ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 69
(a) We just learnt from "u'Bas Kohen Ki Sih'yeh Almanah u'Gerushah ... "
that the Bi'ah of an Akum and Eved invalidate a bas Kohen from eating
Terumah. We know that the same will apply to a bas Levi or a bas Yisrael
(even if she has a child from a Kohen) - from the extra 'Vav' in "u'Bas"
(like Rav Aba explained on the previous Amud [see 6 a. and b. there] - and,
as we explained there, the words "u'Bas Kohen" are actually superfluous).
(b) We refute the suggestion to learn from "Almanah u'Gerushah ve'Zera Ein
Lah" that when there is no Almenus ve'Geirushin, they may eat as long as
there is no child, whereas when there is not, they may eat even when there
*is* - because, if that was so (that the Pasuk was coming to be lenient),
then why would we need a Pasuk to include a Levi'ah and Yisre'eilis? If a
Kohenes does not become Pasul through the Bi'ah of a Pasul (when there are
children), then how much more so a Yisre'eilis?
(c) Nor do we need to include a Yisre'eilis who has a child from a Kohen, in
the prohibition of eating Terumah, if she then marries a Yisrael, who dies
leaving her with a child from him - because that too, is a 'Kal va'Chomer'
from a Kohenes, who cannot eat because she has children from a Yisrael, how
much more so a Yisre'eilis.
(a) Rebbi Akiva (in whose opinion, Kidushin is not effective by Chayvei
La'avin), will explain "u'Bas Kohen *Ki Sih'yeh* le'Ish Zar" - to mean "a
bas Kohen who has relations with someone who is Pasul".
(b) According to him, the Torah writes "Almanah u'Gerushah" to be stringent
with the former and lenient with the latter - meaning 'to forbid even an
Almanah when there are children, and to permit even a Gerushah when there
(c) Having already taught us that ...
1. ... a Kohenes who is an Almanah from a Yisrael is permitted to return to
her father's house to eat Terumah (when her husband dies leaving her without
children) - the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to teach us that a
Gerushah is permitted too, because we might otherwise have thought that an
Almanah is permitted only because she is permitted to marry a Kohen, whereas
a Gerushah is not.
2. ... a Kohenes who is a Gerushah is forbidden to eat Terumah, when her
husband who is a Yisrael dies leaving her with children, it is nevertheless
necessary to add an Almanah - because we might otherwise have thought that
an Almanah, who, unlike a Gerushah, is permitted to marry a Kohen, would be
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "u'Bas Kohen Ki Sih'yeh *le'Ish Zar*" - to preclude from the
prohibition, a husband who takes back his Gerushah after she re-married and
then died, since he was not initially a Zar to her.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk (with regard to a Kohen Gadol who married an
Almanah) "Lo Yechalel *Zar'o*" - that the Kohen Gadol invalidates the
Almanah only from the time of the Bi'ah (and not from the Kidushin).
2. ... "Lo *Yechalel Zar'o* be'Amav" - that even a Chalal (who is permitted
to marry a bas Kohen and is not therefore a Zar) is invalidated (because the
Torah is comparing the children of a Kohen Gadol who married an Almanah (who
are Chalalim) to the Kohen Gadol himself (with regard to rendering a woman a
Chalalah [prohibiting her from eating Terumah]).
(c) We know that Bi'ah (and not Kidushin) and that Bi'ah alone (even without
Kidushin) invalidates a woman from Terumah and from Kehunah - from Almanah
(a) Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the Tana Kama in the Beraisa currently under
discussion. According to him, it is only a Pasul whose child is also Pasul
who invalidates a bas Kohen from eating Terumah - precluding a a second
generation Mitzri or Edomi, whose child will be permitted.
(b) They both derive their ruling from a Kohen Gadol - the Tana Kama learns
from the fact that just as he invalidates an Almanah (because their Bi'ah is
a Bi'as Isur, so too, will a Mitzri Sheini invalidate the woman with whom he
has Bi'ah; whereas Rebbi Yossi learns that the Kohen Gadol invalidates the
Almanah, only because their child will be invalidated, too, whereas a Mitzri
Sheini, whose child will be permitted, will not invalidate the woman either.
(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is even more lenient than Rebbi Yossi.
According to him, whenever a Kohen is permitted to marry the daughter of
someone who is Pasul, he is also permitted to marry his widow (because she
is not a Chalalah) - precluding a Ger Amoni or Mo'avi from the prohibition,
whose daughters are permitted (because of the D'rashah "Amoni" 've'Lo
Amonis' ... ).
(d) According to Rebbi Yossi however - the widow of a Ger Amoni or Mo'avi is
prohibited to a Kohen - since his son is also Pasul.
(a) O'nes, Mefateh and Shoteh have in common - the fact that they neither
render a bas Kohen Pasul if they are Yisre'eilim; nor do they feed a bas
Yisrael Terumah, should they be Kohanim.
(b) O'nes and Mefateh will invalidate too - by a P'sul Kehunah.
(c) We learned above that a fetus invalidates a bas Kohen to a Yisrael from
eating Terumah, and does not feed a bas Yisrael to a Kohen Terumah. If a
Yisrael raped a bas Kohen, she became pregnant and the fetus died in her
womb - she is permitted to eat Terumah once more.
(d) The strength of the son is greater than that of the father - in a case
when a Kohen had raped a bas Yisrael (in which case, she is not permitted to
eat Terumah), and she falls pregnant and gives birth to a son or daughter,
which now permits her to eat Terumah.
(a) An Eved Kena'ani invalidates a bas Kohen from Terumah through Bi'ah - he
does not however, invalidate his grandmother who is a bas Kohen, if he is
her only offspring. The case would be - if a bas Kohen married a Yisrael,
and they had a son who subsequently had relations with a Shifchah, and they
too, had a son. That son will not invalidate his grandmother from eating
Terumah, because he is an Eved. like his mother, and is not related to his
father at all.
