1)
(a)According to Rami bar Chama, the question of whether 'Yesh Chupah li'Pesulos' or not, is linked to the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir on the one hand, and Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon on the other. What does he mean by that?
(b)We reject Rami bar Chama's contention however. Why may ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir well agree that Chupah does not invalidate her from eating Terumah?
2. ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon agree that it does?
1)
(a)Rami bar Chama contends that the question of whether 'Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos' or not, is linked to the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir on the one hand - who maintains that the Kidushin of Pesulim forbids her to eat (so Chupah does too) -and Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon on the other - who hold that Kidushin of Pesulim does not forbid her to eat (in which case, neither does Chupah).
(b)We reject Rami bar Chama's contention however, on the grounds that ...
1. ... even Rebbi Meir may well agree that Chupah will not invalidate her from eating Terumah - because he concedes that Chupah (without Kidushin) is not Koneh on its own.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon may well agree that it does - because they only argue with Rebbi Meir by the Kidushin of a Pasul, since it does not lead to Bi'ah, but by a regular Chupah, which does, they will hold that Chupah is Koneh.
2)
(a)So we try to link Chupah Koneh to another Machlokes Tana'im. What is the problem with the initial statement of the Tana Kama 'Nis'u ... Kesheros u'Pesulos, O she'Nichnesu l'Chupah v'Lo Niv'alu', Ochlos me'Shelo v'Ochlos bi'Terumah'? How must we interpret 'Nis'u' in the Reisha?
(b)How does changing the word 'O' to K'gon' alleviate the problem?
(c)What does Rebbi Yishmael Bno shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say?
(d)We suggest that Rebbi Yishmael holds like Rebbi Meir (who holds that Pasul Kidushin do not feed her - and that is why Chupah does not feed her either). How do we refute the Kashya that, in that case, he ought to have said 'Kol she'Ein Bi'asah Ma'achilasah, Ein Kaspah Ma'achilasah' (rather than 'Ein Chupasah Ma'achilasah')?
2)
(a)So we try to link Chupah Koneh to another Machlokes Tana'im. The problem with the initial statement of the Tana Kama 'Nis'u ... Kesheros u'Pesulos, O she'Nichnesu l'Chupah v'Lo Niv'alu', Ochlos me'Shelo v'Ochlos bi'Terumah' is - that 'Nis'u' must then refer to Chupah together with Bi'ah, and it is inconceivable for a Bi'ah Pesulah to permit a bas Yisrael to eat Terumah.
(b)We therefore emend the Beraisa - by replacing the word 'O' with 'K'gon', in which case 'she'Nichnesu l'Chupah v'Lo Niv'alu' comes to explain 'Nis'u' (rather than to add to it).
(c)According to Rebbi Yishmael Bno shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah says - whenever Bi'ah feeds a woman Terumah, so does Chupah, and vice-versa.
(d)We suggest that Rebbi Yishmael follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir (who holds that Pasul Kidushin do not feed her - and that is why Chupah does not feed her either). We refute the Kashya that, in that case, he ought to have said 'Kol she'Ein Bi'asah Ma'achilasah, Ein Kaspah Ma'achilasah' (rather than 'Ein Chupasah Ma'achilasah') - on the grounds that he simply took his cue from the Tana Kama - who mentioned Chupah, so he did too.
3)
(a)What ruling in connection with Chupah Koneh) did Rav Amram quote in the name of Rav Sheshes?
(b)And he tried to prove his point from a Mishnah is Sotah, which rules that a Sotah says 'Amen' twice to the oath that the Kohen makes on her behalf to incorporate three cases: that she did not sin whilst she was betrothed to her husband, whilst she was married, or a whilst she was a Shomeres Yavam. Considering that a Shomeres Yavam is only a Lav, why does the Kohen incorporate it in the oath? With which Tana does this conform?
(c)Regarding the case of 'betrothed ... ', why can the Tana not be referring to ...
1. ... where they were not yet married at the time that she took the oath?
2. ... where they were already married, and he had already performed Bi'ah with her?
(d)Then in which case is the Tana speaking, according to Rav Sheshes?
(e)How does Rav Sheshes attempt to prove from here that 'Yesh Chupah li'Pesulos'?
3)
(a)Rav Amram quoted in the name of Rav Sheshes - that Chupah is Koneh.
(b)And he tried to prove his point from a Mishnah is Sotah, which rules that a Sotah says 'Amen' twice to the oath that the Kohen makes on her behalf to incorporate three cases: that she did not sin whilst she was betrothed to her husband, whilst she was married, or a whilst she was a Shomeres Yavam. Despite the fact that a Shomeres Yavam is only a Lav, the Kohen nevertheless incorporates that in the oath as well - according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that Kidushin does not take effect on Chayavei Lavin.
(c)Regarding the case of 'betrothed ... ', the Tana cannot be referring to ...
1. ... where they were not yet married at the time that she took the oath - because a woman who is betrothed but not married is not subject to drinking the water (to which end the oath is taken).
