ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) The technical difference between Nechsei M'log and Nechsei Tzon Barzel is - that whereas the former are not inserted in the Kesubah, the latter are.
(b) The Halachic difference between them ...
1. ... whilst they are still alive is - that although the husband is permitted to benefit from both of them, should they appreciate or depreciate, she will either gain or lose the former, whereas it is he who will gain or lose the latter.
2. ... after they die is - similarly, that she bears the loss of the former, whilst he must replace the latter.
(c) They are called Nechsei ...
1. ... 'M'log' - because he 'skins' her (like plucking the feathers from a chicken).
2. ... 'Tzon Barzel' - he accepts full liability for them, as if they were iron sheep, which his wife will never lose.
(a) The Mishnah now rules that the Avdei M'log of an Almanah or of a Gerushah or a Chalutzah who married a Kohen Hedyot who married a Kohen Gadol may not eat T'rumah, whereas her Avdei Tzon Barzel may.
(b) The reason for the earlier ruling is - because they belong to her and she is a Chalalah (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c) We learn it from the Pasuk "v'Kohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo- Hu Yochal Bo".
(d) Nechsei Tzon Barzel are then permitted to eat T'rumah in the above case - because they are considered his property, and a Kohen does not become a Chalal by marrying a woman who is forbidden to him).
(a) The Mishnah now rules that a bas Yisrael who marries a Kohen and who brings into the marriage Avdei M'log or Avdei Tzon Barzel - are permitted to eat T'rumah.
(b) The reason for the former is - because they belong to the wife of a Kohen, and what belongs to a Kohen can feed his acquisitions T'rumah.
(c) We learn this from the Pasuk in Emor"ve'Kohen ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo ... heim Yochlu be'Lachmo" - which teaches us that the Kinyan of a Kohen (such as a wife [See Tos. Yom-Tov]) may feed the souls that he acquires T'rumah.
(d) The Tana finally rules that both sets of Avadim belonging to a bas Kohen who marries a Yisrael - are forbidden to eat T'rumah.
(a) Rebbi Yossi now rules that the Avadim of a bas Yisrael married to a Kohen, who died leaving her pregnant - are forbidden to eat T'rumah ...
(b) ... either because an Ubar cannot feed Terumah or because an Ubar be'Me'ei ZarahZar hu (a fetus in the stomach of a Zarah is considered a Zar)'.
(c) Rebbi Yossi's ruling applies even where their are other children - because the portion that the Ubar owns in the Avadim prevents them from eatng, as we explained.
(d) The Almanah herself is permitted to eat - assuming that they had other children (who are Kohanim).
(e) When Rebbi Yossi says 'she'ha'Ubar Eino Posel' - he means that in the reverse case, where the Yisrael husband of a bas Kohen dies, leaving her pregnant, the Ubar forbids her to return to her father's house to eat T'rumah.
(a) Rebbi Yossi speaks about the case of a bas Yisrael who was married to a Kohen. The Chachamim claim he ought to hold in the equivalent case, but where the pregnant wife that he left behind was also a bas Kohen (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - that the Avadim ought to be forbidden to eat, too ...
(b) ... since they accept the reason of 'Ubar Eino Ma'achil' (and not that of 'Ubar be'Me'ei Zarah Zar hu').
(c) The Chachamim permit the Avadim to eat T'rumah even in Rebbi Yossi's initial case (See Tos. Yom-Tov & Tiferes Yisrael) - because a. the Ubar does not acquire and b. they may eat on account of the other children, and ...
(d) ... if there no other children, of the deceased husband's next of kin).
(a) The first item on the Mishnah's list of things that disqualify a Yevamah from eating Terumah is an Ubar. The case is - a bas Kohen whose husband dies, leaving her pregnant and unable to return to her father's house to eat T'rumah.
(b) From the Pasuk (in Emor)"ki'Ne'urehah", we Darshen "ki'Ne'urehah", 'P'rat li'Me'uberes' (that the Almanah currently under discussion, is forbidden to return to her father's house to eat T'rumah [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(c) The second item is 'ha'Yavam', the third 'ha'Erusin and the fourth, 'ha'Cheresh. The case, like the previous one, a bas Kohen, who whose Yisrael husband dies, who is betrothed by a Yisrael or who marries a Cheresh, respectively.
(d) In the same vein, we learn from the Pasuk (Ibid) ...
1. ... "Veshavah el Beis Avihah" - 'P'rat le'Shomeres Yavam'.
2. ... "u'Bas Kohen ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar" - to preclude the bas Kohen who is betrothed to a Yisrael (since 'Havayah' implies betrothal [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(e) And the reason that she not go back to eat T'rumah there where she married a Cheresh is - because he acquires her on account of a Takanas Chachamim.
(a) The Mishnah adds in all the above cases 've'Lo Ma'achilin'. This time, the Tana is speaking about - a bas Yisrael and a Kohen.
(b) The reason/source for this, in the case...
1. ... of 'Yavam' or where she married a Cheresh is - the Pasuk "Kinyan Kaspo", which she is not, the one because she is the Kinyan of his brother (See Tos. Yom-Tov), the other, because his Kinyan is only partial.
