1)

(a)Our Mishnah states 'bas Chalal Zachar Pesulah min ha'Kehunah Le'olam'. What does 'Le'olam' mean?

(b)What would we otherwise have thought?

(c)What will be the status of that daughter's child from ...

1. ... a Yisrael?

2. ... a Kohen?

1)

(a)Our Mishnah states 'bas Chalal Zachar Pesulah min ha'Kehunah Le'olam' which means bas Beno, bas ben Beno, bas ben ben Beno ... ' ad infinitum (in other words, the first daughter born after a line of males is always a Chalalah).

(b)We would otherwise have thought that like a Mitzri and Edomi they are only forbidden for two generations.

(c)That daughter's child from ...

1. ... a Yisrael will be Kosher.

2. ... a Kohen will be a Chalalah.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah invalidates the daughter of a Ger, like the daughter of a Chalal. What does he say about the daughter of a Giyores who married a Yisrael?

(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov both are Kosher. On what condition does he concede that the daughter of a Ger is Pasul li'Kehunah?

(c)Up to how many generations do a Ger and an Eved Meshuchrar remain Pasul li'Kehunah, according to the above opinions?

(d)Rebbi Yosi is even more lenient than Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. What does he say?

2)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah invalidates the daughter of a Ger, like the daughter of a Chalal. The daughter of a Giyores who married a Yisrael he says is Kosher.

(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov both are Kosher. He concedes however that the daughter of a Ger and a Giyores is Pasul.

(c)According to the above respective opinions, a Ger and an Eved Meshuchrar remain Pasul li'Kehunah forever ('even up to ten generations').

(d)Rebbi Yosi is even more lenient than Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov since he validates even the daughter of a Ger and a Giyores.

3)

(a)In what connection does Rebbi Yochanan quote the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa "b'Amav" "b'Amav" ("v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o b'Amav" and "Lo Yitama Ba'al b'Amav" [both in Emor, the latter concerning Tum'as Kohanim])?

(b)How does he learn it from there?

(c)In that case, why is the daughter of ...

1. ... a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah Pasul?

2. ... their son Pasul (in spite of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah')?

(d)Then why is his daughter's daughter Kosher?

3)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan quotes the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa "b'Amav" "b'Amav" ("v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o b'Amav" and "Lo Yitama Ba'al b'Amav" [both in Emor, the latter concerning Tum'as Kohanim]) as a source for the Reisha of our Mishnah (which invalidates the daughter of a Chalal, but not of a Chalalah).

(b)He learns from there that Chalalus, like Tum'as Kohanim, does not pertain to Kohanos.

(c)Nevertheless, the daughter of ...

1. ... a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah is Pasul because the Torah writes (not "v'Lo Yechalel Beno", but) "v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o".

2. ... their son is Pasul (in spite of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah') because the Torah compares here the Kohen Gadol's son to himself. Consequently, just as the Kohen Gadol's daughter is Pasul, so too, is his son's.

(d)His daughter's daughter however, is Kosher because otherwise, what would the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' be coming to teach us?

4)

(a)Having taught 'bas Chalal Zachar Pasul', why does the Tana repeat 'Chalal she'Nasa bas Yisrael, Bito Pesulah li'Kehunah'?

(b)Our Mishnah does not then hold like Rebbi Dustai ben Yehudah. What does the latter say?

(c)How does he extrapolate it from the Pasuk "v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o b'Amav"?

4)

(a)In spite of having already taught 'bas Chalal Zachar Pasul', the Tana nevertheless repeats 'Chalal she'Nasa bas Yisrael, Bito Pesulah li'Kehunah' in order to balance 'Yisrael she'Nasa Chalalah, Bito Kesherah li'Kehunah' (that precedes it).

(b)The Tana of our Mishnah does not then hold like Rebbi Dustai ben Yehudah who validates the daughter of a Chalal and a Yisre'elis, just like that of a Chalalah to a Yisrael.

