Question: Why did the Beraisa not insert Aylonis together with Akarah and Zekeinah?

Yerushalmi: This is correct text, according to the Yerushalmi: 'It is about this case (See Mesores ha'Shas) that the Pasuk says in Mishlei (23) says "Do not encroach on the longstanding boundary, and do not come to a field belonging to orphans!" '.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Furthermore, it says there that the Chachamim concede to Rebbi Elazar that, if there were children and a wife, that she either drinks or does not receive her Kesubah (See also Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Yerushalmi (cont.): And that, if he had a wife and children who died between the warning and the seclusion, she was already eligible to drink.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that we do not say that one ought not to kill the fetus.

Question: Why should we kill the fetus? Why should it bother us to wait until she gives birth?

. Source: (Bearing in mind the Mishnah in the first Perek of Erchin (Daf 7.) 'A woman who is being taken out to be killed, we do not wait for her to give birth'.

Source (cont.): And that, says the Gemara there, is based on the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv "And the two of them shall die", 'to include the fetus'. And it also implies there that this is only because the Pasuk includes it (the fetus) ...

Source (concl.): Otherwise, we would not kill the fetus, seeing as it is the property of the husband, as the Torah writes in Mishpatim (in connection with someone who killed the unborn fetus of a woman) "Just as the husband of the woman places on him".

Explanation #2: And what the Gemara means here is that 'In the case one's own pregnant wife, even though he warned her whilst she was pregnant, she drinks after she has given birth.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And we do not say like we do with regard to where she is pregnant from another man - that if he warns her whilst she is pregnant and she gives birth and the baby dies or where the baby is a stillborn, nevertheless she does not drink, seeing as she not subject to be warned, since the Sifri precludes her from the Pasuk "ki Sisteh Ishto".

Support: And like the Yerushalmi says 'If he did not have a wife and children ... it seems that she does not drink' (See also Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Question: Let Rebbi Yishmael ask on himself 'Let all women who give birth in pain seclude with a man and they will give birth painlessly. And this woman, seeing as she did not seclude herself, has lost out?

Question: But we already learned from it above (Daf 24.) to incorporate an Arusah and a Shomeres Yavam in the Din of Kinuy?

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask here 've'Eima Hachi Nami?', like it did above?

Answer: Wherever the Gemara initially thinks to learn one D'rashah from a Pasuk and it then learns a different D'rashah from it, it does not ask 've'Eima Hachi Nami?' ...

Answer (cont.): Since the conclusion is 'le'Moshe mi'Sinai' to Darshen it the other way.

Answer (cont.): Above on the other hand, it does ask - because "B'nei Yisrael" specifically implies 'to preclude Geirim'.

Precedent #1: Similarly, in the second Perek of Yevamos (Daf 22.) in the Sugya of 'Someone who has a brother 'of any kind' renders his brother's wife subject to Yibum'.

Precedent #1 (cont.): The Gemara asks there 'Is it not obvious? After all, he is his brother? We might have thought that we learn 'Achvah' 'Achvah' from the sons of Ya'akov; therefore it teaches us that we do not'.

Precedent #1 (concl.): There too, the Gemara asks 've'Eima Hachi Nami' - on account of the principle 'Ein Gezeirah Shavah le'Mechtzah', in which case we will need a reason or a Pasuk to counter it.

Precedent #2: And likewise concerning 'To inherit him (Ibid. Amud Beis) and to render himself Tamei for him, the Gemara 'It is obvious! Is he not his brother? We would have thought, based on the Pasuk "Lo Yitamei Ba'al be'Amav" - 'Sometimes a husband does render himself Tamei and sometimes he doesn't ...

Precedent #2 (cont.): How is that? He renders himself Tamei for his wife if she is Kasher, but not if she is Pasul ... Therefore it teaches us ... . ve'Eima Hachi Nami? - Because the Pasuk precludes Pesulin, and she is Pasul.

Precedent #3:

Precedent #3 (cont.): 'Is it not obvious' asks the Gemara, 'seeing as the fetus is part of her? We would otherwise hav thought that since the Torah writes "Like the husband of the woman places on him", and the fetus of the woman is the property of her husband. Therefore it teaches us that we do not say this. 've'Eima Hachi Nami' ...

Precedent #3 (cont.): Since we learn from there that it (the fetus) is the property of the husband.

Conclusion: Whereas here, having taught us that the Pasuk basically comes to each us a different D'rashah, we would not think to learn something else from it. And this is also how the Ri explains it.

