1)

(a)Seeing as a Mechalel Shabbos receives Sekilah, how can the Beraisa even suggest that a bas Kohen should receive Sereifah? Who must be the author?

(b)If so, why does the Pasuk confine this stringency specifically to a bas Kohen? Why should it not extend to a ben Kohen, too?

(c)The Tana initially thought that the Pasuk of bas Kohen was referring to one who is unmarried. What problem will this create based on the Torah's use of the word "li'Zenos"?

(d)Who do we establish as the author of the Beraisa to solve the problem?

1)

(a)Despite the fact that a Mechalel Shabbos receives Sekilah, the Beraisa suggests that a bas Kohen should receive Sereifah - according to Rebbi Shimon, who holds that Sereifah is more stringent than Sekilah. Perhaps Kohanim, who have extra Mitzvos, will also receive a more severe punishment.

(b)Nevertheless, the Pasuk confines this stringency specifically to a bas Kohen, and not to a ben Kohen - because, since the Torah is lenient regarding Chilul Shabbos in the realm of Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash, it would be illogical to treat him more stringently in other regards.

(c)The Tana initially thought that the Pasuk of bas Kohen was referring to one who is unmarried. This creates a problem with the Torah's use of the word "li'Zenos" - which implies that she becomes a Zonah through the current act of adultery, whereas according to the Halachah, a woman only becomes a Zonah by committing incest (which carries with it a Chiyuv Kareis).

(d)To solve the problem, we establish the author as Rebbi Elazar, who holds that any immoral act, even between a Panuy and a Penuyah, renders her a Zonah.

2)

(a)What does Rava in the name of Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...

1. ... "Heinah" (by bas Bito) from "Heinah" (by bas Bito shel Ishto [both in Acharei-One who leaves over])?

2. ... "Zimah" (by bas Bito, in Acharei-Mos) from "Zimah" (by Sereifas bas Ishto in Kedoshim)?

(b)Why can we not learn the punishment of Sereifas Bito from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from bas Bito?

(c)In view of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', sentencing even a *bas Yisrael* to Sereifah for Z'nus with her father, how can the Beraisa even think that "Aviv" comes to confine the Din of Sereifah to a *bas Kohen* who has relations with her father? If that were so, why would we need a special Pasuk by a bas Kohen?

2)

(a)Rava in the name of Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...

1. ... "Heinah" (by bas Bito) from "Heinah" (by bas Bito shel Ishto [both in Acharei-One who leaves over]) - that just as his wife's daughter has the same Din as her granddaughter, so too, is his daughter (whom the Torah does not mention) forbidden just like his granddaughter (whom it does).

2. ... "Zimah" (by bas Bito, in Acharei-Mos) from "Zimah" (by Sereifas bas Ishto in Kedoshim) - that just as Bito is included in the prohibition, so too, is she included in the punishment (Sereifah).

(b)We cannot learn the punishment of Sereifas Bito from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from bas Bito - because of the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' (one cannot punish through a 'Kal va'Chomer').

(c)If, as the Beraisa initially thinks, "Aviv" came to confine the Din of Sereifah to a *bas Kohen* who had relations with her father - we would then confine the prohibition to a Kohen, negating the possibility of learning the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Heinah" "Heinah", 'Zimah" Zimah" altogether.

3)

(a)We ask why the Beraisa thought that, without the 'Vav', "bas Kohen" precluded one who was married to a Levi, a Yisrael ... ", seeing as in all of these cases, she is still a bas Kohen. What second Kashya do we ask on the 'Havah Amina'?

(b)To answer these Kashyos, we quote the next words in the Pasuk "Ki Seichel li'Zenos". What does that imply? How does it answer our Kashya?

(c)What is then the significance of the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Vas Kohen ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar"?

2. ... "ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah ki'Ne'urehah"?

(d)The first Pasuk incorporates a bas Kohen who marries a Nasin and a Mamzer, but not a Chalal (which we learn from "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o", 'Makish Zar'o Lo'). Why can it not?

3)

(a)We ask why the Beraisa thought that, without the 'Vav', "bas Kohen" precluded one who was married to a Levi, a Yisrael ... ", seeing as in all of these cases, she is still a bas Kohen, and besides - the Torah did not write 'Kohenes le'*Kohen*'?

(b)To answer these Kashyos, we quote the next words in the Pasuk "Ki Seichel li'Zenos", implying - that her current Z'nus disqualifies her from the Kehunah, to preclude one who is already excluded.

(c)The Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Vas Kohen ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar" - comes to preclude a bas Kohen who is married to a Mamzer or to a Nasin (as we just explained).

2. ... "ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah ki'Ne'urehah" - comes to preclude a bas Kohen who is married to a Levi or Yisrael, who, as we see from this Pasuk, is disqualified from eating Terumah as long as she is married to him.

