approach, when the Midrash asserts that there are 48 places, it is simply choosing a different number for the exaggeration.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV DAVID COHEN</b> suggests that the Gemara indeed counts the places where 'Leviyim' refers either to Kohanim or to both Kohanim and Leviyim. The reason it counts only 24 instead of many more is that it does not count 'Pesukim' (verses), but only 'Mekomos' -- 'places,' or <i>topics</i>. There are 24 basic sections in the Torah which refer to Kohanim as 'Leviyim,' while each section may contain many instances of the word 'Leviyim' as a reference to Kohanim. Rav Cohen attempts to define what is considered a 'place' or topic-section but does not reach a definitive conclusion.
</p><p>
(c) The Ben Yehoyada reached the number eleven by counting only the places where the words 'ha'Kohanim ha'Leviyim' are used to refer to the Kohanim. However, he overlooked three instances in which that phrase refers only to Kohanim (besides the places he intentionally omitted, where the verse refers to both Kohanim <i>and</i> Leviyim). Moreover, he counted one place that should not have been included in the count because it refers to Kohanim <i>and</i> Leviyim (as the <b>RADAK</b> explains in Divrei ha'Yamim I 9:2). Hence, the total count is thirteen.
</p><p>
Additional instances are cited by other commentators. <b>RASHI</b> in Devarim (18:7) comments in the name of the Sifri that two verses there use the word 'Levi' to refer to the Kohen and not to the Levi.
</p><p>
The <b>RADAK</b> in Yechezkel (48:11) and Divrei ha'Yamim II (5:4) proves that the word 'Leviyim' refers only to Kohanim.
</p><p>
The <b>METZUDAS TZIYON</b> explains that the word 'ha'Leviyim' in Yechezkel (44:10) refers to Kohanim, as is evident from the context there. The same is true of the verse in Yirmeyahu (33:22), as is evident from the context there (see verses 18 and 21). These instances bring the total to <i>nineteen</i>. 
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Mitzvos Aseh #34; see <b>RAMBAN</b>, Shoresh #3) writes that it is a Mitzvas Aseh for Kohanim to carry the Aron, even though the verse specifically says that the Leviyim (Benei Kehas) shall carry it. The Rambam says that the command to the Leviyim to carry the Aron applied only in the desert, where there were only three Kohanim (who could not carry the Aron by themselves). For all ensuing generations, the Kohanim are enjoined to carry the Aron.
</p><p>
However, in five places in Nevi'im and Kesuvim the verse states that Leviyim carried the Aron, as the <b>RAMBAN</b> asks (Shoresh #3). The Acharonim answer that according to the Rambam, the word 'Leviyim' in those five places refers to Kohanim and not to Leviyim. Accordingly, there are exactly 24 places in Tanach in which the word 'Leviyim' refers exclusively to Kohanim! (The Ramban will have to rely on the first answer above, that the number is an exaggeration.)
</p><p>
When the Midrash mentions 48 places, perhaps it includes the places in which the word 'Leviyim' refers to both Kohanim and Leviyim (and it follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in Yevamos here who says that Kohanim are not entitled to eat Ma'aser Rishon along with Leviyim). There remain 24 places where the word 'Leviyim' refers to both Kohanim and Leviyim. Those 24 verses mentioned by the Gemara in which Kohanim are referred to as 'Leviyim' are as follows:
</p><p>
(1) Devarim 17:9   (2) 17:18   (3) 18:1   (4) 18:6   (5) 18:7   (6) 24:8   (7) 27:9   (8) Yehoshua 3:3   (9) 8:33   (10) Shmuel I 6:15   (11) Yirmeyahu 33:18   (12) 33:21   (13) 33:22   (14) Yechezkel 43:19   (15) 44:10   (16) 44:15   (17) 48:11   (18) Divrei ha'Yamim I 15:12   (19) 15:15   (20) 15:26   (21) 15:27   (22) Divrei ha'Yamim II 5:4   (23) 23:18   (24) 30:27
<br> 
<br>- The eleven places which the Ben Yehoyada counts are numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 23, 24. He also includes Divrei ha'Yamim I 9:2.
