ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 51
(a) Despite the fact that a Mechalel Shabbos receives Sekilah, the Beraisa
suggests that a bas Kohen should receive Sereifah - according to Rebbi
Shimon, who holds that Sereifah is more stringent than Sekilah. Perhaps
Kohanim, who have extra Mitzvos, will also receive a more severe punishment.
(b) Nevertheless, the Pasuk confines this stringency specifically to a bas
Kohen, and not to a ben Kohen - because as far as the ben Kohen is
concerned, the Torah is lenient regarding Chilul Shabbos in the realm of
Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash (so it would be illogical to treat him more
stringently in other regards).
(c) The Tana initially thought that the Pasuk of bas Kohen was referring to
one who is unmarried. We would then interpret the word "li'Zenos", which
implies that she becomes a Zonah through the current act of adultery -
according to Rebbi Elazar, who holds that any immoral act, even between a
Panuy and a Penuyah, renders her a Zonah.
(a) Rava in the name of Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi learns from the
1. ... "Heinah" (by bas Bito) from "Heinah" (by bas Bito shel Ishto) - that
just as his wife's daughter has the same Din as her granddaughter, so too,
is his daughter (whom the Torah does not mention) forbidden just like his
granddaughter (whom it does).
(b) We cannot learn the punishment of Sereifas Bito from a 'Kal va'Chomer'
from bas Bito - because of the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' (one cannot
punish through a 'Kal va'Chomer').
2. ... "Zimah" (by bas Bito) from "Zimah" (by Sereifas bas Ishto) - that
just as Bito is included in the prohibition, so too, is she included in the
(c) If, as the Beraisa initially thinks, "Aviv" came to confine the Din of
Sereifah to a *bas Kohen* who had relations with her father - we would then
confine the prohibition to a Kohen, negating the possibility of learning the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Heinah" "Heinah", 'Zimah" Zimah".
(a) We ask why the Beraisa thought that, without the 'Vav', "bas Kohen"
precluded one who was married to a Levi, a Yisrael ... ", seeing as in all
of these cases, she is still a bas Kohen, and besides - the Torah did not
write 'Kohenes le'*Kohen*'?
(b) To answer these Kashyos, we quote the next words in the Pasuk "Ki
Seichel li'Zenos", implying - that her current Z'nus disqualifies her from
the Kehunah, to preclude one who was already excluded.
(c) The Pasuk ...
1. ... "u'Vas Kohen Ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar" - comes to preclude a bas Kohen
who is married to a Mamzer or a Nasin (as we just explained).
(d) The first Pasuk incorporates a bas Kohen who marries a Nasin and a
Mamzer, but not a Chalal (which we learn from "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o",
'Makish Zar'o Lo') - since, unlike them, the Chalal himself is permitted to
marry into the Kahal (i.e. a Kasher Yisre'elis).
2. ... "ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah ki'Ne'urehah" - comes to preclude a bas
Kohen who is married to a Levi or Yisrael, who, as we see from this Pasuk,
is disqualified from eating Terumah as long as she is married to him.
(a) A Yisrael who eats Terumah be'Shogeg must pay owner the principle plus
an extra fifth. If the person who ate it was a bas Kohen who is married to a
Yisrael - she pays only the principle.
(b) According to the Chachamim in a Beraisa, the same will apply to a bas
Kohen who is married to a Pasul, and she will also receive Sereifah should
she commit adultery. Rebbi Meir however, holds - that she has to pay the
extra fifth as well, and she receives Chenek, in the event that she commits
(c) The author of our current Beraisa is therefore - the Chachamim.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer in our Beraisa states - 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah, ve'es
Chamihah bi'Sekilah' (though it is at first unclear what he means).
(a) The problem with interpreting Rebbi Eliezer's statement literally (that
if a bas Kohen committed adultery with her father, she would receive
Sereifah, with her father-in-law, Sekilah) - would be that this Din should
not have been mentioned specifically by a bas Kohen, seeing as it pertains
equally to a bas Yisrael (as we already asked earlier).