2. ... where they were already married, and he had already performed Bi'ah with her - because of the Pasuk "v'Nikah ha'Ish m'Avon", from which we learn that the miracle of the water is only effective if the man himself is clean from sin (including not having had Bi'ah with her between the time she became a Sotah and the oath).
(d)According to Rav Sheshes - the Tana is speaking in a case when her husband warned her whilst she was still an Arusah, and then, after she became a Sotah, he married with Chupah but without Bi'ah.
(e)Clearly, according to Rav Sheshes, he acquired her with Chupah (otherwise, the Torah's condition of "Tachas Ishah" would not be fulfilled).
4)
(a)Rava refutes Rav Sheshes proof however, from a Beraisa cited by Rebbi Acha bar Chanina when he came from the south. What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk in Naso "mi'Bal'adei Ishech"?
(b)How does this pose a Kashya on Rav Sheshes?
(c)How does Rami bar Chama answer this Kashya?
(d)We try to explain Shomeres Yavam in the Mishnah in Sotah in the same way. What would then be the case?
4)
(a)Rava refutes Rav Sheshes proof however, from a Beraisa cited by Rebbi Acha bar Chanina when he came from the south. The Tana learns from the Pasuk in Naso "mi'Bal'adei Ishech" - that the husband's Bi'ah must precede that of the adulterer for the water to take effect ...
(b)... in which case, Rav Sheshes explanation leaves us with the Kashya - how Chupah without Bi'ah can render her a Sotah?
(c)Rami bar Chama answers this Kashya - by establishing the Mishnah when he had relations with her whilst they were betrothed, before she became a Sotah.
(d)We try to explain Shomeres Yavam in the Mishnah in Sotah in the same way - when the Yavam had relations with her whilst she was still a Shomeres Yavam, and then, after the warning and after she became a Sotah, he married her with Chupah, but without Bi'ah.
58b----------------------------------------58b
5)
(a)We just established the case of Yevamah l'Shuk (in the Mishnah) when, after she became widowed, the Yavam was first intimate with her, then warned her not to commit adultery, and finally married her with Chupah. What is the problem with that?
(b)Why is this not a problem according to Shmuel, only according to Rav?
(c)What is wrong with establishing the Mishnah like Shmuel?
5)
(a)We just established the case of Yevamah l'Shuk (in the Mishnah) when, after she became widowed, the Yavam was first intimate with her, then warned her not to commit adultery, and finally married her with Chupah. The problem with that is - that he should then have acquired her when he was intimate with her (because we have already learned that he acquires her b'Shogeg just like b'Mezid).
(b)This is not a problem according to Shmuel - who stated above that a Bi'as Shogeg only acquires with regard to the two things mentioned in the Pasuk, but not to make her his wife (and the connotation of Nesu'ah [as opposed to Arusah] is that she is his wife; only according to Rav - who said that a Bi'as Shogeg acquires her completely.
(c)We cannot establish the Mishnah like Shmuel - because Rav Sheshes (the author of our Sugya) is coming to substantiate Rav, who said earlier 'Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos'.
6)
(a)So we establish the author of the Mishnah as being Beis Shamai, who say that Ma'amar is Koneh completely. How does this answer the previous Kashya? Why will she then remain a Shomeres Yavam even after the Bi'ah?
(b)What would Beis Hillel say, if the Yavam performed Bi'ah after having made Ma'amar with her?
(c)Why does the Tana in Sotah see fit to list Arusah and Nesu'ah on the one hand, and Shomeres Yavam and Kenusah on the other? Are they not one and the same thing?
6)
(a)So we establish the author of the Mishnah as Beis Shamai, who say that Ma'amar is Koneh completely - to make her an Arusah. Consequently, the Zikah has been removed, and the Bi'ah that he made with her does not acquire her, since what is required after Kidushin is Chupah, and not Bi'ah.
(b)According to Beis Hillel, Ma'amar does not have any significant status, in which case - the Bi'ah that the Yavam made after it acquires her, making her a Nesu'ah.
(c)Although Arusah and Nesu'ah on the one hand, and Shomeres Yavam and Kenusah on the other, are one and the same, the Tana nevertheless sees fit to mention them both - because the former pertains to the woman that he himself betrothed and that he himself married, the latter, to the woman that he betrothed through his brother, and that he married through him (and it is the way of the Tana to list things in this way).
7)
(a)According to Rashi's second Lashon, we establish the Mishnah like Beis Shamai, who maintains that Ma'amar is fully Koneh (without Bi'ah). What happened to the principle of 'Kadmah Shechivas Ba'al l'Bo'el'?
(b)Rav Papa establishes the case of Arusah even if Chupah is not Koneh. He resolves the Mishnah according to the Tana of a Beraisa. What does that Tana say?
(c)The case of Arusah now speaks when he warned her not to commit adultery whilst they were betrothed, and, after she became a Sotah, he married her and took her to the Kohen (to drink the special water). Which two principles does this Tana then not hold?
(d)What is wrong with explaining that he warned her when they were betrothed, then, after he married her and was Bo'el her, she became a Sotah?