<br>- The five places which discuss Leviyim carrying the Aron are numbers 10, 18, 19, 20, 21.
<br>- With regard to number 9, the Yerushalmi (cited by Tosfos to Sotah 37a, DH Iy) asserts that the words 'ha'Kohanim ha'Leviyim Nos'ei Aron Bris Hash-m' in the verse refer to the Kohanim only and not to the Leviyim. This is consistent with the opinion of the Rambam, who says that only Kohanim were allowed to carry the Aron. The Bavli (ibid.), however, might disagree about this point. In any case, the Rishonim point out that the Bavli (Sotah 33b) presents a strong challenge to the opinion of the Rambam that only Kohanim are permitted to carry the Aron. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(This Insight is based primarily on Rav David Cohen's exhaustive lists of the appearances of the word 'Levi' which might refer to Kohanim, and his insightful suggestions recorded in the end of Ohel David, volume 1.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'THE KOHANIM-LEVIYIM, SONS OF TZADOK'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara proves that Kohanim are also called 'Leviyim' from the verse, 'veha'Kohanim ha'Leviyim Bnei Tzadok' (Yechezkel 44:15). Although the Gemara says that there are 24 places in Tanach in which Kohanim are called 'Leviyim,' the Gemara cites this verse alone, apparently because it is the clearest proof that the word 'Leviyim' may refer to Kohanim. In all of the other places, it is only the context of the verse which indicates that the word 'Leviyim' refers to Kohanim, but here the verse explicitly refers to the sons of Tzadok -- who was the Kohen Gadol -- as 'Leviyim.'
</p><p>
The phrase 'ha'Kohanim ha'Leviyim' ('the Kohanim, the Leviyim') which appears in other places is not sufficient proof because those words can be interpreted to mean 'the Kohanim <i>and</i> the Leviyim.' Indeed, the <b>RADAK</b> in Divrei ha'Yamim II (5:4) points out that when the verse there (v. 5) uses the phrase 'Kohanim ha'Leviyim' it must mean 'the Kohanim <i>and</i> the Leviyim,' because the parallel verse in Melachim I (8:4) reads, 'ha'Kohanim veha'Leviyim' -- 'the Kohanim <i>and</i> the Leviyim.'
</p><p>
However, <b>RAV DAVID COHEN</b> (Ohel David, end of volume 1) asks that the Gemara could have cited an earlier verse as proof that 'Leviyim' may refer to Kohanim. An earlier verse in Yechezkel (43:19) states, 'ha'Kohanim ha'Leviyim Asher Hem mi'Zera Tzadok.' The proof from this verse is just as clear as the proof which the Gemara cites. Why does the Gemara cite the later verse and not the earlier verse?
</p><p>
(In the end of Ohel David, volume 4, Rav David Cohen quotes a colleague who suggests that the later verse is quoted because it appears in the Haftarah of Parshas Emor and thus is well-known. However, this explanation is unsatisfactory, because the earlier verse in Yechezkel also appears in the Haftarah of Parshas Tetzaveh!)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RAMBAN</b> (Milchamos, 80a) explains that when a verse, Mishnah, Beraisa, or Amora lists several items and, at the end of the list, makes a statement about them, the statement may refer only to the earlier items and not to the later ones in the list. For example, Rebbi Avahu there (80a) lists 'the signs of a Seris, and Aylonis, and a child born after eight months,' and then makes a statement that 'we cannot rely upon those signs until the person reaches the age of twenty.' The latter statement refers back to Seris and Aylonis, and not to an eighth-month baby.
</p><p>
Based on this premise, the reason why the Gemara cites the later verse in Yechezkel is understood. The earlier verse, 'ha'Kohanim ha'Leviyim Asher Hem mi'Zera Tzadok,' may actually be a list (Kohanim, Leviyim) and a statement ('who are from the descendants of Tzadok') which refers back only to the first item in the list, Kohanim. As such, it provides no proof at all that the word 'Leviyim' refers to Kohanim.
