Presentation in PDF format This month's shiurim are sponsored by Leora & Jonathan Kukin and Cynthia & Abe Steinberger in honor of Rella Feldman and Curtiss Pulitzer. “In anticipation of a beautiful Shabbat shared with cherished friends. Thank you to our gracious hosts! Also commemorating the 35th yahrzeit of Rella’s beloved father a”h, Isak Levenstein." Today's daf is sponsored by Julie Landau on the shloshim of her mother, Irene Landau. "We miss her so much already".  Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in honor of thier dear grandson, Noah Samuel Zibitt (Noah Shalom ben Elon Yitzhak haKohen) on the occasion of his Bar Mitzvah, Parshat Emor in chutz l'aretz. The Gemara finishes up the discussion of a woman’s right to claim her tzon barzel property once she is no longer married. The Mishna brings up a case of a daughter of a yisrael who is married to a kohen and when he dies, she is pregnant. According to Rabbi Yosi, her slaves cannot eat truma because of the fetus, even if she has other children with the kohen. Is it because the fetus of a non-kohen is considered a “stranger” while in utero or is it because only a born child can allow one to eat truma, but not an unborn child? Rabba and Rav Yosef disagree on this issue. A question is raised against Rav Yosef. Rav Yehuda explained in the name of Shmuel both the opinion of Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis who disagree and hold that as long as there are other brothers or others that could inherit the father, the slaves could continue to eat truma. Is it clear who Shmuel held by? Did the rabbis really disagree with Rabbi Yosi or did they concede to his opinion? A braita is brought with two other alternative opinions to Rabbi Yosi. From the braita, it is not exactly clear what they hold and the Gemara spends time explaining each approach. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai holds that it depends on whether the other children of the kohen were sons or daughters. If sons, the slaves could eat and if daughters, then they could not. If the fetus were to turn out to be male, then the daughters would in the end not inherit anything from the father and therefore, they cannot allow the slaves to eat truma even now, before the child is born. Furthermore, even if the fetus turns out to be female, then she also disqualifies the slaves from eating truma as the fetus has a share also in the inheritance and a fetus does not allow slaves to eat truma. If so, why can they eat if there are male siblings? Two answers are brought. One is that we are not concerned for a minority and whether the child will actually be born and turn out to be male and therefore will have a part in the ownership of the slave is a minority, and we are not concerned for minorities. Or if one holds we are concerned for minorities, Rav Nachman held that when orphans collect from their father’s inheritance, each one gets an apotropos who chooses part of the inheritance for his and therefore they can insure that the slaves will go to the live brothers and not to the fetus. Rav Nachman’s position is that the division by the apotroposim is final and the children have no right when they get older to change is, as otherwise, it undermines court's power. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosi held that if the kohen had a daughter, the slaves could eat truma but if he had a son, they could not. Abaye attempts to explain it that it is a case where there is a small amount of money in the estate and therefore by rabbinic law, the daughters get what is left as they are entitled to money for food and the small amount that is left goes to them. Even if the fetus turns out to be a girl, the rabbis did not institute laws to give rights to the money to an unborn child. However, two questions are brought against this explanation – one is resolved but the other is not. An alternative explanation is brought. The “daughter” actually should be read as “mother.” Rabbi Yishmael’s position is explained like this: when a kohen dies, if there are children, the