7)
(a)According to Rashi's second Lashon, we establish the Mishnah like Beis Shamai, who maintain that Ma'amar is fully Koneh (without Bi'ah). The problem of 'Kadmah Shechivas Ba'al l'Bo'el' does not apply here - because the Bi'ah of her late husband did indeed precede that of the Bo'eil.
(b)Rav Papa establishes the case of Arusah even if Chupah is not Koneh. He resolves the Mishnah according to the Tana of a Beraisa - who says that although the husband cannot warn an Arusah to give her to drink whilst she is an Arusah, he can warn her then that she will have to drink after she becomes a Nesu'ah.
(c)The case of Arusah now speaks when he warned her not to commit adultery whilst they were betrothed, and that is when she became a Sotah. Then he married her and took her to the Kohen (to drink the special water) - and this Tana holds neither of 'Kadmah Shechivas Ba'al l'Bo'el', nor of the Derashah of "v'Nikah ha'Ish m'Avon" as we Darshened it above - see Tosfos DH 'Rav Papa'.
(d)It is not possible to explain that he warned her whilst they were betrothed, and then, after he married her and was Bo'el her, she became a Sotah - because how could she then insert in her oath 'she'Lo Satisi Arusah', when in fact, she became a Sotah when she was already a Nesu'ah?
8)
(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves all the problems by establishing the Mishnah by 'Gilgul Shevu'ah'. What does this mean? What will then be the case in our Mishnah?
8)
(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves all the problems by establishing the Mishnah by 'Gilgul Shevu'ah' - meaning that the Tana is speaking about a married Sotah whom her husband did not warn whilst she was betrothed (neither of course, can she have contravened his warning). In fact, everything took place after the marriage. However, through Gilgul Shevu'ah, the husband is able to make her swear that she did not commit adultery during their betrothal either. Needless to say, all the above specifications that apply to a Sotah, do not apply to the contingency of her having sinned then. This is the Chidush of Gilgul Shevu'ah', which is derived from here.
9)
(a)Rebbi Chanina in the name of Rebbi Yochanan says that a Kohen who makes Ma'amar with his Yevamah when there is another brother, invalidates her from eating Terumah. Why is that?
(b)On what grounds do we query this, even according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir, who forbids an Almanah who is betrothed to a Kohen Gadol to eat Terumah, for this very reason?
2. ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, who permit it?
(c)What does Ravin quoting Rebbi Yochanan say ...
1. ... in this case?
2. ... in a case where the brother is a Chalal? Why is that?
9)
(a)Rebbi Chanina in the name of Rebbi Yochanan says that a Kohen who makes Ma'amar with his Yevamah when there is another brother, invalidates her from eating Terumah - because she is now waiting for a Bi'ah Pesulah (namely, that of the brother who did not perform Yibum, and who is forbidden to him, even though his Bi'ah will be effective) - seeing as 'Yesh Bi'ah Achar Ma'amar').
(b)We query this however, even according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir, who forbids an Almanah who is betrothed to a Kohen Gadol to eat Terumah, for the very reason of Mishtameres l'Bi'ah Pesulah - on the grounds that that only applies in the case of a Bi'ah Pesulah d'Oraisa, but not in our case, where Bi'ah Achar Ma'amar is only an Isur d'Rabanan.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, who permit it - because if they permit a woman who is waiting for a Bi'ah Pesulah d'Oraisa to eat Terumah, then why would they even need to mention it in a case of one who is waiting for a Bi'ah Pesulah d'Rabanan?
(c)Ravin quoting Rebbi Yochanan therefore says that ...
1. ... in this case - even Resh Lakish will agree that she is permitted to eat Terumah (even according to Rebbi Meir).
2. ... in a case where the brother is a Chalal - even Rebbi Yochanan will agree that she is not (even according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon), because she is waiting for a Bi'as Chalal, which is a Pesul d'Oraisa.
10)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue, according to Ravin, when the Yavam Kohen gave the Yevamah a Get. What is the reason of ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan, who says that even according to Rebbi Meir, she is permitted to eat Terumah?
2. ... Resh Lakish, who says that even according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, she is forbidden?
(b)What is the difference, according to Resh Lakish, between this case, and that of 'Chozeres' (a woman who returns to her father's house on account of the Get), who is permitted to eat Terumah?
10)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue, according to Ravin, when the Yavam Kohen gave the Yevamah a Get. The reason of ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan, who says that even according to Rebbi Meir, she is permitted to eat Terumah is - because she is waiting for a Bi'ah Pesulah d'Rabanan (as we just explained).
2. ... Resh Lakish, who says that even according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon she is forbidden - because it is only Bi'ah, which normally has the power to feed Terumah, that does not invalidate her from eating; but not a Get, which does not (even though it only creates a P'sul d'Rabanan).
(b)According to Resh Lakish, the difference between this case, and that of 'Chozeres' (a woman who returns to her father's house on account of the Get), who is permitted to eat Terumah - is that, whereas a Chozeres has broken with her husband and now reverts to her father's house, a Yevamah who receives a Get, is still tied to the Yavam.