(a)The Beraisa Darshens all the times that the Torah (in Ki Setzei) uses the term "bi'Kehal Hash-m". How many "bi'Kehal Hash-m" does it list?
(b)Why does the Tana omit the one written in connection with Petzu'a Daka?
(c)According to Rebbi Yosi, three of them come to forbid the five Pesulim concerned on Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisre'elim respectively, and the fourth one to permit a Mamzer to a Shesuki ('Kahal Vadai, v'Lo Kahal Safek'). What does the fifth one come to teach us?
(d)Why does he not use one of the "Kahal" to forbid the Pesulim on Gerim?
1)
(a)The Beraisa Darshens all the - five times that the Torah (in Ki Setzei) uses the term "bi'Kehal Hash-m" - (by Mamzer, Amoni and Mo'avi [twice], Mitzri and Edomi).
(b)The Tana omits the one written in connection with Petzu'a Daka - because it is not a Psul Yuchsin.
(c)According to Rebbi Yosi, three of them come to forbid the five Pesulim concerned on Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisre'elim respectively, the fourth one to forbid a Mamzer to a Shesuki ('Kahal Vadai, v'Lo Kahal Safek') - and the fifth one, to permit a Shesuki to a Yisrael ('Mamzer Vadai, v'Lo Mamzer Safek').
(d)He does not use one of the "bi'Kehal" to forbid the Pesulim on Gerim - because he holds 'Kehal Gerim Lo Ikri Kahal'.
2)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'K'hal Gerim Ikri Kahal', uses one of the five "bi'Kehal" to forbid the Pesulim on Gerim, and he learns Kohanim and Leviyim together from one "Kahal". On what basis does he do that?
(b)Alternatively, he agrees with Rebbi Yosi, who requires two Pesukim for Kohanim and Leviyim. Which two Derashos does he then make from one "bi'Kehal"?
(c)In a third possible explanation, Rebbi Yehudah explains the five "bi'Kehal" exactly as Rebbi Yosi does, and he includes Gerim in the five prohibitions from the Pasuk "ha'Kahal, Chukah Achas Lachem v'la'Ger ha'Gar". On what grounds does Rebbi Yosi then disagree with Rebbi Yehudah's source?
2)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'K'hal Gerim Ikri Kahal', uses one of the five "Kahal" to forbid the Pesulim on Gerim, and he learns Kohanim and Leviyim from one "Kahal" - because Kohanim and Leviyim belong to the same tribe.
(b)Alternatively, he agrees with Rebbi Yosi, who requires two Pesukim for Kohanim and Leviyim. The two Derashos that he then makes from the one "bi'Kehal" are - to permit a Mamzer to a Shesuki ('Kahal Vadai, v'Lo Kahal Safek') - and a Shesuki to a Yisrael ('Mamzer Vadai, v'Lo Mamzer Safek').
(c)In a third possible explanation, Rebbi Yehudah explains the five "bi'Kehal" exactly as Rebbi Yosi does, and he includes Gerim in the five prohibitions from the Pasuk "ha'Kahal, Chukah Achas Lachem v'la'Ger ha'Gar". Rebbi Yosi disagrees with his source - because, he argues, the word "Chukah" interrupts between "ha'Kahal" and "ha'Ger".
3)
(a)How did ...
1. ... the residents of Mechoza react when Rebbi Zeira Darshened there that a Ger is permitted to marry a Mamzeres?
2. ... Rava explain their reaction?
(b)And how did they react when Rava Darshened that a Ger is permitted to marry a Kohenes?
(c)He then added that a Ger is also permitted to marry a Mamzeres. What did he reply when they told him that any favor that he had gained with them following his first ruling, he had now lost with the second?
(d)Based on which principle do we permit a Ger to marry ...
1. ... a Kohenes?
2. ... a Mamzeres?
3)
(a)When ...
1. ... Rebbi Zeira Darshened in Mechoza that a Ger is permitted to marry a Mamzeres - and the townspeople pelted him with Esrogim ...
2. ... Rava ascribed their reaction to a lack of diplomacy on Rebbi Zeira's part - because (bearing in mind the basis for this ruling) this is not something that he ought to have Darshened in a town in which so many Gerim resided.
(b)When Rava (who was the Rav of Mechoza) Darshened that a Ger is permitted to marry a Kohenes - they loaded him with silks.
(c)He then added that a Ger is also permitted to marry a Mamzeres. When they told him that any favor that he had gained with them following his first ruling, he had now lost with the second, he replied - that by permitting them to marry both a Mamzeres and a Kohenes, he was merely offering them the best of both worlds.
(d)The principle on which we permit a Ger to marry ...
1. ... a Kohenes is - 'Lo Huzharu Kesheiros Linasei li'Pesulim'.
2. ... a Mamzeres is - 'K'hal Gerim Lo Ikri Kahal'.