(b) If we interpreted his words to mean 'bi'Reshus Avihah bi'Sereifah,
bi'Reshus Chamihah bi'Sekilah', then he would be saying that an Arusah
receives Sereifah, and a Nesu'ah, Sekilah.
(c) This explanation would be problematic, according to ...
1. ... the Rabbanan - inasmuch as they say the opposite, that a Nesu'ah bas
Kohen receives Sereifah, and an Arusah, Sekilah.
(d) Nor would this concur with the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael, who agrees
with Rebbi Shimon with regard to a Arusah, because with regard to a
Nesu'ah - he holds that she receives Chenek (like a bas Yisrael).
2. ... Rebbi Shimon - who says that both receive Sereifah.
(a) Ravin sent an explanation in the name of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina.
When he equated 'es Avihah' with 'le'Matah mi'Miysas Avihah', he meant -
that someone who, in the case of a bas Yisrael would receive a lesser
punishment than the Sereifah that is due for adultery with a father (i.e. a
Nesu'ah, who in the case of a bas Yisrael would receive Chenek), receives
Sereifah by a bas Kohen, as if she had committed adultery with her father;
whereas 'es Chamihah' means that someone who, in the case of a bas Yisrael
would receive a more severe punishment than the Sereifah that is due for
adultery with a father (i.e. an Arusah, who in the case of a bas Yisrael
would receive Chenek), receives Sekilah, as if she had committed adultery
with her father-in law. Rebbi Eliezer will then concur with - the Rabbanan.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah refutes Ravina's explanation - on the grounds that Rebbi
Eliezer said nothing about 'Le'ma'alah' and 'Le'matah'.
(c) So Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes Rebbi Eliezer like Rebbi Yishmael, in
which case 'es Avihah' means bi'Reshus Avihah, whereas 'es Chamihah' means -
that she actually committed adultery with her father-in-law.
(d) Rava objects to Rebbi Yirmiyah's explanation however - because it is
inconsistent; either Rebbi Eliezer is speaking when the bas Kohen committed
adultery with her father in one case, and with her father-in-law in the
other, or he is referring to their domains, but not one of each.
(a) Rava himself establishes Rebbi Eliezer like Rebbi Shimon, and 'es
Avihah' means bi'Reshus Avihah' (an Arusah). In spite of the fact that
according to Rebbi Shimon, she too, receives Sereifah, Rebbi Eliezer holds
've'es Chamihah bi'Sekilah', because he Darshens - 'Nesu'ah ka'Arusah' to
mean that just as an Arusah goes up one level (from Sekilah to Sereifah), so
too, does a Nesu'ah (from Chenek to Sekilah).
(b) Rebbi Chanina objects to Rava's explanation - on the grounds that,
according to Rebbi Shimon's interpretation of the Pasuk, there is no room
for such an explanation, since when the Torah sentences a bas Kohen to
Sereifah, it either includes a Nesu'ah, or it doesn't (and if it doesn't,
then she receives Chenek, like a bas Yisrael).
(c) To establish Rebbi Eliezer like the Rabbanan, Ravina finally amends his
statement to read - 'es Avihah bi'Sekilah, ve'es Chamihah bi'Sereifah'.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer refers to 'es Avihah', and not 'Arusah' - because he takes
his cue from the Tana Kama, who in turn, merely cites the Lashon of the
Pasuk "es Avihah Hi Mechaleles".
(a) When Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah rules like Ravin in the name of
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina ('Lema'alah min Avihah', 'Le'matah min Avihah'),
Rav Yosef objects - 'Hilchesa li'Meshicha' (what is the point of such a
ruling, which has no ramifications until the arrival of Mashi'ach)?
(b) Abaye retorts - that one could ask the same Kashya in connection with
learning the entire Shechitas Kodshim (better known as Maseches Zevachim).