(d)The first Pasuk incorporates a bas Kohen who marries a Nasin and a Mamzer, but not a Chalal (which we learn from "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o", 'Makish Zar'o Lo') - since, unlike them, the Chalal himself is permitted to marry into the Kahal (i.e. a Kasher Yisre'elis).

4)

(a)A Yisrael who eats Terumah be'Shogeg must pay the owner the principle plus an extra fifth. What will be the Din if the person who ate it was a bas Kohen who is married to a Yisrael?

(b)According to the Chachamim in a Beraisa, the same will apply to a bas Kohen who is married to a Pasul, and she will also receive Sereifah, should she commit adultery. What does Rebbi Meir say?

(c)Who must therefore be the author of the current Beraisa?

(d)What distinction does Rebbi Eliezer in our Beraisa draw between the bas Kohen's father and her father-in-law (though it is at first unclear what he means)?

4)

(a)A Yisrael who eats Terumah be'Shogeg must pay owner the principle plus an extra fifth. If the person who ate it was a bas Kohen who is married to a Yisrael - she pays only the principle.

(b)According to the Chachamim in a Beraisa, the same will apply to a bas Kohen who is married to a Pasul, and she will also receive Sereifah should she commit adultery. Rebbi Meir however, holds - that she has to pay the extra fifth as well, and she receives Chenek, in the event that she commits adultery.

(c)The author of the current Beraisa must therefore be - the Chachamim.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer in our Beraisa states - 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah, ve'es Chamihah bi'Sekilah' (though it is at first unclear what he means).

5)

(a)What would be the problem if we interpreted Rebbi Eliezer's statement literally (that if a bas Kohen commits adultery with her father, she will receive Sereifah; with her father-in-law, Sekilah)?

(b)What would Rebbi Eliezer be saying if we interpreted his statement to mean 'bi'Reshus Avihah bi'Sereifah, bi'Reshus Chamihah bi'Sekilah'?

(c)Why would this explanation be problematic, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan?

2. ... Rebbi Shimon?

(d)Nor would this concur with the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael, who agrees with Rebbi Shimon with regard to a Arusah. What does he hold with regard to a Nesu'ah?

5)

(a)The problem with interpreting Rebbi Eliezer's statement literally (that if a bas Kohen committed adultery with her father, she would receive Sereifah, with her father-in-law, Sekilah) - would be that this Din should not have been mentioned specifically by a bas Kohen, seeing as it pertains equally to a bas Yisrael (as we already asked earlier).

(b)If we interpreted his statement to mean 'bi'Reshus Avihah bi'Sereifah, bi'Reshus Chamihah bi'Sekilah', then he would be saying that an Arusah receives Sereifah, and a Nesu'ah, Sekilah.

(c)This explanation would be problematic, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan - inasmuch as they say the opposite, that a Nesu'ah bas Kohen receives Sereifah, and an Arusah, Sekilah.

2. ... Rebbi Shimon - who says that both receive Sereifah.

(d)Nor would this concur with the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael, who agrees with Rebbi Shimon with regard to a Arusah, because with regard to a Nesu'ah - he holds that she receives Chenek (like a bas Yisrael).

6)

(a)Ravin sent an explanation in the name of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. What did he mean when he equated 'es Avihah' with 'Lematah mi'Misas Avihah', and 'es Chamihah' with 'Lema'alah mi'Misas Avihah'? With which Tana will Rebbi Eliezer then concur?

(b)On what grounds does Rebbi Yirmiyah refute Ravina's explanation?

(c)So Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes Rebbi Eliezer like Rebbi Yishmael, in which case 'es Avihah' means bi'Reshus Avihah. What does 'es Chamihah' then mean?

(d)What objection does Rava raise with Rebbi Yirmiyah's explanation?

6)

(a)Ravin sent an explanation in the name of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. When he equated 'es Avihah' with 'Lematah mi'Misas Avihah', he meant - that someone who, in the case of a bas Yisrael would receive a lesser punishment than the Sereifah that is due for adultery with a father (i.e. a Nesu'ah, who in the case of a bas Yisrael would receive Chenek), receives Sereifah by a bas Kohen, as if she had committed adultery with her father; whereas 'es Chamihah' with 'Lema'alah mi'Misas Avihah', he means that someone who, in the case of a bas Yisrael receives a more severe punishment than the Sereifah that is due for adultery with a father (i.e. an Arusah, who in the case of a bas Yisrael would receive Chenek), receives Sekilah, as if she had committed adultery with her father-in law. Rebbi Eliezer will then concur with - the Rabbanan.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah refutes Ravina's explanation however - on the grounds that Rebbi Eliezer said nothing about 'Lema'alah' and 'Lematah'.