(c)He extrapolates this from the fact that the Torah writes "v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o b'Amav", in the singular (and not ''be'Am'mav" in the plural), implying that the grandchildren will be Chalalim only if both their parents are of the same 'nation' (i.e. if they are both Chalalim).

5)

(a)Seeing as the Torah only invalidates the daughter of a Kohen Gadol to an Almanah, from where does the Beraisa initially learn that the Almanah herself becomes a Chalalah too?

(b)Why can we not refute this 'Kal va'Chomer from the Kohen Gadol, who does not become a Chalal (even though he performed a sin)?

(c)What are the ramifications of the fact that ...

1. ... the Almanah does become a Chalalah?

2. ... the Kohen Gadol does not?

(d)How do we refute the current 'Kal va'Chomer' (declaring Pasul the Almanah to a Kohen Gadol from her daughter)?

(e)So from where do we finally learn that the Almanah becomes a Chalalah too?

5)

(a)Despite the fact that the Torah only invalidates the daughter of a Kohen Gadol to an Almanah, the Beraisa initially learns that the Almanah herself becomes a Chalalah too from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (from the daughter, who did not perform a sin, yet she becomes a Chalalah, how much more so the Almanah who did, which in turn, we learn from the Pasuk "Lo Yikachu", in the plural).

(b)We cannot refute this 'Kal va'Chomer from the Kohen Gadol himself, who does not become a Chalal (even though he performed a sin) because, a man never becomes Pasul through a Bi'ah that is forbidden to him (as we learned in a Mishnah in Bechoros), like a woman does (as we learned in Yevamos from the Pasuk "u'vas Kohen Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar").

(c)The ramifications of the fact that ...

1. ... the Almanah does become a Chalalah are that a. she is forbidden to eat Terumah, and b. that should the Kohen Gadol die, she remains forbidden to marry a Kohen (or even to perform Yibum with her deceased husband's brother).

2. ... the Kohen Gadol does not, are that the moment he makes a vow to divorce the Almanah, he once again becomes eligible to perform the Avodah.

(d)We refute the current 'Kal va'Chomer' (declaring Pasul the Almanah to a Kohen Gadol from her daughter) on the grounds that whereas the daughter was born through a sin, the Almanah was not.

(e)We finally learn that the Almanah becomes a Chalalah too from the Torah's use of the term "Lo Yechalel", which implies that someone who was previously Kosher becomes profaned (which is not the case with her daughter), who was born profaned.

6)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei (written in connection with a divorcee who has been married to someone else) "To'evah Hi"?

(b)What do we extrapolate from there with regard to the Beraisa 'Eizuhi Chalalah, Kol she'Noldah min ha'Pesulim'?

(c)So how does Rav Yehudah explain the Beraisa?

(d)Considering that an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol and a Gerushah and a Zonah to a Kohen Hedyot are also Chalalim, how does Rabah explain the expression 'Kol she'Noldah min ha'Pesulim'? What does he mean by 'Chalalah Muzkeres'?

6)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "To'evah Hi" that a divorcee who has been married to someone else is considered an abomination to her first husband, but her children are not ('Hi To'evah, v'Ein Banehah To'evin').

(b)We extrapolate from there that, when the Tana of the Beraisa writes 'Eizuhi Chalalah, Kol she'Noldah min ha'Pesulim' he does not mean that someone who is born from any forbidden Bi'ah (apart from a Mamzer), is a Chalalah.

(c)Rav Yehudah therefore explains that what he means is 'Kol she'Noldah min Psul Kehunah'.

(d)Bearing in mind that an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol and a Gerushah and a Zonah to a Kohen Hedyot are also Chalalim, Rabah explains the expression 'Kol she'Noldah min ha'Pesulim' with reference to 'Chalalah Muzkeres', which means that the Tana is only concerned with the Chalalah that is written in the Torah explicitly ("v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o"), but not with the woman herself, who, as we explained earlier, is learned from an inference.