What is the point of learning it before the coming of Mashi'ach (see
(c) Rav Yosef nevertheless justified his Kashya - by explaining his Kashya
like this: What is the point of ruling like Ravin in the name of Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Chanina against Ravina, who both establish Rebbi Eliezer like the
Rabbanan, only one leaves the original wording intact, whilst the other one
That is of no relevance, and can wait until the era of
Mashi'ach, when the dead will be resurrected, and it will be possible to ask
Rebbi Eliezer himself what he meant.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael establishes the status of the bas Kohen in the Pasuk
"u'Vas Kohen Ki Seichel Li'zenos" - as a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (like we
suggested earlier in the Sugya).
(b) Based on the Pasuk "Ish Asher Yinaf es Eishes Re'ehu Mos Yumas ha'No'ef
ve'ha'No'afes", he extrapolates that a bas Kohen Nesu'ah receives Chenek
(like a bas Yisrael), because he says - just as when the Pasuk takes a bas
Yisrael out of the realm of Chenek, to sentence her to Sekilah, it does so
by an Arusah exclusively, so too, when it sentences a bas Kohen to Sereifah,
it does so by an Arusah exclusively (and a Nesu'ah remains the same as an
Arusah bas Yisrael).
(c) We know that a Nesu'ah bas Yisrael receives Chenek - because S'tam
Miysah always entails Chenek.
(d) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "va'Asisem
Lo Ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv" - "le'Achiv", 've'Lo le'Achoso' (which
teaches us that, wherever the punishment of the man and the woman differ
(such as in the case of a bas Kohen who committed adultery) the woman's
Zomemin receive the same punishment as the Bo'el.
(a) Rebbi Akiva (who is the Tana Kama of the Beraisa that we discussed
earlier in the Sugya) argues with Rebbi Yishmael. He maintains that a bas
Kohen Nesu'ah too, is included in the Chiyuv Sereifah, and he precludes a
Penuyah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Avihah" "Avihah". Rebbi Yishmael asks
on him from his own source - that the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ought to
confine the Din of bas Kohen to a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (like he actually
(b) Rebbi Akiva answers - "Bas" "u'Bas Ani Doresh, meaning that the extra
'Vav' comes to include a Nesu'ah (as we learned in the Beraisa).
(c) Rebbi Yishmael continues to query Rebbi Akiva - because he understand
Rebbi Akiva's statement to mean that he Darshens "Bas" "u'Bas" in place of
the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (in which case he has no source to preclude a Penuyah
from the Din of bas Kohen.
(d) In fact, Rebbi Akiva really meant - to Darshen "Bas" "u'Bas" in addition
to the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', excluding a Penuyah from the one, and including a
Nesu'ah from the other.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael Darshens from "Bas" "u'Bas" - that a bas Kohen retains
her Kedushas Kehunah even if she has a blemish. Otherwise, he would have
learned from a ben Kohen that she changes her status to that of a bas
(b) Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk in Emor "Heim Makrivim ve'Hayu
Kodesh" - that a bas Yisrael retains her status even if she has a blemish.
(c) Rebbi Yishmael still need "Bas" "u'Bas" to teach us - that it applies to
a bas Kohen. As for the Pasuk "Heim Makrivim ve'Hayu Kodesh" (which after
all, is written in the masculine), it pertains exclusively to male blemished
Kohanim, to teach us that even though they are disqualified from performing
the Avodah, they remain forbidden to make themselves Tamei Meis.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael Darshens the Pasuk there "es Avihah Hi Mechaleles" (from
which the Tana Kama of the Beraisa learned 'Z'nus Im Zikas Ba'al') like
Rebbi Meir, who Darshens from this Pasuk - that we despise her father and
treat with profanity, by cursing the one who bore her, the one who brought
her up and the one from whose loins she came out (referring to her mother,
her nurse and her father respectively - Agados Maharsha).
(b) Rav Ashi extrapolates from Rebbi Yishmael - that the current custom to
refer to a Rasha 'Rasha ben Tzadik' as a Rasha ben Rasha, must be based on
(c) The conclusion of our Mishnah 'Zu Mitzvas ha'Niskalin refers to the
procedure of the Sekilah ceremony described in the previous Mishnos, and
serves as a prelude to the following Mishnah which begins 'Mitzvas