[51a - 38 lines; 51b - 48 lines]
1)[line 2] CHALAL
(a)The Torah (Vayikra 21:14) commands a Kohen Gadol not to marry a widow (Almanah), divorcee (Gerushah), prostitute ("Zonah" -- see Background to Kidushin 77:17) or Chalalah. An ordinary Kohen (Hedyot) is permitted to marry a widow, but not any of the other women listed above. The child from one of the above-mentioned unions is invalidated from the Kehunah, and is called a "Chalal." The Rabanan also prohibited all Kohanim from marrying a Chalutzah (see Background to Sanhedrin 18:2a), and made the children of a Kohen from a Chalutzah Chalalim mid'Rabanan.
(b)A Chalal may not serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash, and according to some sources he is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim if he does (MINCHAS CHINUCH 275:5). A Chalal does not eat Terumah or the Kodshim reserved for Kohanim (Terumos 8:1), and is not restricted with regard to the women that he is allowed to marry. Chalalim are not prohibited from coming into contact with corpses. Chalalim are not considered Kohanim with regard to the other privileges and restrictions pertaining to Kohanim, as well.
2)[line 2] MAMZER
(a)There are prohibited marital relations that invalidate the ensuing offspring and render them Mamzerim. The Tana'im argue as to the nature of these prohibited relations. According to Rebbi Yehoshua, they must be relations that are punishable by Misas Beis Din (see Background to Sanhedrin 37:37). Rebbi Shimon ha'Timni rules that all relations that are punishable by Kares, even if they are not punishable by Misas Beis Din, produce a Mamzer (fem. Mamzeres). According to Rebbi Akiva, even relations that are prohibited by a Lav produce a Mamzer (Yevamos 49a). Other Tana'im argue regarding the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. There are those who assert that he rules that only relations prohibited by a Lav produce a Mamzer. Others hold that even those prohibited by an Aseh produce a Mamzer (except for a Kohen Gadol who has relations with a non-virgin -- Kesuvos 30a). The Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ha'Timni, that only relations punishable by Kares produce a Mamzer (Yevamos ibid.)
(b)A Mamzer is prohibited to marry into the community of HaSh-m, that is, Jewish people of unsullied lineage. He may, however, marry a Mamzeres and a Giyores (Mishnah Kidushin 69a). The Tana'im and Amora'im argue as to whether a Safek Mamzer is prohibited mid'Oraisa to marry both a Mamzeres and a Jewess of unsullied lineage, because of the doubt, or whether he is permitted mid'Oraisa to marry either of them, since he is not included in the category of Mamzer that the Torah prohibited (Yevamos 37a, Kidushin 73a, 74a).
3)[line 3] NESIN
(a)In the times of Yehoshua, the Giv'onim (a people of the Chivi, one of the seven nations whom the Jewish People were commanded to destroy upon entering Eretz Yisrael) came and presented themselves before Yehoshua as if they came from a far-off land. Since they claimed not to be residents of Eretz Yisrael, they requested to be converted and to make peace with the Jewish People. After Yehoshua agreed to accept them, it was discovered that they were one of the seven prohibited nations. Having already accepted them, Yehoshua did not want to break his oath and covenant with them (even though they tricked him and the oath was uttered in error) so as not to cause a Chilul HaSh-m (a desecration of HaSh-m's Name). Yehoshua accepted them and appointed them to be woodchoppers and water drawers to supply the needs for the sacrificial service on the Mizbe'ach (Yehoshua 9:3-27). Earlier, in the times of Moshe Rabeinu, Giv'onim also came to be converted as they did in the times of Yehoshua, and Moshe also made them woodchoppers and water drawers. (This incident is not written explicitly. It is stated in the Gemara Yevamos 79a, and is based on the verse in Devarim 29:10.) These people became known as "Nesinim," (from the root "Nasan," to give) since they were "given over" by Moshe and Yehoshua ["va'Yitenem..." - "And he appointed them..." (Yehoshua 9:27)] to perform the tasks of chopping wood and drawing water.
(b)A Nesin is prohibited to marry into the community of HaSh-m, that is, Jewish people of unsullied lineage. RASHI and TOSFOS (Kesuvos 29a and elsewhere) argue as to whether they are prohibited mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan. We find that the Gemara (Yevamos 79a) states that Moshe Rabeinu "decreed" regarding the Nesinim of his generation, and Yehoshua extended the "decree" to last as long as the Mishkan or Beis ha'Mikdash would stand. David ha'Melech later extended the "decree" to include all time, even if the Beis ha'Mikdash would be destroyed (because of the trait of cruelty that the Nesinim exhibited, which showed that they were not worthy of uniting with the descendants of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov). According to Rashi, these decrees were prohibitions against marriage, and as such the prohibition against marrying Nesinim is an Isur mid'Rabanan. According to Tosfos, these decrees were appointments of servitude. The prohibition against marrying them, though, is mid'Oraisa, since the Torah commands against marrying the seven prohibited nations even if they convert to Judaism (Yevamos 76a).
4)[line 4] KOHENES- the wife of a Kohen
5)[line 6] CHAMIHA- her father-in-law (the Gemara will explain the meaning of Rebbi Eliezer's phrase)
6)[line 8] D'RABI BEHU MITZVOS YESEIROS- to add to them extra commandments
7)[line 9] MAI SHENA MINEI DIDEI?- [With regard to Chilul Shabbos, the desecration of the Shabbos,] why is she (the daughter of a Kohen) different from him (a male Kohen) [such that the Gemara entertained the possibility that she should receive Sereifah for Chilul Shabbos]?