4)
(a)Rava rules that min ha'Torah, a Shesuki is Kosher. On what principle is this based?
(b)What is his reasoning, assuming that ...
1. ... the Shesuki left home and went to the woman to betroth her?
2. ... it was the woman who left home and went to the Shesuki?
(c)If not for the Pasuk, based on which principle would we have declared him Pasul (despite the majority)?
(d)So what reason do we initially give for the prohibition of marrying a Shesuki?
4)
(a)Rava rules that min ha'Torah, a Shesuki is Kosher. This is based on the principle of 'Holchin Achar ha'Rov' (because seeing as we know his mother to be unmarried, the majority of men are permitted to her).
(b)The reason for this, assuming ...
1. ... the Shesuki left home and went to the woman to betroth her is - because we will then apply the principle 'Kol d'Parish me'Ruba Parish' (when someone leaves the location where he is, he left the majority).
2. ... it was the woman who left home and went to the Shesuki is - because of the Pasuk "Lo Yavo Mamzer" ('Mamzer Vadai, v'Lo Mamzer Safek').
(c)If not for the Pasuk, we would have declared him Pasul (despite the majority) - because of the principle 'Kol Kavu'a, k'Mechtzah Al Mechtzah Dami" (whenever the doubt arises in the location where the Psul resides, it is considered an even Safek [fifty-fifty]).
(d)The reason that we initially give for the prohibition of marrying a Shesuki - is for fear that he may marry his own paternal sister.
5)
(a)What about a Shesuki marrying a Shesukis?
(b)On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that a Shesuki should be forbidden to marry ...
1. ... a Shesukis, because there too, he might be marrying his paternal sister?
2. ... the daughter of a Shesukis, because he might be marrying his paternal sister? What is the case?
(c)How do we counter this argument?
(d)What is the conclusion? Why indeed, did Chazal forbid a Shesuki to marry a Yisre'elis?
5)
(a)Chazal did not prohibit a Shesuki from marrying a Shesukis.
(b)We reject the suggestion that a Shesuki should be forbidden to marry ...
1. ... a Shesukis in case he is marrying his paternal sister - because that would be assuming that all the Shesukos in town are born from the same man.
2. ... the daughter of a Shesukis in case he is might be marrying his paternal sister (the daughter of her father, who bore him from his mother before marrying the mother of the Shesukis) - because it is so rare.
(c)We counter - that if that is so, a Shesuki marrying a Yisre'elis is rare too, so why did Chazal forbid it?
(d)In fact we conclude, they forbade a Shesuki to marry a Yisre'elis - as a decree in order to raise the level of Yichus ('Ma'alah Asu b'Yuchsin'), which applies to a Kosher Yisre'elis but not to a Shesukis, who is herself a Safek Mamzeres.
6)
(a)Rava made the same statement regarding an Asufi, and the Sugya follows a similar pattern, with the same conclusion. On what principle did Rava base his premise that an Asufi is Kosher min ha'Torah?
(b)Why are we not concerned with the possibility that maybe he is the son af an Arusah (to whom most men are forbidden) or of a woman whose husband went overseas (to whom we cannot ascribe the Bi'ah that produced this child)?
(c)What makes us certain that a circumcised baby is not an Asufi?
(d)The same applies to a baby whom the parents beautified, straightened its limbs ('Meshalti Hadmeih'), or protected by placing a Kame'a round its neck. What might 'Meshalti Hadmeih' mean, besides straightening its limbs.
6)
(a)Rava made the same statement regarding an Asufi, and the Sugya follows a similar pattern, with the same conclusion. He based his premise that an Asufi is Kosher mi'Din Torah on the principle - that that the majority of Be'ilos go after the husband.
(b)We are not concerned with the possibility that maybe he is the son af an Arusah (to whom most men are forbidden) or of a woman whose husband went overseas (to whom we cannot ascribe the Bi'ah that produced this child) - because against that we have the possibility that the Asufi's mother was unmarried (in which case most people are permitted to her) or that she was married but placed her baby in the street as a result of lack of food in her household.
(c)What makes us certain that a circumcised baby is not an Asufi - is the fact that the parents took the trouble to have him circumcised (which they would not have done had they wanted him to die on account of its illegitimacy).
(d)The same applies to a baby whom the parents beautified, straightened its limbs ('Meshalti Hadmeih'), or protected by placing a Kame'a round its neck. Besides straightening its limbs, 'Meshalti Hadmeih' might mean - that its limbs were large and well-shaped, a sign that it was born to regular parents, who strengthen the baby by being intimate during the last three months, as Chazal have taught in Nidah.
73b----------------------------------------73b
7)
(a)What is the gauge that determines whether or not, a child is an Asufi, assuming it is found ...
1. ... suspended from a palm-tree?
2. ... in a Zard'sa (a sorb-tree, that tends to be frequented by demons) even if it is too high for the wild animals to reach?