</p><p>
In contrast, the verse which the Gemara cites, 'veha'Kohanim ha'Leviyim Bnei Tzadok' -- 'the Kohanim, the Leviyim <i>the sons of Tzadok</i>,' makes no independent statement about the aforementioned items. It does not refer back (with a pronoun) to anything in the list and say, '<i>they</i> are....' Rather, 'Bnei Tzadok' ('the sons of Tzadok') is an inherent part of the phrase, 'ha'Kohanim ha'Leviyim.' Since it is one, undivided phrase, the <i>Leviyim</i> clearly are the ones referred to as 'Bnei Tzadok.' (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It is given to a Kohen, but not to a Levi?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, even to a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Akiva's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'To the Leviyim'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer ben Azaryah holds like R. Yehoshua ben Levi:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> In 24 places, Kohanim are 
               called Leviyim. One of them is 'Ha'Kohanim 
               ha'Leviyim Bnei Tzadok'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says that this cannot apply here, for it says 
          'You will eat it (Ma'aser) in all places'. A Kohen cannot 
          eat it in a cemetery.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer ben Azaryah says, this verse comes to teach 
          that it need not be eaten within the walls of 
          Yerushalayim, and one is not lashed for eating it if he 
          is Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer ben Azaryah used to receive Ma'aser from a 
          certain woman. R. Akiva switched her door to open to a 
          cemetery.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Eliezer ben Azaryah:</font></b> With Akiva around, how will 
               I live?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (It says elsewhere that Leviyim were fined, and 
          others would receive Ma'aser.) Why were the Leviyim 
          fined?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Yonasan and elders argued about this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> They did not return to Eretz Yisrael (from 
          Bavel) in the days of Ezra.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> It was to provide Kohanim with what to eat 
          when they are Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> That is no reason to fine the Leviyim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction:</font></b> Rather, all agree that the fine was because 
          they did not return with Ezra. They argue about who 
          received Ma'aser as a result of the fine:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Opinion #1:</font></b> It was given to the poor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Opinion #2:</font></b> A Kohen, when he is Tamei, is like a 
               poor man.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to the opinion that it was given to 
          the poor, we understand why R. Akiva switched the woman's 
          door to the cemetery (rich Kohanim may not take Ma'aser).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But according to the opinion that Kohanim receive 
               it, why did he switch her door?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He told R. Eliezer ben Azaryah 'if you are taking 
          it because of the fine, you are entitled to it. If you 
          believe that mid'Oraisa Kohanim receive it, you are not 
          entitled to it.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that Leviyim did not return with 
          Ezra?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'I did not find a Levi'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(u)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Originally, officers were only appointed 
          from Leviyim - 'The officers, the Leviyim in front of 
          you';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Today, we only appoint from Yisrael - 'The officers 
               of the many in front of you.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN A WIDOW EATS 'TERUMAH' AND 'MA'ASER'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Bas Yisrael married a Kohen, she eats 
          Terumah. If he died and she has a son from him, she eats 
          Terumah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If she (then) married a Levi, she eats Ma'aser. If he 
          died, and she has a son from him, she eats Ma'aser;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If she married a Yisrael, she may not eat Terumah or 
          Ma'aser. If he died and she has a son from him, she may 
          not eat them;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If her son from the Yisrael died, she may eat Ma'aser. If 
          her son from the Levi then died, she may eat Terumah. If 
          her son from the Kohen died, she may not eat Terumah or 
          Ma'aser.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN A WIDOW EATS 'TERUMAH' AND 'MA'ASER '(cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  If a Bas Kohen married a Yisrael she may not eat Terumah. 