A bas Kohen marries a Yisrael and they have a daughter. The daughter then
marries a Kohen and they have a son who is fit to be a Kohen Gadol - that
'Kohen Gadol' feeds his mother Terumah, but invalidates his grandmother.
(b) If, by the same token, his grandmother is a bas Yisrael who married a
Kohen - she is not permitted to eat Terumah on his account (for the same
(c) If the daughter of a bas Yisrael to a Kohen or of a bas Kohen to a
Yisrael 'marries' an Eved or a Nochri (see Tosfos DH 've'Niseis'), and they
have a child - that child is a Mamzer.
(d) A Mamzer ...
- ... feeds his grandmother who is a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen.
- ... invalidates his grandmother who is a bas Kohen to a Yisrael.
(a) Our Mishnah (which includes a Shoteh among the 'Ein Poslin
u'Ma'achilin') supports the Beraisa, which exempts the wife of a Shoteh from
both Yibum and Chalitzah - proving that a Shoteh cannot acquire.
(b) The Beraisa incorporates - a Katan together with a Shoteh.
(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna explains the fact that, on the one hand, the Tana of
our Mishnah holds that an Ubar invalidates his mother from eating Terumah,
whilst on the other, he permits her to eat (after being raped by a Yisrael),
without requiring her to wait three months in case she is pregnant - by
explaining that Chazal did not contend with the possibility that a woman is
pregnant with regard to eating Terumah, even though they *did* with regard
(b) He knows that Chazal contended with the pregnancy regarding Yuchsin -
because of the Mishnah above (33b.) which requires the women who were
inadvertently switched on their way to the Chupah to be separated for three
months before returning to their husbands.
(c) He is forced to retract from this contention however, on account of a
Beraisa - which rules that if a man gave his wife a Get which is valid only
an hour before his death - she is forbidden to eat Terumah immediately
(since we do not know when he is destined to die). So we see that Chazal did
contend with the pregnancy even with regard to Terumah.
(d) When we explain that Rabah bar Rav Huna really differentiated between
adultery and marriage we mean - that he only contended with the possibility
of the woman being pregnant when she is married, but not when she committed
adultery (because a woman who commits adultery, turns round, in order to
destroy the Zera).
(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna (who, as we just saw, is concerned about pregnancy,
even with regard to Terumah, in the case of a married woman), explains -
that the Beraisa which permits a bas Kohen le'Yisrael, whose husband died,
to Tovel and eat Terumah that same evening, refers only to the forty days
after her husband's death. This is because, even if she is pregnant, until
forty days, the Zera is considered no more than water (and not an Ubar).
(b) He explains the Seifa of the Beraisa, which states that, the moment it
becomes noticeable that she is pregnant, she is Pasul retroactively - to
mean retroactively until forty days after the death of her husband (assuming
that she continued to eat for more than forty days).
(c) In the case under discussion - the Yisrael married the bas Kohen and
died on the same day.
(a) Even if both the man and the woman who are betrothed admit that he is
the father of the baby to whom she gave birth, Rav maintains that the baby
is a Mamzer - because just as she admitted having had relations with her
betrothed, we must suspect that she may also have had relations with others,
who are the majority, and from whom her child will be a Mamzer.
(b) According to Shmuel - the child is a Sh'suki (a Safek Mamzer).
(a) Rava establishes the Machlokes of Rav and Shmuel when there are rumors
of her having had relations with other men too. The reason that Rav is more
strict in this case, than by a married woman, where we simply ignore rumors
of this nature, establishing the child after her husband - is because of the
principle 'Rov Be'ilos Hilchos Achar ha'Ba'al' (one ascribes most Bi'os of a
married woman to her husband).
(b) Rava's source that when there are no rumors, even Rav will agree that
the child is not a Mamzer, lies in our Mishnah, which says 'Yaldah, Tochal'
(which must be speaking when there is no rumor of her having committed
adultery - because otherwise, why would the child, who is probably not a
Kohen, feed her Terumah). Now if there, where the Kohen who raped her is
forbidden to her just like everyone else, we nevertheless ascribe the child
to him, then how much more so in our case, where she is permitted to her
betrothed, should we ascribe the child to him.
(c) Abaye disagrees. According to him, even if there is no reason to suspect
her of adultery with other men, Rav declares the child to be a Mamzer. And
as for our Mishnah, where we ascribe the child to her betrothed - the Tana
speaks when they were both (the sole inmates) in prison, in which case, he
is the only man who could possibly be the father.
(a) In the second Lashon, Rava maintains that if we have reason to suspect
that she committed adultery both with other men and with her betrothed, we
will assume that the child is his - because, in that case, it is more likely
that the child is that of her betrothed (see also Tosfos 70a. DH 'Aval').
(b) He establishes the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel - when there is a
rumor that she committed adultery with others, but not with her betrothed.
(c) Rava proves in our Mishnah, that Rav will most certainly agree that,
when there are rumors that she committed adultery both with other men and
with her betrothed, we will assume the child to be his, and that he declares
the child a Mamzer only when the rumors are confined to other men
exclusively, from 'Yaldah Tochal' - because, if in our Mishnah, we ascribe
the child to the man with whom she had relations (despite the fact that she
is as much forbidden to him as she is to everyone else), then we should
certainly ascribe the child to her betrothed, to whom she is permitted,
rather than to others, to whom he is not).
(d) Abaye disagrees. According to him, even if the rumors incorporate the
betrothed as well as others, Rav will declare the child a Mamzer. And as for
our Mishnah, the Tana (who says 'Yaldah, Tochal') - speaks when there were
no rumors at all (before the Bi'ah that we know took place).