Question: Why did R. Bana'ah mark [above] the cave the place of Avraham Avinu and Adam ha'Rishon, even though Adam and Avraham are called "Adam"?

Strengthening of question: Even according to Rabanan, who say that graves of Nochrim have Tum'as Ohel [this is difficult];

Even graves of Yisrael have Tum'as Ohel only for those who died after the Parshah "Adam Ki Yamus b'Ohel" was said, for Yamus connotes those who will die!

Also, in Nazir (54a) we needed a verse to include Tum'as Maga for a grave [of one who died] before Matan Torah. This implies that it does not have Tum'as Ohel! (Tosfos Bava Basra 58a answered that since Adam and Avraham are called "Adam", we do not exclude them from Tum'as Ohel. Others say that before Matan Torah, all graves had Tum'as Ohel, or he marked them merely for honor (in Ramban 58a), or that Avraham had the law of Yisrael, for he observed the entire Torah, and also Adam was a Navi (Ritva 58a).

Question: In Avodah Zarah (3a) and Sanhedrin (59a), we expound that a Nochri who engages in Torah is like a Kohen Gadol;

It says "Asher Ya'aseh Osam ha'Adam" - it does not say Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisre'elim, rather, ha'Adam!

Answer #1 (Rashi in Sanhedrin): That Drashah is unlike R. Shimon here.

Question: We can say so according to the texts there that say R. Yirmeyah. However, according to the texts that say R. Meir, this is difficult;

We know that R. Meir holds (Kerisus 6b) that one who anoints a Nochri with Shemen ha'Mishchah is exempt;

It connotes that this is because it says "Al Besar Adam", and Nochrim are not called Adam!

Answer: We can say that R. Meir exempts because the people commanded not to anoint (i.e. Yisre'elim), one may not anoint them. Those not commanded not to anoint, there is no Isur to anoint them.

Answer #2 (to Question (a) - R. Tam): "Adam" and ha'Adam are different. Nochrim are included in ha'Adam.

Implied question: It says "it does not say Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisre'elim"! (If Adam excludes Nochrim, it should have said "it does not say Adam"!)

Answer: This means that it does not say Adam, which would connote Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisre'elim, rather, ha'Adam.

Support: In all the verses we ask from, it says Adam. We do not ask from verses that say ha'Adam.

Answer #3 (R. Meshulam): Only regarding punishments, we say "[only] you are called Adam." [Hash-m] did not want to explicitly write Yisrael regarding punishments;

However, regarding "[Asher Ya'aseh Osam] ha'Adam va'Chai", [if this excluded Nochrim], it should have written explicitly Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisre'elim, like it normally writes everywhere.

Implied question: Why do we ask from these verses, even though also Nochrim are called Adam?

Answer: Even so, we ask. Since regarding punishments Yisre'elim are called Adam, when the verse discusses only Nochrim, it should not have called them Adam.

Implied question: It says "b'Kum Aleinu Adam" (regarding Haman)!

Answer: This is because the verse mentions Hash-m's name. The same applies to "v'Atah Adam v'Lo Kel" regarding Chiram.

Implied question: It says "v'Eten Adam Tachtecha"!

Answer: We expound in Berachos (62b) "do not read this Adam, [rather, Edom]."

Implied question: It says "veha'Aretz Nasan li'Vnei Adam." We expound from this (Gitin 47a) that Nochrim can acquire [land in Eretz Yisrael]!

Answer: [The verse calls them] children of Adam ha'Rishon.

Implied question: It says "v'Chol Asher Yiga Al Pnei ha'Sadeh... Oh b'Etzem Adam"! (This should exclude Nochrim also from Tum'as Maga.)

Answer: We expound this (Nazir 53a) regarding Ohel.

Pesak (Ri): The Halachah does not follow R. Shimon, for R. Shimon ben Gamliel argues with him in a Mishnah (Ohalos 18:9), and the Halachah follows [R. Shimon ben Gamliel] in the Mishnah [without only three exceptions, and this is not one of them].

Consequence: Kohanim must be careful about graves of Nochrim.

Implied question: In Bava Metzi'a (114b), Eliyahu answered Rabah bar Avuha (who asked why Eliyahu, a Kohen, is in a Nochri cemetery) like R. Shimon's Drashah here! (This connotes that the Halachah follows R. Shimon,)

Answer: He merely dispelled the question [but this is not really the Halachah]. He relied on the majority of coffins, which have an open [cube of a] Tefach [above the Mes, so above the coffin is Tahor].

Support: We find that he used to dispel (avoid giving the real reason), e.g. when he was burying R. Akiva, and he (R. Yehoshua ben Levi) said to him "aren't you a Kohen?!", he answered "Tzadikim are not Metamei." (This is brought in Yalkut Mishlei 944, cited in R. Akiva Eiger Bava Metzi'a 114b.)

The real reason was because he was a Mes Mitzvah, for the kingdom killed him, and people were afraid to bury him.

Distinction: However, [even though the Halachah does not follow R. Shimon, Kohanim] may enter Nochri houses (even though Chachamim decreed about them, for Nochrim bury miscarriages in the walls);

Tosefta (Ohalos 18:6): Houses of Nochrim are Tamei (in Eretz Yisrael); in Chutz la'Aretz, they are Tehorim.

Explanation: This is not Yanai [ha'Melech, who was also] Kohen Gadol in Kidushin (66a), for he would not have appointed someone in place of himself!

Question: We learn this from the Reisha, which teaches that if there was a Shomeres Yavam to a Kohen Hedyot, and he was appointed to be Kohen Gadol, he may not do Yibum!

Answer (Ri): Here it teaches that he does Chalitzah. One might have thought that he does not, for it is a disgrace that she spits in front of him.