          If he died and she has a son from him, she does not eat 
          Terumah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If she married a Levi, she eats Ma'aser. If he died and 
          she has a son from him, she eats Ma'aser;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If she married a Kohen, she eats Terumah. If he died and 
          she has a son from him, she eats Terumah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If her son from the Kohen died, she may eat Ma'aser. If 
          her son from the Levi died, she may not eat Ma'aser. If 
          her son from the Yisrael died, we apply 'She will return 
          to her father's house like when she was a Na'arah; she 
          will eat from her father's bread.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> (In the Reisha) if her son from the 
          Levi dies, she resumes eating Terumah due to her son 
          (from the Kohen). What is the source for this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Aba):</font></b> We learn from '<i>U</i>'Vas (Kohen)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> This is like R. Akiva, who expounds 'Vav'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. Even Chachamim agree here, since the 
          entire verse 'U'Vas...' is extra.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> She returns to eat Terumah, but not Chazah 
          v'Shok.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> We learn from 'She will not eat 
          bi'SeRUMas ha'Kodoshim' - what is MuRaM (lifted) from the 
          Kodshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> She eats '<i>Mi</i>'Lechem Aviha', 
          but not all his food. This excludes Chazah v'Shok.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> Perhaps the verse (discusses 
          when she vowed not to eat some of his food, and it) 
          teaches that her father does not resume authority to 
          annul her vows!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> We already know that from Tana d'Vei R. 
          Yishmael:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) Question:</font></b> What do we learn 
               from 'The vow of a widow or divorcee will stand'? 
               She is not in the jurisdiction of her father or 
               husband (obviously, no one can annul her vow)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The case is, her father or his Sheluchim 
               handed her over to the Sheluchim of the husband, and 
               she was widowed or divorced on the way;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Is it as if she was still in her father's 
                    house? Or, is it as if she entered her 
                    husband's house?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> The verse teaches that once she leaves her 
                    father's jurisdiction for a moment, he cannot 
                    annul her vows.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #3 (Rav Safra):</font></b> She eats 'Mi'<i>Lechem</i> Aviha' - 
          bread, but not meat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #4 (Rav Papa):</font></b> She eats 'Mi'Lechem Aviha' - food 
          that her father owns. This excludes Chazah v'Shok, which 
          he (does not own but) merits to eat from Hashem's table.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #5 (Rava):</font></b> 'You will eat the chest and foreleg 
          ... and your daughters with you' - when they are with you 
          (but not after Nisu'in).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ada bar Ahavah - Beraisa):</font></b> A Bas Kohen who returns 
          to her father's house eats Terumah, but not Chazah 
          v'Shok. A Bas Yisrael who returns to eat Terumah due to 
          her son eats even Chazah v'Shok (the above Drashos do not 
          apply to her).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Since you learn (that she resumes 
          eating due to her son) from 'U'Vas                                                         
          Kohen (who returns to her father's house)', you cannot 
          learn more than that case!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Mordechai):</font></b> In that case, the Torah excluded 
          Chazah v'Shok. Here, it does not.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'YEVAMAH' OR A PREGNANT WIDOW</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Bas Kohen married a Yisrael ...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'She will return to her father's house (after 
          he dies)' excludes a Shomeres Yavam. 'ki'N'ureha (like in 
          her youth)' excludes if she is pregnant;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A Kal va'Chomer should teach this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A child from a previous husband does not count like 
               a child from the latter husband to exempt a widow 
               from Yibum, but a fetus is like a born child (to 
               exempt);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A child from a previous husband counts like a child 
               from the latter husband to disqualify a widow from 
               eating Terumah, all the more so, a fetus should 
               count like a born child (to disqualify)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We cannot learn from this Kal va'Chomer:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A fetus is like a born child to exempt from Yibum, 
               since children that die (after the husband) are like 
               live children (to exempt);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We cannot say that a fetus should count like a born 
               child (to forbid eating Terumah), since children 
               that die are like live children for this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Therefore, we need 'ki'N'ureha' to exclude a 
               pregnant widow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The Torah needed to write both ('ki'N'ureha' to exclude) 
          a pregnant widow and 'She has no seed':
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it written only 'She has no seed', we would 
               think that she does not return to eat Terumah 
               because she was one body and became two bodies, but 
               a pregnant woman is still one body, so she would 
               eat;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only that a pregnant widow does not 
               eat, we would think that this is because she was 
               empty and now she is full, but one who had children 
               is still an empty body, so she would eat.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A WOMAN WITH TWO SONS: A KOHEN AND A YISRAEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that when a Bas Yisrael was married to a Kohen and bore a son, after her husband's death she may continue to eat Terumah by virtue of her son who is a Kohen. If she later marries a Yisrael (and thus loses her entitlement to eat Terumah) and bears a son with him, after the Yisrael's death her Kohen son no longer entitles her to eat Terumah. 
