POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Yevamos 67
1) TZON BARZEL
(a) (Rav Yehudah): If she brought in 2 vessels worth 1000
Zuz, and they increased in value to 2000, she takes one
as her Kesuvah (the dowry she brought in), and may take
the other by paying its value, because of the praise of
her father's house.
2) EATING TRUMAH AFTER THE MARRIAGE
(b) Question: What new matter does this teach - that what she
brought from her father's house is hers? We already know
this from his earlier teaching!
(c) Answer: From there, we would only know when she can take
it all because of her Kesuvah; but that she can pay money
to retrieve her vessels, one would think not - we hear,
this is not so.
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yosi): A Bas Yisrael married a Kohen; he
died, and she was pregnant - her slaves do not eat
Terumah because the fetus owns part of them, and a fetus
disqualifies from eating, but does not permit eating;
3) WHEN HE LEFT CHILDREN AND A PREGNANT WIFE
(b) Chachamim: According to your words, this should apply
even by a Bas Kohen!
(c) (Gemara) Question: Is the reason of R. Yosi because he
holds that a fetus in the womb of a Zarah (non-Kohenes)
is a Zar - or, does he hold that one who is born permits
others to eat Terumah, but not one that has not yet been
1. This affects a pregnant Kohenes - (if the former,
her slaves eat; if the latter, they don't).
(d) Answer #1 ( Rabah): He holds, a fetus in the womb of a
Zarah is a Zar.
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): He holds, one who is born permits
others to eat Terumah, but not one that has not yet been
(f) Question (Beraisa - Chachamim): According to your words,
what do you say by a Bas Kohen married to a Kohen?
(g) R. Yosi: I did not hear that law; I only heard the law I
1. This fits well according to the opinion that a fetus
in the womb of a Zarah is a Zar.
(h) (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): This is R. Yosi's opinion,
but Chachamim say, if the Kohen left sons, her slaves eat
on account of his sons; if he left no sons, they eat on
account of his brothers; if he left no brothers, they eat
on account of the whole family.
2. Question: According to the opinion that one who is
born permits others to eat Terumah, but not one that
has not yet been born - why did he say, I only heard
the law I said - they are the same question!
i. This is left difficult.
(i) Question: This (is R. Yosi's opinion) - implying, Shmuel
himself does not hold this way?
1. But Shmuel said, 'Gather me 10, I will say before
them, one who acquires on behalf of a fetus, it is a
(j) Answer: Rather, This (is R. Yosi's opinion) - and Shmuel
holds as him.
(k) Question: What did Shmuel come to teach - that Chachamim
argue on R. Yosi - but they do not argue!
1. (R. Zachai): R. Yosi gave this testimony in the name
of Shemayah and Avtalyon, and Chachamim admitted to
(l) Answer (Rav Ashi): It does not say, they accepted it; it
says, they admitted, that it is reasonable.
(a) (Beraisa): If he (died and) left sons, both types of
slaves eat; if he left her pregnant, neither type eats;
if he left sons and she was pregnant, Milug slaves eat as
she does; Tzon Barzel slaves do not eat, because the
fetus owns a share, and a fetus disqualifies from eating,
but does not permit eating - this is R. Yosi's opinion;
(b) R. Yishmael Bar R. Yosi says in the name of his father, a
daughter permits them to eat, a son does not permit them
(c) R. Shimon Bar Yochai says, if he left sons, both types of
slaves eat; if he left daughters, they do not eat, lest
the fetus is a male, and the daughters do not inherit
when there is a son.
1. Question: Why did R. Shimon Bar Yochai say, lest the
fetus is a male - even if it is a female, they do
(d) Question: The 1st Tana says, if he left sons, they eat -
but the fetus owns a share!
2. Answer: True! R. Shimon Bar Yochai covers both
i. If it is a female - she also disqualifies them
ii. If it is a male - the daughters do not inherit
(e) Answer #1: He holds, we are not concerned for a minority
(that a boy will be born).
4) CASES THAT ONLY DISQUALIFY FROM EATING
(f) Answer #2 : Really, he holds, we are concerned for a
minority - but we fix things as Rav Nachman.
1. (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): Orphans that come to
divide their father's estate - Beis Din appoints a
guardian, who picks for them a nice share; when they
grow up, they can protest;
(g) Suggestion: The Tana'im argue whether we make an
enactment as Rav Nachman.
2. Rav Nachman himself holds, they cannot protest - if
they could protest, there is no strength to the
enactment of Beis Din!
(h) Rejection: No, all agree to it - they argue whether we
are concerned for a minority.
(i) (Above Beraisa): R. Yishmael Bar R. Yosi says in the name
of his father, a daughter permits them to eat, a son does
not permit them to eat.
(j) Question: Why doesn't a son permit them to eat - because
of the share of the fetus - the same should apply when he
left a daughter!
(k) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, the estate is small, and
there is a son with the daughter - either way, the fetus
has no share.
1. If it is a male - it is no better than the son (who
does not inherit).
(l) Answer #2: Rather, when it says that a daughter permits
the slaves to eat - this means, the mother.
2. If it is a female - a daughter eats by Rabbinical
enactment - there is no enactment before she is
3. Question: How can you establish the Beraisa to speak
of a small estate - the end of the Beraisa says,
lest the fetus is a male, and the daughters do not
inherit when there is a son.
i. To the contrary - when the estate is small, it
goes to the daughters!
4. Answer: The end of the Beraisa is a case of a large
5. Question: Is it really true that a small estate goes
to the daughters?
i. (R. Asi): If (male) orphans sold property from
a small estate, the sale stands!
(m) Objection: But R. Yosi taught that!
(n) Answer: Yes! R. Yishmael Bar R. Yosi also taught that
part of the Beraisa in the name of his father.
(a) (Mishnah): A fetus, a Yavam, engagement, a deaf man, and
a 9-year old disqualify but do not permit to eat;
(b) If we are in doubt if a boy is 9 years old or not; if we
are in doubt if a boy brought 2 hairs or not; if a house
fell on a man and his brother's daughter, and it is not
known who died first - the widow does Chalitzah but not
(c) (Gemara): A fetus disqualifies if she is a Bas Kohen
widowed or divorced from a Yisrael - "In her youth (she
returns to eat Terumah)" - to exclude a pregnant woman;
(d) If she is a Bas Yisrael widowed or divorced from a Kohen,
a fetus does not permit her to eat - one who is born,
permits eating; one who is not born, does not permit.
(e) A Yavam disqualifies a Bas Kohen widowed or divorced from
a Yisrael - "She will return to her father's house", to
exclude a Shomeres Yavam.
(f) If she is a Bas Yisrael widowed or divorced from a Kohen,
a Yavam does not permit her to eat - "the acquisition of
his money" - she is the acquisition of his brother.
(g) A Bas Kohen engaged to a Yisrael is disqualified from
eating, since he acquired her.