8)[line 9] IHU D'ISHTARYA LEI SHABBOS L'GABEI AVODAH- he (a male Kohen), for whom it is permitted to perform Melachos of Shabbos while offering the Korbanos and doing other parts of the Divine service
9)[line 11] LIZNOS- (O.F. esveier) to go astray
10)[line 15] ASYA "HENAH" "HENAH" ASYA "ZIMAH" "ZIMAH" - it comes through the double Gezeirah Shavah that compares two verses that contain the word "Henah" and two verses that contain the word "Zimah"
(a)Chazal (Yevamos 3a, Sanhedrin 75b) use a double Gezeirah Shavah to prove that relations between a man and his daughter (who is not his wife's daughter) incurs the capital punishment of Sereifah, a fact that is not explicit in the verses. The Halachos that a Gezeirah Shavah teaches, however, *are considered* as if they are explicit in the verses.
(b)The verse that prohibits relations between a man and his granddaughter (who is not the daughter of his wife's son or daughter) states, "Ki Ervascha *Henah*" - "since *they are* your close relatives (lit. nakedness)" (Vayikra 18:10). Likewise, the verse that prohibits relations between a man and his wife's daughter and granddaughter states, "Sha'arah *Henah*, *Zimah* Hi" - "*they are* your relatives (lit. flesh), it is *the conduct of wrongdoers*" (Vayikra 18:17). Just as the second verse includes the daughter *and* the granddaughter, so, too, the prohibition of the first verse includes the man's granddaughter *and* his daughter.
(c)Next, the verse that specifies the punishment of Sereifah for relations between a man and two women who are mother and daughter (when one of them is his wife) states, "*Zimah* Hi, ba'Esh Yisrefu" - "it is *the conduct of wrongdoers*, they shall be burned by fire" (Vayikra 20:14). As a result of this Gezeirah Shavah, all of those who transgress the above forbidden relations receive the Sereifah punishment.
11)[line 21] "U'VAS KOHEN KI SIHEYEH L'ISH ZAR..."- "And the daughter of a Kohen, should she get married to a strange man, [shall not eat Terumah.]" (Vayikra 22:12) - This verse, which prohibits the daughter of a Kohen from eating Terumah when she marries a man who is prohibited to her, also prevents her from eating Terumah when she marries a Levi or a Yisrael, who are "Zarim" - "strangers" to the Kehunah.
12)[line 22] "... V'SHAVAH EL BEIS AVIHA KI'N'UREHA..."- "[And the daughter of a Kohen, should she become a widow or a divorcee (with regard to the "stranger" of the previous verse), and has no children [from that husband],] shall return to her father's house as in the days of her youth. [From the bread of her father she shall eat...]" (Vayikra 22:13)
13)[line 25] KEREN / CHOMESH (TASHLUMEI TERUMAH: HA'OCHEL TERUMAH B'SHOGEG)
(a)After a crop is harvested and brought to the owner's house or yard, the owner must separate Terumah from the crop, which he gives to a Kohen. Kohanim and members of their households may eat Terumah as long as they are Tehorim.
(b)If a non-Kohen eats Terumah without knowing that it is Terumah, he must replace what he ate in the form of a food that becomes Terumah (Tashlumei Terumah). He returns the Keren, the amount of Terumah that he ate, to the Kohen who owned the Terumah (see Insights to Pesachim 32:1). In addition, he is fined another Chomesh (fifth) of the ensuing total (i.e. a quarter of the value of what he ate). This Chomesh may be paid to any Kohen (Terumos 6:2), and is not necessarily given to the Kohen who owned the Terumah that was eaten.
14)[line 30] KALASO- his daughter-in-law
15)[line 34] KACH HI HATZA'AH SHEL MISHNAH- this is the arrangement of the Mishnah (as follows)
16)[line 12] SIRCHA B'ALMA NAKAT- Rebbi Eliezer merely adopted the style (lit. the residue) of the Tana Kama [by using the words of the verse "Es Aviha," since the Tana Kama was quoting verses]
17)[line 15] HILCHESA LI'MESHICHA?!- Is this a Halachic ruling for the times of the Mashi'ach (which has no practical application today, since the institution of the four death penalties will only return with the arrival of the Mashi'ach)?
18)[line 16] SHECHITAS KODASHIM LO LISNI- then we should not learn the tractate of Zevachim (which deals with the Halachos of the Korbanos, since the offering of Korbanos will only return with the arrival of the Mashi'ach)!
19)[line 18] DEROSH V'KABEL SECHAR- learn it and receive a reward [for the actual Torah learning]
20)[line 19] SUGYA DI'SHEMA'ATA HALCHAH KA'AMAR?!- Did the Sugya say the word "Halachah?" (That is, did it quote a Halachic difference between the suggestion of Ravin and the suggestion of Ravina such that it requires a Halachic ruling of Rav Nachman to prefer one over the other? When Mashi'ach shall come and revive the dead, we can ask Rebbi Eliezer how he stated his words that are quoted in the Beraisa!)
21a)[line 45] LEFI SHE'MATZINU SHE'CHALAK HA'KASUV BI'ZECHARIM BEIN TEMIMIM L'VA'ALEI MUMIN- since we have found that the verses differentiate between males who are unblemished and those who have blemishes
b)[line 46] YACHOL NACHALOK BI'VENOSEIHEN- it might follow that we would differentiate between females [as well, with regard to whether they receive the punishment of Sereifah (for unblemished women) or remain with the punishment given to ordinary Benos Yisrael (for women with blemishes)]