Even though this was already taught above (20a) and in Sanhedrin (18a) [it was taught again].

Explanation: Even if she converted below three years she is forbidden due to Zonah, like it says above (60b) there was a city...

The reason is because Nochrim are steeped in Zenus.

Implied question: In Kidushin (78a), we expound this from a verse in Yechezkeil, each one according to his opinion!

Answer: In any case, each forbids due to Zonah. Yechezkeil came and gave an Asmachta in a verse.

Question (R. Moshe of Puntaisa): Here it connotes that the Torah forbids a convert to a Kohen due to Zonah;

In Avodah Zarah (36b), it says that the Beis Din of Chashmona'im decreed that if one has Bi'ah with a Nochris, he is liable for Nashgaz (an acronym for Nidah, Goyah, Shifchah, Zonah);

Explanation: If he is a Kohen, he is liable [even] for Zonah.

One opinion there says that he is liable for Nashag, but not for Zonah, for they are not Mafkir their women!

Note: In our text, the other opinion obligates for Nashga; the "Aleph" alludes to Eshes Ish. Perhaps Tosfos means that of Nashgaz, he obligates only for the first three.

Partial answer: This is fine according to Abaye (Temurah 29b). He is not liable [for Zonah] for a Nochris, for it says "Lo Yikach" and "Lo Yechalel";

"Lo Yikach" does not apply to a Nochris, for Ein Kidushin Tofsin Bah, and also Chilul of her seed does not apply, for her children do not trace their lineage to him (the Bo'el).

Question: However, according to Rava who disagrees, and says "both of these are the same", i.e. both a Nochris Zonah and a Yisraelis Zonah, her Esnan (what was given to have Bi'ah with her) is forbidden [for a Korban], and a Kohen who has Bi'ah with her is lashed for Zonah, this is difficult!

Answer: Rava argues only when she was Mezanah. He learns from a Yisraelis Zonah, like Rava said, but if she was not Mezanah, Rava agrees that she is not forbidden due to Zonah, like Abaye says, for it says "Lo Yechalel";

When she was not Mezanah, they needed to decree.

However, Kichah and Chilul apply to a convert. Therefore, she is forbidden due to Zonah even if she was not Mezanah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is a Yisraelis who had Bi'ah with someone forbidden to her.

Rejection: We cannot say so, for Chayavei Lavin, with whom Kidushin Tofsin, do not make her a Zonah!

Explanation #2: Rather, it is from Chayavei Kerisos, like I explained above (49a).

Explanation: A minor will come to Pirtzah (procreation) when she matures;

The verse excludes only when she will never come to Pirtzah.

Question: According to this Tana, why did the Torah ever need to write Na'arah Besulah?!

Question: Here, it connotes that Rivkah was a Na'arah. In Seder Olam, a Beraisa explicitly says that she was three years old when Yitzchak married her!

Suggestion: Perhaps we can change the text [regarding her age at the time].

Rejection: It says there that Yitzchak was 37 at the time of the Akedah, and Rivkah was born then, and it says "Yitzchak was 40 years old [when he married Rivkah]."

Inference: She was three when he married her!

Note: Aruch l'Ner brings that Seder Olam says that she was born at the time, i.e. when Avraham was living in Eretz Plishtim, and she was 14 when she married, just like R. Shmuel (below) says! However, Maseches Sofrim explicitly says that she was three when she married.

Assertion (R. Shmuel Chasid of Spira): She was 14 years old [when she married], since the Sifri brings six pairs who lived to be the same age. One of them is Rivkah and Kehas, and Kehas lived 133 years, like a verse says;

If she was 14 when she married, the calculation is correct. When Yakov was born she was 34, and Yakov was 99 when Rivkah died, so she lived 133 years.

Source: Yakov was 63 when he received the Berachos, for then Yishmael died. Yishmael lived a total of 137 years, like it is written, and Yishmael was 14 years older than Yitzchak, and Yitzchak was 60 years old when [Yakov and Esav] were born. If so, Yishmael was 74 at the time.

There remain from the birth of Yakov until the end of Yishmael's life 63 years. He (Yakov) hid 14 years in the academy of Ever, like it says in Megilah (17a), and spent 20 years in Lavan's house;

He spent two years on the journey [back to Eretz Yisrael], and then Rivkah died, like we expound "Alon Bachus" - a double crying, over Rivkah and her nursemaid. This is 99 in all.

Conclusion: We must say that the Midrashos argue with each other. (According to the Sifri, we can say that she was truly a Na'arah, i.e. within six months after she brought two hairs.)

Observation: "Bachelor" is not precise. All the more so, if a married man had Zenus against (i.e. with a woman other than) his wife, she (the one he was Mezanah with) is considered a Zonah!

Implied question: We learn this from the Reisha! It says a Kohen Hedyot may not marry an Ailonis, and this is not only for a Kohen, like we said above!

Answer #1: In any case, we need it here for the inferences in the Gemara (whether one may be single after fulfilling Peru u'Rvu).

Answer #2: It was repeated for the argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.

Inference (Rashi): We learn this, for it did not teach "one may not neglect having a wife [unless he has children", that even if he has children, he should be married].

Explanation: According to this version, we infer from the fact that it did not teach "one may not marry an infertile wife (unable to bear children) unless he has children" [that if he has children, he need not be married].

Explanation #1: This means that also for this matter it is relevant;

The text does not say "what difference does it make?", for it is relevant for many matters, like it says explicitly!

If he has no children, he must marry a fertile wife. If he has children, he may marry an infertile wife.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Even if he has children, there is always a Mitzvah to marry a fertile wife;

However, they (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai) agree that in a case where he must sell a Sefer Torah in order to marry a fertile wife, since he has children, he should not sell it, since he can marry an infertile wife without selling it.