7)

(a)The Beraisa states 'Almanah, Almanah, Almanah Eino Chayav Ela Achas', and the same applies to Gerushah, Gerushah, Gerushah'. What does the Tana say in a case of "Almanah, u'Gerushah, va'Chalalah Zonah" (as they appear in the Pasuk in Emor)?

(b)What will be the case?

(c)Why can 'Almanah, Almanah, Almanah' not mean that the Kohen Gadol had relations with the Almanos of three different men?

(d)So we suggest that he had relations with one Almanah three times. Why is this too, impossible? Why can it not be referring to ...

1. ... three Bi'os but only one warning?

2. ... three Bi'os and three warnings?

7)

(a)The Beraisa states 'Almanah, Almanah, Almanah Eino Chayav Ela Achas', and the same applies to Gerushah, Gerushah, Gerushah'. Regarding a case of "Almanah, u'Gerushah, va'Chalalah Zonah" (as they appear in the Pasuk in Emor), the Tana rules that provided the four names took effect in that order, the Kohen Gadol will be Chayav Malkus for each one.

(b)The case will be that, after being widowed from her first husband, she married and became divorced, married a Kohen (making her a Chalalah) and had relations with any man (making her a Zonah) or, in the event that her husband died, with a man who is forbidden to her (because he was a close relative or because he was one of the Pesulei Kahal).

(c)'Almanah, Almanah, Almanah' cannot mean that the Kohen Gadol had relations with the Almanos of three different men because seeing as they are three different people, there is no reason for there not to be three transgressions (and three sets of Malkus).

(d)So we suggest that he had relations with one Almanah three times. But that too, is impossible. It cannot be referring to ...

1. ... three Bi'os but only one warning because that would be obvious.

2. ... three Bi'os and three warnings because then he ought to be Chayav three sets of Malkus, as we learned in the Mishnah in Nazir, in the case of a Nazir who drank wine all day, and who is Chayav each time he is warned.

77b----------------------------------------77b

8)

(a)How do we finally establish the Beraisa 'Almanah, Almanah, Almanah Eino Chayav Ela Achas'? What is the Chidush?

(b)Why must the Beraisa hold 'Ein Isur Chal Al Isur' (One Isur cannot take effect on one that preceded it)?

(c)Then how does Rava explain the fact that they take effect, even in the right order?

(d)In which way is ...

1. ... a Gerushah 'Mosif' on an Almanah?

2. ... a Chalalah 'Mosif' on a Gerushah?

3. ... a Zonah 'Mosif' on a Chalalah (as Rav Chana bar Ketina explains)?

8)

(a)We finally establish the Beraisa 'Almanah, Almanah, Almanah Eino Chayav Ela Achas' by a Kohen Gadol who married (one woman) the widow of three different men. And the Chidush is that although she was a widow three times, the Kohen Gadol only transgresses one Lav, because she is one person (and in order to receive three Malkus, one would require either three people with the same name (category of Isur), or one person with three different names).

(b)The Beraisa cannot hold 'Isur Chal Al Isur because otherwise the four names (Almanah, u'Gerushah, va'Chalalah Zonah) would take effect irrespective of the order in which they occurred.

(c)Rava therefore explains that the reason they take effect, even in the right order is because the Tana holds 'Isur Mosif (when the second Isur adds an aspect of Isur that was not there before) Chal Al Isur'.

(d)A ...

1. ... Gerushah is 'Mosif' on an Almanah inasmuch as she now becomes forbidden to marry a Kohen Hedyot.

2. ... Chalalah is 'Mosif on a Gerushah inasmuch as she now becomes forbidden to eat Terumah.

3. ... Zonah is 'Mosif' on a Chalalah, says Rav Chana bar Ketina, inasmuch as the Isur of Zonah is applicable to a Yisrael too (i.e. should his wife commit adultery).

9)

(a)The Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Sheshes 'Kol she'Hu b'Yikach', Harei Hu b'Lo Yikach'. How does he conclude?

(b)To whom is the Tana referring?

(c)Rebbi Shimon in another Beraisa exempts someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kippur from a Chatas. What do the Rabanan say?