</p><p>
The Mishnah continues and says that when a Bas <i>Kohen</i> marries a Yisrael and bears a son with him, after the Yisrael's death she may <i>not</i> eat Terumah because of her son who is a Yisrael. If she later marries a Kohen (and thus becomes entitled to eat Terumah) and bears a son with him, even after the Kohen's death she may continue to eat Terumah.
</p><p>
Why may the woman not eat Terumah in the first case, in which she has a son from a Kohen and a son from a Yisrael, while she <i>may</i> eat Terumah in the second case, in which she also has a son from a Kohen and a son from a Yisrael?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) In his first explanation, the <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> writes that when the woman has two sons, a Kohen and a Yisrael, their respective powers to grant or revoke the mother's right to eat Terumah 'annul' each other as it were, and the woman is left with her 'default' status. Hence, when the woman is a Bas Yisrael she has no grounds on which to eat Terumah. When the woman is a Bas Kohen, she may eat Terumah by virtue of the fact that she is a Bas Kohen.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, the Aruch la'Ner suggests that the woman's allowance to eat Terumah depends on the order of her marriages. In the first case, the woman was married to the Kohen first, and when she later marries a Yisrael she loses her right to eat Terumah. Since she has a son from the Yisrael, she may never regain the right to eat Terumah. In the second case, the woman was married to the Yisrael. She later married a Kohen and acquired the right to eat Terumah. Since she has a son from the Kohen, after the Kohen's death she retains the right to eat Terumah.  
</p><p>
Two cases demonstrate the basic differences between the two explanations of the Aruch la'Ner:
</p><p>
1. A Bas <i>Kohen</i> married a Kohen first and then a Yisrael, and she had sons from both. According to the first explanation, she may eat Terumah because whenever she has children from both a Kohen and a Yisrael her status reverts back to that of her father's family (in this case, the Kohen). According to the second explanation, she may no longer eat Terumah since she did not have that right during her most recent marriage.
</p><p>
2. A Bas <i>Yisrael</i> first married a Yisrael and then a Kohen, and she had sons from both. According to the first explanation, she may not eat Terumah because the conflicting powers of the two sons annul each other. According to the second explanation, she may eat Terumah because she was entitled to eat Terumah during her most recent marriage.
</p><p>
The ruling of the <b>RAMBAM</b> provides support for the Aruch la'Ner's second explanation. The Rambam (Hilchos Terumos 6:19) writes, 'If a Bas Yisrael married a Yisrael <i>first</i> and had a son from him, and then she married a Kohen... and the Kohen died and left her with a son from him, she may eat Terumah because of the son.' The Rambam clearly emphasizes that it is the order of the marriages which determines whether she may eat Terumah.
</p><p>
On the other hand, the words of <b>RASHI</b> in Kerisus support the Aruch la'Ner's first explanation, that the power of a son from a Kohen (or even a living husband who is a Kohen) and the power of a son from a Yisrael annul each other. Rashi there (7a, DH v'Einah Meshalemes) writes that 'if the husband (Yisrael) of a Bas Kohen dies <i>and then she marries a Kohen</i>, she may eat Terumah.' Why must the daughter of a Kohen remarry a Kohen in order to eat Terumah? Even if she remains single she should be permitted to eat Terumah! Perhaps Rashi means that if she remarries a Kohen, she may eat Terumah even if she had a son from the Yisrael. Rashi's statement that <i>only</i> a Bas Kohen may eat Terumah when she has a son from a Kohen, even though she also has a son from a Yisrael, proves that a woman's right to Terumah depends on her 'default' status and not necessarily on whether she was married to a Kohen most recently. (See also Insights to Kerisus 7:1.)
</p><p>
<br>