(c)So Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes Rebbi Eliezer like Rebbi Yishmael, in which case 'es Avihah' means bi'Reshus Avihah, whereas 'es Chamihah' means - that she actually committed adultery with her father-in-law.

(d)Rava objects to Rebbi Yirmiyah's explanation however - because it is inconsistent; either Rebbi Eliezer is speaking when the bas Kohen committed adultery with her father in one case, and with her father-in-law in the other, or he is referring to their domains, but not one of each.

51b----------------------------------------51b

7)

(a)Rava himself establishes Rebbi Eliezer like Rebbi Shimon, and 'es Avihah' means bi'Reshus Avihah' (an Arusah). How does he then explain 've'es Chamihah bi'Sekilah', when according to Rebbi Shimon, she too, receives Sereifah?

(b)And on what grounds does Rebbi Chanina object to Rava's explanation?

(c)So how does Ravina finally amend Rebbi Eliezer to hold like the Rabbanan?

(d)Why does Rebbi Eliezer then refer to 'es Avihah', and not to 'Arusah'?

7)

(a)Rava himself establishes Rebbi Eliezer like Rebbi Shimon, and 'es Avihah' means bi'Reshus Avihah' (an Arusah). In spite of the fact that according to Rebbi Shimon, she too, receives Sereifah, Rebbi Eliezer holds 've'es Chamihah bi'Sekilah', because he Darshens - 'Nesu'ah ka'Arusah' to mean that just as an Arusah goes up one level (from Sekilah to Sereifah), so too, does a Nesu'ah standard Get up from Chenek to Sekilah.

(b)Rebbi Chanina objects to Rava's explanation - on the grounds that, according to Rebbi Shimon's interpretation of the Pasuk, there is no room for such an explanation, since when the Torah sentences a bas Kohen to Sereifah, it either includes a Nesu'ah, or it doesn't (and if it doesn't, then she receives Chenek, like a bas Yisrael).

(c)To establish Rebbi Eliezer like the Rabbanan, Ravina finally amends his statement to read - 'es Avihah bi'Sekilah, ve'es Chamihah bi'Sereifah'.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer refers to 'es Avihah', and not 'Arusah' - because he takes his cue from the Tana Kama, who in turn, merely cites the Lashon of the Pasuk "es Avihah Hi Mechaleles".

8)

(a)What objection did Rav Yosef raise when Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah ruled like Ravin in the name of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina (regarding 'Lema'alah min Avihah', 'Le'matah min Avihah')?

(b)What did Abaye retort, based on Shechitas Kodshim? What is 'Shechitas Kodshim'?

(c)How did Rav Yosef justify his Kashya? What did he really mean to ask?

8)

(a)When Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah ruled like Ravin in the name of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina (regarding 'Lema'alah min Avihah', 'Le'matah min Avihah'), Rav Yosef objected - 'Hilch'sa li'Meshicha' (what is the point of such a ruling, which has no ramifications until the arrival of Mashi'ach)?

(b)Abaye retorted - that one could ask the same Kashya in connection with learning the entire Shechitas Kodshim (better known as Maseches Zevachim). What is the point of learning it before the coming of Mashi'ach (see Ya'avetz)?

(c)Rav Yosef nevertheless justified his Kashya - by explaining his Kashya like this: What is the point of ruling like Ravin in the name of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina against Ravina, who both establish Rebbi Eliezer like the Rabbanan, only one leaves the original wording intact, whilst the other one amends it. That is of no relevance, and can wait until the era of Mashi'ach, when the dead will be resurrected, and it will be possible to ask Rebbi Eliezer himself what he meant.

9)

(a)How does Rebbi Yishmael establish the status of the bas Kohen in the Pasuk "u'Vas Kohen Ki Seichel Li'zenos"?

(b)Based on the Pasuk "Ish Asher Yinaf es Eishes Re'ehu Mos Yumas ha'No'ef ve'ha'No'afes", how does he extrapolate that a bas Kohen Nesu'ah receives Chenek (like a bas Yisrael)?

(c)How do we know that a Nesu'ah bas Yisrael is subject to Chenek?

(d)What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "va'Asisem lo Ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv"?

9)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael establishes the status of the bas Kohen in the Pasuk "u'Vas Kohen Ki Seichel Li'zenos" - as a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (like we suggested earlier in the Sugya).

(b)Based on the Pasuk "Ish Asher Yinaf es Eishes Re'ehu Mos Yumas ha'No'ef ve'ha'No'afes", he extrapolates that a bas Kohen Nesu'ah receives Chenek (like a bas Yisrael), because he says - just as when the Pasuk takes a bas Yisrael out of the realm of Chenek, to sentence her to Sekilah, it does so by an Arusah exclusively, so too, when it sentences a bas Kohen to Sereifah, it does so by an Arusah exclusively (and a Nesu'ah remains the same as an Arusah bas Yisrael).