(d)How do we reconcile the Rabanan in the latter Beraisa with the Beraisa quoted by the Beraisa expert?

(e)On what basis does the second Lashon ...

1. ... attempt to establish the former Beraisa specifically like the Rabanan and not like Rebbi Shimon?

2. ... finally reconcile it even with Rebbi Shimon?

9)

(a)The Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Sheshes 'Kol she'Hu b'Yikach', Harei Hu b'Lo Yikach Kol she'Eino b'Yikach, Eino b'Lo Yikach' ...

(b)... with reference to a Kohen Gadol who has relations with his sister who is also an Almanah (who would have been forbidden to him even if she had not been an Almanah).

(c)Rebbi Shimon in another Beraisa exempts someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kippur from a Chatas whereas the Rabanan rule that he Chayav.

(d)We reconcile the Rabanan in the latter Beraisa with the Beraisa quoted by the Beraisa expert by restricting it to where the second Isur is more stringent (like Yom Kippur on Neveilah), but not vice-versa (an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol on a sister).

(e)The second Lashon ...

1. ... attempts to establish the former Beraisa specifically like the Rabanan and not like Rebbi Shimon because since, according to him, even a stringent Isur does not take effect on a more lenient one, it is obvious that a lighter Isur will not take effect on a more stringent one (and we do not need a Beraisa to teach us this).

2. ... finally reconciles it even with Rebbi Shimon because we would otherwise have thought that by Isur Kehunah (seeing as the Torah has given the Kohanim many extra Mitzvos) perhaps it will.

10)

(a)Rav Papa asked Abaye whether if a Yisrael has relations with his sister, besides making her a Zonah, he also makes her a Chalalah. Why might we have thought ...

1. ... that he does?

2. ... that he does not?

(b)What did Abaye reply?

(c)Rava derives this from a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa learn from the fact that the Torah repeats the Din of a Gerushah by a Kohen Gadol (even though we already know it from a Kohen Hedyot)?

(d)Why can the Tana not be coming to teach us that one is Chayav on the Gerushah by a Kohen Gadol independently?

10)

(a)Rav Papa asked Abaye whether if a Yisrael has relations with his sister, besides making her a Zonah, he also makes her a Chalalah. We might have thought ...

1. ... that he does because he learns a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Chayavei Lavin (Almanah, Gerushah ... ) which render her a Chalalah, how much more so Chayavei Kares.

2. ... that he does not because 'Ein Chalalah Ela me'Isur Kehunah Bil'vad'.

(b)Abaye replied 'Ein Chalalah Ela me'Isur Kehunah Bil'vad'.

(c)Rava derives this from a Beraisa, which learns from the fact that the Torah repeats the Din of a Gerushah by a Kohen Gadol (even though we already know it from a Kohen Hedyot) that if a Kohen Gadol marries a woman with all four names, he is Chayav for Almanah independently.

(d)The Tana cannot be coming to teach us that one is Chayav on the Gerushah by a Kohen Gadol independently because there is no reason for Lav to disappear when he becomes a Kohen Gadol.

11)

(a)What does the Tana learn from the fact that the Torah repeats by Kohen Gadol ...

1. ... Chalalah?

2. ... Zonah (from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Zonah" "Zonah"?

(b)What does Rav Ashi therefore conclude regarding a Kohen who has relations with his unmarried sister ...

1. ... the first time?

2. ... the second time?

11)

(a)The Tana learns from the fact that the Torah repeats by Kohen Gadol ...

1. ... Chalalah that 'Ein Chalalah Ela me'Isur Kehunah Bil'vad'.

2. ... Zonah (from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Zonah" "Zonah") that the daughter born from a Kohen Hedyot and one of the Isurei Kehunah is a Chalalah, just like the daughter from a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah or one of the Isurei Kehunah.

(b)Rav Ashi therefore concludes that a Kohen who has relations with his unmarried sister ...

1. ... the first time renders her a Zonah (but not a Chalalah).

2. ... the second time renders her a Chalalah as well.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF