About this episode
From where do we derive that relations with a slave or gentile will disqualify a woman from eating truma and marrying a kohen? After an answer is brought the Gemara questions that answer as perhaps the verse means something else. The question is rejected. An alternative source is brought according to Rabbi Akiva and the Gemara asks what he would derive from the words used for the derivation in the first explanation. When it comes to disqualifying the woman, why does one who remarries his wife (after divorcing her and she married another man in the interim and is no longer married to that man), not disqualify his wife from eating truma? And according to that, why does a chalal disqualify a woman he had relations with. On Yevamot 68 there was a braita with three opinions regarding which women are disqualified from marrying a kohen on account of a sexual relationship with someone. After delving into details on the first one, now the Gemara tries to explain the differences between the second a third opinions from each other and from the first opinion. The Mishna lists cases of relationships that would not disqualify a daughter of a kohen from eating truma, like if two single people who theoretically could have married each other had intercourse. If the woman was a bat yisrael and he was a kohen, she would not be able to eat truma. However, if she became pregnant with his child and she was a bat kohen, she could not eat truma unless she lost the fetus. If she is a bat yisrael, she can't eat until the child is born. If there is a grandson who is a slave or a gentile, since they are not considered part of the family's lineage, they do not allow a woman to eat truma or disqualify her. However, a mamzer grandchild would. The Mishna describes how these cases play out. A woman can have a grandson who is a kohen and could even be a potential kohen gadol and his existence would disqualify his grandmother from eating truma, even though he also enables his mother (her daughter) to eat truma. How? If the Mishna had stated that when a woman is pregnant, she can't eat truma, then why if he dies do we enable a bat kohen to eat truma in her father's house - why are we not concerned that perhaps she is pregnant from him? Why is this different from the case of two men whose wives were switched at the chuppah who need to wait three months to be able to determine who the father of their children is? One can distinguish between lineage and truma. Do we not disqualify from truma in cases of doubt? A case is brought where they disqualify. The Gemara distinguishes between relations within marriage and without as when one has relations outside of marriage, women take precautions not to get pregnant. However, even if they were married, there is a case where there is no concern she got pregnant and can eat truma immediately following the death of her husband. Further distinctions are made to explain that case and how it fits in with what was said previously. If one engages in relations with her fiance in her father-in-law's house, what is the status of the child? Rav says the child is a mamzer, Shmuel says a shtuki (safek mamzer - one whose mother is known but unknown father). Rava says that Rav's opinion seems to be the correct one in a case where there were rumors about her having been with another man. But if there were no rumors, both would agree the child is legitimate. Rava derives this from the case in our Mishna of a kohen who engages in relations with a woman who then gets pregnant and can eat truma on account of him. Abaye disagrees and thinks that Rav will declare the child a mamzer even if she is only rumored to have slept with her fiance as that is an indication that she has likely slept with others as well. A different version of the debate between Rava and Abaye is brought.