2. ... where she is betrothed to a Kohen is - mi'de'Rabbanan, because of the concern that she will take home some T'rumah wine to share with her brothers and sisters.
(c) The last item in the Tana's list is 'a nine-year old boy'. When the Tana writes ...
1. ... 'Poslin', he is referring to - a nine-year-old the P'sul Kehunah who has relations with a bas Kohen, Levi or Yisrael, who invalidates her from eating T'rumah.
2. ... 've'Lo Ma'achilin', he is referring to - a nine-year-old-Kohen who marries a bas Yisrael, who cannot feed her T'rumah
(d) The reason for the difference is - because whereas, on the one hand, the Bi'ah of a nine-year-old is considered a Bi'ah (See Tos. Yom-Tov), he is nevertheless a Katan, whose Kinyan is not a proper Kinyan (Ibid.).
(a) The Tana now discusses a Safek nine-year-old (See Tos. Yom-Tov) and two other cases of Safeik - who require Chalitzah but not Yibum.
(b) One of the other cases is a Safek whether the boy has grown two pubic hairs or not (See Tos. Yom-Tov). The third case concerns - a house that collapsed on a man and his brother's daughter, who was also one of two wives, and we don't know who died first.
(c) The Safek now is - that if he died before his wife, then since both wives fell to his brother (who is the father of one of them), the Tzarah will be Patur from Yibum; whereas in the event that his wife died first, she (the Tzarah) will be Chayav).
(a) 'Oneis' means - rape, 'Mefateh' - seduce.
(b) The Mishnah rules that ...
1. ... a Yisrael who rapes or seduces a bas Kohen - does not invalidate her from eating T'rumah.
2. ... a Kohen who rapes or seduces a bas Yisrael - does not feed her T'rumah either, and the same applies to ...
(c) a Shoteh (See Tos.Yom-Tov) Yisrael who marries a bas Kohen and a Shoteh Kohen who marries a bas Yisrael ...
(d) ... because a Shoteh does not acquire at all, even via Chupah and Kidushin.
(a) A Yisrael who rapes or seduces a bas Kohen invalidate her from eating T'rumah ...
1. ... immediately - if he is a P'sul Kahal (not eligible to marry a Kasher bas Yisrael [See Tos Yom-Tov]).
2. ... even if he is Kasher - in the event that she becomes pregnant (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b) The latter will become permitted to eat T'rumah ...
1. ... immediately - in the event that becomes cut-up inside her.
2. ... even if the baby is born healthy - in the event that it subsequently dies.
(a) A bas Yisrael who is raped or seduced by a Kohen and becomes pregnant will become permitted to eat T'rumah - when she gives birth.
(b) She is not permitted to eat T'rumah immediately - because an Ubar cannot feed T'rumah.
(c) When the Tana says that the Ko'ach of the son is greater than that of the father, he means - that whereas the father is not able to feed the woman that he raped or seduced T'rumah, his son is.
(a) When the Tana says 'ha'Eved ...
1. ... Poseil Mishum Bi'ah', he means - that if an Eved has relations with a bas Kohen, he invalidates her from eating T'rumah (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
2. ... 've'Eino Poseil Mishum Zera', he means - that he does not invalidate his grandmother who is a bas Kohen le'Yisrael, as we shall now explain.
(b) To explain the former ruling, the Mishnah cites the case of a bas Yisrael le'Kohen or a bas Kohen le'Yisrael whose son has relations with a Shifchah, and they bear a son, who hasthe status of a Mamzer ...
(c) ... because the child of a Shifchah inherits her status.
(a) To explain the latter ruling, the Tana rules that, assuming his grandmother is a bas ...
1. ... Yisrael le'Kohen - (even if her husband died) she is permitted to eat T'rumah.
2. ... Kohen le'Yisrael - she is permitted to return to her father's house to eat T'rumah ...
(b) ... because the baby of a Shifchah goes after her mother, and not after her father (in other words, he is not considered his seed).
(c) the Mishnah finally rules in the same case, but where the grandson is a Mamzer - 'Posel u'Ma'achil' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d) The ...
1. ... case is - where a bas Yisrael le'Kohen or a bas Kohen le'Yisrael whose daughter 'married' an Eved or a Nochri, from whom she bore a son..
2. ... Halachah is, that the son, who is a Mamzer (See Tos. Yom-Tov) enables the former to eat T'rumah, and invalidates the latter (even though in both cases, her husband is no longer alive).
(a) The Mishnah states - that sometimes a Kohen Gadol invalidates his grandmother from eating T'rumah.
(b) The case begins with a bas Yisrael marrying a Kohen from whom she bears a daughter - who marries a Kohen, from whom she bears a son who is fit to be a Kohen Gadol.
(c) That son invalidates his grandmother (who if not for him, would return to her father's house ... ) from eating T'rumah - because a bas Kohen who has offspring from a Yisrael may no longer do so (as we have already learned).
(d) She might well declare - 'May there not be others like my son the Kohen Gadol, who has invalidated me from eating T'rumah!'
(e) On the other hand, the favor that the same son does for his mother is - that she enables her to eat T'rumah.