(c)We know that a Nesu'ah bas Yisrael is subject to Chenek - because S'tam Misah always means Chenek.

(d)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Ki Sei "va'Asisem lo Ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv" - "le'Achiv", 've'Lo le'Achoso' (i.e. whenever the punishment of the man and the woman differ [such as in the case of a bas Kohen who committed adultery]) the woman's Zomemin receive the same punishment as the man.

10)

(a)Rebbi Akiva (the Tana Kama of the Beraisa that we discussed earlier in the Sugya) argues with Rebbi Yishmael. He maintains that a bas Kohen Nesu'ah too, is included in the Chiyuv Sereifah, and he precludes a Penuyah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Avihah" "Avihah". How does Rebbi Yishmael query him from his own source?

(b)How does Rebbi Akiva answer the Kashya? From where does he know to include even a Nesu'ah in the Din of Bas Kohen?

(c)On what basis did Rebbi Yishmael continue to query Rebbi Akiva? How did he understand Rebbi Akiva's statement "Bas" "u'Bas" Ani Doresh?

(d)What did Rebbi Akiva really mean?

10)

(a)Rebbi Akiva (the Tana Kama of the Beraisa that we discussed earlier in the Sugya) argues with Rebbi Yishmael. He maintains that a bas Kohen Nesu'ah too, is included in the Chiyuv Sereifah, and he precludes a Penuyah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Avihah" "Avihah". Rebbi Yishmael however, queries him from his own source - in that the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ought to confine the Din of bas Kohen to a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (like *he* actually holds).

(b)To which Rebbi Akiva answers - "Bas" "u'Bas Ani Doresh', meaning that the extra 'Vav' comes to include a Nesu'ah (as we learned in the Beraisa).

(c)Rebbi Yishmael continues to query Rebbi Akiva - because he understand Rebbi Akiva's statement to mean that he Darshens "Bas" "u'Bas" in place of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (in which case he has no source to preclude even a Penuyah from the Din of bas Kohen.

(d)In fact, Rebbi Akiva really meant - to Darshen "Bas" "u'Bas" in addition to the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', excluding a Penuyah from the latter, and including a Nesu'ah from the former.

11)

(a)What does Rebbi Yishmael Darshen from "Bas" "u'Bas"? What would he otherwise have learned from a ben Kohen?

(b)"What does Rebbi Akiva learn from the Pasuk in Emor "Heim Makrivim ve'Hayu Kodesh"?

(c)Bearing in mind, the Pasuk "Heim Makrivim ve'Hayu Kodesh" why does Rebbi Yishmael still need "Bas" "u'Bas"?

11)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael Darshens from "Bas" "u'Bas" - that a bas Kohen retains her Kedushas Kehunah even if she has a blemish. Otherwise, he would have learned from a ben Kohen that she changes her status to that of a bas Yisrael.

(b)Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk in Emor "Heim Makrivim ve'Hayu Kodesh" - that a bas Yisrael retains her status even if she has a blemish.

(c)Rebbi Yishmael still needs "Bas" "u'Bas" to teach us - that it applies to a bas Kohen, since, in his opinion, the Pasuk "Heim Makrivim ve'Hayu Kodesh" (which is written in the masculine) pertains exclusively to male blemished Kohanim, to teach us that even though they are disqualified from performing the Avodah, they remain forbidden to make themselves Tamei Meis.

12)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael Darshens the Pasuk there "es Avihah Hi Mechaleles" (from which the Tana Kama of the Beraisa learned 'Z'nus Im Zikas Ba'al') like Rebbi Meir. What does Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa Darshen from this Pasuk (see Agados Maharsha)?

(b)What does Rav Ashi extrapolate from Rebbi Yishmael with regard to a Rasha ben Tzadik?

(c)How do we explain the conclusion of our Mishnah 'Zu Mitzvas ha'Niskalin'? To what does it refer?

12)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael Darshens the Pasuk there "es Avihah Hi Mechaleles" (from which the Tana Kama of the Beraisa learned 'Z'nus Im Zikas Ba'al') like Rebbi Meir, who Darshens from this Pasuk - that we despise her father and treat him with profanity, by cursing the one who bore her, the one who brought her up and the one from whose loins she came out (referring to her mother, her nurse and her father respectively - Agados Maharsha).

(b)Rav Ashi extrapolates from Rebbi Yishmael - that the current custom to refer to a Rasha ben Tzadik as a Rasha ben Rasha, must be based on his opinion.

(c)The conclusion of our Mishnah 'Zu Mitzvas ha'Niskalin refers to the procedure of the Sekilah ceremony described in the previous Mishnos, and serves as a prelude to the following Mishnah which begins 'Mitzvas ha'Nisrafin'.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF