1)

(a)According to Rav, a Yevamah acquires his Yevamah completely with any of the inferior Bi'os mentioned in our Mishnah; According to Shmuel, he only acquires her regarding the two points mentioned in the Parashah. Which two points?

(b)What is the difference between the two opinions?

(c)One of the three ramifications of 'l'Potrah min ha'Yibum' is that should the Yavam die having had children from another wife, she is Muteres l'Shuk. What are the other two?

(d)Why (according to the first Lashon), does even Shmuel agree that he acquires her completely if she fell to Yibum after they were married?

2)

(a)We establish the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel by a Yevamah who fell to Yibum after being betrothed to the Yavam's brother. What would be the Din if she fell after being married to him?

(b)Rav's reason is based on the fact that the Torah includes Bi'as Shogeg like Mezid. What is Shmuel's reason?

(c)What will Shmuel say in a case where the Yavam performed a proper Bi'ah?

(d)Shmuel's interpretation of our Mishnah conforms with another statement made by Rav Nachman in his name. Which statement?

3)

(a)We now query Shmuel from a Beraisa, which discusses a bas Yisrael who becomes betrothed to a Kohen who becomes a Cheresh before the marriage. According to the Tana, will she be permitted to eat Terumah ...

1. ... after the marriage?

2. ... if he subsequently married her and died, and she fell to a Yavam who is also a Cheresh?

(b)Why does this pose a Kashya on Shmuel?

(c)According to what we just said, Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel will have a problem with this Beraisa the way it stands. How does Rav Nachman therefore emend the Beraisa

(d)And how will he now explain the final words of the Beraisa 'b'Zu Yafeh Ko'ach ha'Yavam mi'Ko'ach ha'Ba'al'?

4)

(a)In the second Lashon, Rav and Shmuel both agree that if the Yevamah fell to Yibum from the betrothal, she is not permitted to eat Terumah. What is then their Machlokes?

(b)How will we now emend the statement of Rav Nachman quoting Shmuel, who said that whenever the husband fed his wife, the Yavam may feed his Yevamah?

(c)What does 'Bi'ah' mean in this context?

(d)Rav will explain the Beraisa (which permits a bas Yisrael who fell from a Kohen who had become a Cheresh before they were married, and who then fell to his brother who was a Cheresh, to eat Terumah), like Shmuel explained it in the first Lashon. How will Shmuel now explain it?

5)

(a)Under which circumstances is a bas Yisrael married to a Kohen who became a Cheresh before the marriage, permitted to eat Terumah?

(b)According to the Chachamim, if her son dies, she may no longer eat Terumah. How does Abaye refute Rabah's contention that Rebbi Nasan permits her to eat Terumah because, since she has already eaten, she may continue to do so?

(c)Why indeed, do we not apply the Sevara of 'Ho'il she'Kvar Achlah'?

(d)And on what grounds does Abaye refute Rav Yosef's contention that Rebbi Nasan's reason is because intrinsically, the marriage of a Kohen Cheresh feeds his wife Terumah, and Chazal did not decree on the marriage of a Cheresh on account of betrothal (which does not)?

6)

(a)We answer that the Tana only mentions 'the son' to teach us that when there is a son, the Rabanan concede that she is permitted to eat. Why can we then not explain that Rebbi Nasan really argues with the Rabanan even in the Reisha (in the case where there is no son), only he waited until the Rabanan had finished both of their statements before arguing with them?

56b----------------------------------------56b

7)

(a)What did Rav Sheshes teach Rav Amram about the wife of a Yisrael who was raped?

(b)He tried to support his ruling from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which says that the same applies to someone who has relations with one of the Arayos. What did he think 'the same applies' refers to?

(c)We try to refute his proof by explaining that 'v'Chen ... ' refers to Ha'ara'ah or to unnatural relations with any of the Arayos. Why can that not possibly be correct?

(d)To what else might 'v'Chen ... ' nevertheless refer, negating Rav Sheshes' proof?

8)

(a)How do we emend Rabah's statement: 'Eishes Kohen she'Ne'ensah, Ba'alah Lokeh Alehah Mishum Zonah'?

(b)From which Pasuk in Naso do we learn that an Eishes Yisrael who is raped is permitted to her husband?

(c)What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from there with regard to an Eishes Kohen?

9)

(a)Rebbi Zeira queries Rabah from the Beraisa, where it appears that an Eishes Kohen who is raped is no more than a 'Lav ha'Ba mi'Klal Aseh'. So what if it is? Why does that pose a Kashya on Rabah?

(b)How does Rabah answer the Kashya?

(c)What does Rabah say, according to the second Lashon?

(d)Rebbi Zeira poses the same Kashya on Tum'ah, as he asked on Zonah, and Rabah gives the same answer. On what grounds is the Kohen not Chayav because of Zonah too, according to this Lashon?

10)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah (Rebbi Meir), the moment a Kohen Gadol betroths a bas Kohen who is a widow, or a Kohen Hedyot, a divorcee, they (the women) are forbidden to eat Terumah. On what grounds do Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon disagree?

(b)Assuming that this Machlokes extends to a bas Yisrael (who is permitted to eat Terumah when she becomes betrothed to a Kohen, according to the Mishnah Rishonah in Kesuvos), why do/es ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir forbid her to eat Terumah?

2. ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon permit it?

(c)Why do Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon concede that, once they marry, she is forbidden to eat Terumah?

(d)Should either of them divorce her or die after they are married, the bas Kohen remains forbidden to eat Terumah, and the bas Yisrael, to marry a Kohen. What will Rebbi Meir hold in a case where they died after the betrothal (but before the marriage)?

11)

(a)Rebbi Meir learns the prohibition of the above women to eat Terumah (or to marry a Kohen) even after Erusin, from a 'Kal va'Chomer'. Which 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(b)On what grounds do Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon reject Rebbi Meir's 'Kal va'Chomer'?

12)

(a)What does Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya maintain regarding, whether or not, a Kohen who is a Petzu'a Daka (whose Beitzim are crushed) may feed the bas Yisrael whom he betrothed, Terumah?

(b)On what grounds do we refute this explanation?

(c)Why can we not answer that here too, he is able to feed a bas Geirim?