Clarification: Rashi explains that this refers to a S'ris Chamah, but not to a S'ris Adam, who is forbidden to retain his wife.

Refutation: Tosfos does not know where Rashi's source that a S'ris Adam (for example, someone who drank is forbidden to retain his wife

Suggested Answer: If it is on account of the Beraisa cited in the second Perek of Yevamos (Daf 20:) and in Perek ha'Areil (Ibid. Daf 89:) 'A P'tzu'a Daka and a K'rus Shafchah, a S'ris Adam and a Zakein ... are forbidden to retain'.

Rejection: But the Tana also says a 'Zakein' - and since when is an old man forbidden to retain his wife?

Explanation: One must therefore say that it refers to a P'tzu'a Daka and a K'rus Shafchah.

Proof: As indeed, that Beraisa concludes - 'because it says "A P'tzu'a Daka and a K'rus Shafchah may not enter the congregation of Hash-m" '.

Conclusion: Tosfos does not know however, where Rashi gets it from that it refers also to the S'ris (Adam) mentioned in the Beraisa.

Question: We already know this from Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, who is already forbidden to her husband, yet we need to exclude he (from drinking) from the Pasuk "Ki Sisteh Ishto", implying that she would otherwise have to drink?

Clarification: It would seem that it is specifically from drinking that the Pasuk precludes her.

Clarification (cont.): She does however, become forbidden by means of the Bi'ah of a nine-year-old boy, even though he is not a man ...

Proof #1: Seeing as his Bi'ah does invalidate her from eating T'rumah, as we learned in Perek Almanah (Yevamos, Daf 68.)

Proof #2: And an Ervah is stoned on account of him, as we learned in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin, Daf 55:).

Location: And that Din belongs in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah, Daf 45.), similar to the Din that 'One warns against all cases of incest'.

Conclusion: Because it is only necessary to teach us here that they drink , but that are forbidden is obvious! Is It because they are Arayos, that they should be worse (and not render her forbidden)?

Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel explains that he is (not) intimate in the regular way (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), but (and) does not impregnate.

Source: As we learned in a Beraisa 'What is "Mero'ach Ashech" - 'This is 'Kalitin' - where wind entered his Beitzim, according to Rebbi Akiva, whereas according to Rebbi Yishmael, it is 'a Shachuf'.

Question: Why did Shmuel insert 'Shachuf' and not 'a Saris'.

Answer: Perhaps it is because a Shachuf is a bigger Chidush,

Question: What is Rav Huna coming to teach us, seeing as we learned in our Mishnah that one warns one's wife against all Arayos?

Answer: What Rav Huna means is - 'Someone who is forbidden to every bas Yisrael via a forbidden Bi'ah, even though they are not related, to preclude a Nochri, to whom she is forbidden anyway'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that we learn it from the Pasuk " ... asher Yin'af es Eishes Re'eihu", 'to preclude the wife of others'.

Question: Bu we learn this in Kidushin (Perek ha'Omer) from "Lo Sischaten bam"?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that the Pasuk is not coming to teach is 'Eishes Acherim', but a Yisrael who has relations with a Nochris who is married to a Nochri ...

Chidush: To teach us that even though Nochrim are subject to 'Be'ulas Ba'al', a Yisrael who is Bo'el a 'married Nochris' is Patur.

Question: It implies here that the criterion is whether it is considered 'Z'nus' or not.

Question (cont.): That being the case, what does the Mishnah come to preclude according to Rava in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos, Daf 54.) that 'Yesh Z'nus li'Beheimah'?

Question (cont.): Does this mean that Rava holds neither like Shmuel nor like Rav Hamnuna?

Amending the Text: This is how the text reads in Perek Kol ha'Asurin (Temurah, Daf 30:) "What is the source for the ruling (that the Rabbanan said) 'Ein Z'nus li'Beheimah'?

Amending the Text (cont.): He answered 'From the fact that the Pasuk does not write "Esnan Zonah ve'Kelev. And we learned also a Beraisa like that - 'Esnan Kelev etc.'

Clarification: This is Shmuel in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos, Daf 55:). And the Gemara here, also concludes according to Shmuel.

Question: On the contrary, the opposite is more logical. If we say that Ha'ara'ah is Neshikah, which is considered Bi'ah with regard to other cases of Arayos, that will explain why we need a Pasuk here to preclude it.

Question (cont.): Whereas if we say that Ha'ara'ah is Hachnasas Atarah, and that Neshikah is not considered Bi'ah by other Arayos, why is it necessary to preclude it here?