3. ... a Shul (which, in former times, was generally situated outside the town)?
(b)What do the following (listed by Ameimar) have in common, and what are their respective reasons: If a baby is found ...
1. ... in a ditch that is designated to store date-pits for animal fodder, by the sides of the river into the water or in the middle of the road?
2. ... in a bowl in the middle of the river or at the side of the street?
(c)Rava precludes a baby that one finds during a famine from the Din of Asufi. Why can this not pertain to where it is found ...
1. ... in the middle of the street?
2. ... at the side of the street?
7)
(a)The gauge that determines whether it is an Asufi or not, if it is found ...
1. ... suspended from a palm-tree is - whether a wild animal is able to reach it (in which case it is an Asufi) or not.
2. ... in a Zard'sa-tree (even if it is too high for the wild animals to reach) is - whether it is near the town (in which case it is very popular with demons and the baby is an Asufi), or not.
3. ... a Shul (which, in former times, was generally situated outside the town) is - whether it is near the town and much used (in which case the baby is not an Asufi) or not.
(b)If a baby is found ...
1. ... in a ditch that is designated to store date-pits for animal fodder (which is outside the town and at the mercy of the demons), by the sides of the river (where the snow melts into the water and where ships do not sail) or in the middle of the road (where it is likely to get trampled to death) - it is an Asufi.
2. ... in a bowl in the middle of the river or at the side of the street (where it will be found and rescued) - it is not an Asufi.
(c)Rava precludes a baby that one finds during a famine from the Din of Asufi. This cannot pertain to where it is found ...
1. ... in the middle of the street - because the fact that there is a famine will not save him from being trampled to death.
2. ... at the side of the street - because then he is not an Asufi anyway.
8)
(a)So we connect Rava with a statement of Rav Yehudah ... Amar Rav. What does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav say about the credibility of the babies parents? Why are they no longer believed when they claim that they are the parents, once he has been removed from the street?
(b)What does Rava now say about the days of famine?
8)
(a)So we connect Rava with a statement of Rav Yehudah ... Amar Rav, who says that a couple claim to be the babies parents they are believed as long as the baby is lying in the street, but not once he has been removed - because he has already adopted the title 'Asufi'.
(b)What Rava is therefore saying is - that when there is a famine, they are believed even if they claim to be the parents after if has been removed from the street.
9)
(a)Rava Chisda lists three people who are believed, provided they lay their claim immediately. The first one is the parents of an Asufi, as we just explained, and the second one, a midwife. What is a midwife believed to attest to?
(b)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, she is only believed as long as she has not left the room. What does Rebbi Eliezer say?
(c)What is Rav Chisda's third case?
(d)What does Rav Chisda consider 'immediately' in this regard?
9)
(a)Rava Chisda lists three people who are believed provided they lay their claim immediately. The first one is the parents of an Asufi, as we just explained, and the second one, a midwife, who is believed to testify - which baby (of a set of tins or triplets ... ) was born first.
(b)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, she is only believed as long as she has not left the room. Rebbi Eliezer rules - only as long as she has not turned round.
(c)Rav Chisda's third case is - that of three women who were sleeping together in one bed, and beneath one of whom a drop of blood is found. Basically, they are all Tamei. However, should one of them examine herself and discover that she is Tamei, then she is Tamei and the other two, Tahor.
(d)Rav Chisda considers 'immediately' in this regard - within the time it takes for her to take the cloth that is ready beside her and clean herself ('ke'Shi'ur Veses').
10)
(a)In a case where four women gave birth in the same room, one the wife of a Kohen, one the wife of a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin and one the wife of a Mamzer, under which circumstances does the Tana of the Beraisa believe the midwife to testify which baby is which?
(b)'Ir'ur' (the objection) cannot refer to Ir'ur of one witness, due to a statement by Rebbi Yochanan. What did Rebbi Yochanan say?
(c)Initially, we establish the Beraisa by Ir'ur of two witnesses, but we finally establish it even by Ir'ur of one. How do we reconcile this with Rebbi Yochanan?
10)
(a)In a case where four women gave birth in the same room, one the wife of a Kohen, one the wife of a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin and one the wife of a Mamzer, the Tana of the Beraisa believes the midwife to testify which baby is which - provided no objection has been raised (that the baby which she claims is the child of the Kohen or of the Levi, is really the child of the Mamzer or the Nasin).
(b)'Ir'ur' (the objection) cannot refer to Ir'ur of one person, due to a statement by Rebbi Yochanan - because of the principle 'Ein Ir'ur Pachos mi'Shenayim'.
(c)Initially, we establish the Beraisa by Ir'ur of two witnesses, like we just explained, but we finally establish it even by Ir'ur of one - because Rebbi Yochanan's statement is confined to where the baby had a Chezkas Kashrus beforehand, which it not have here.
