(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 82


QUESTION: In the beginning of the Beraisa, the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah argue whether a piece of meat ("Chatichah") of a Korban Chatas which is Tamei that becomes mixed with a hundred Chatichos that are Tahor is Batel or not. In the end of the Beraisa, everyone agrees that if a Chatichah of Chatas Tehorah falls into a hundred Chatichos of *Chulin*, it is not Batel. The Gemara explains this Beraisa according to the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, and according to the opinion of Reish Lakish.

RASHI (81b, DH Divrei, and 82a ul'Reish Lakish) explains that according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Beraisa is discussing whole Chatichos which are considered "Kol she'Darko Limanos" (see previous Insight). The Beraisa holds that something that is "Kol she'Darko Limanos" *is* Batel, for it does not have the status of a "Davar sheb'Minyan." In the second case of the Beraisa, the Chatichah of Chatas is not Batel because it is a "Hefsed Mu'at" -- it involves only a minimal loss, since one can sell the entire mixture to a Kohen (who may eat both meat of the Chatas and Chulin).

The Gemara asks that according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that the Tana'im of the Beraisa hold that an item which is "Kol she'Darko Limanos" *is* considered a "Davar sheb'Minyan" and is *not* Batel, then the Beraisa must be discussing disintegrated Chatichos which are no longer a "Davar sheb'Minyan." If the Beraisa is discussing disintegrated pieces, asks the Gemara, why, in the second case of the Beraisa, is the Terumah Tehorah that became mixed with Chulin *not* Batel?

What is the Gemara's question? The Gemara just said, according to Rebbi Yochanan, that the Chatichah of Chatas is not Batel in Chulin (even though it is not a "Davar sheb'Minyan") because it is a Hefsed Mu'at, a minimal loss. Likewise, according to Reish Lakish, the reason the Chatichah that became mixed with the Chulin is not Batel is because it is a Hefsed Mu'at! It does not matter that the Chatichah is disintegrated and is no longer a "Davar sheb'Minyan," Hefsed Mu'at provides a new reason for it not to become Batel!


(a) From RASHI (DH Tehorah, DH Tehoros) it appears that the Gemara understood Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan to be arguing over this very point; should we be more stringent by Chatas mixed in Chulin (because it is only Hefsed Mu'at) or not? According to Reish Lakish, the Gemara (at the top of the page) proves that when Chatas mixed in Chulin, and both are Tahor, we are not more stringent, but rather more *lenient* -- since the Chatas that was mixed in can at least be eaten by Kohanim. In the Reisha, when Chatas Tamei was mixed in, since even Kohanim cannot eat it, we will be more stringent. That is why the Gemara assumes that Reish Lakish cannot explain that we are more stringent in the Seifa because it involves a "Hefsed Mu'at." Instead, the Gemara suggests other reasons for being more stringent in the Seifa (e.g. that the Seifa involves an Isur d'Oraisa, while the Reisha only involves Tum'ah mid'Rabanan).

However, this explanation has a number of weak points. First, as Rashi himself asks, if we are more stringent when the mixture may be eaten without Bitul, why does Rebbi Yosi allow an Igul of Terumah to become Batel? Even if it is not Batel, a Kohen can eat the mixture! Rashi's answer, that we need not be stringent regarding an Igul since Terumah is separated from fruits only mid'Rabanan, leaves much to be desired. Throughout the Sugya we were assuming that Terumah of fruits is just as stringent as Terumah of grains; if the latter is d'Oraisa, we will deal stringently with the former as well. This was the very basis for Reish Lakish's proof, from the Igul that is Batel, that the obligation to separate *all* Terumah nowadays is only mid'Rabanan. (TOSFOS YESHANIM 81b, ARUCH LA'NER ibid.)

In addition, according to Rashi, the logic of Rebbi Yochanan and of Reish Lakish are diametrically opposed. Rebbi Yochanan says we must be more stringent with Terumah in Chulin, while Reish Lakish says we must be more lenient! (MAHADURA BASRA)

(b) Perhaps for these reasons, TOSFOS (81b DH Divrei) suggests another explanation for the difference between the Reisha and Seifa of the Beraisa. According to Tosfos, Rebbi Yochanan understood that the reason the ruling in the Seifa was more stringent was because a cut of meat is a "Davar Chashuv." It may not be "Es she'Darko," but it is nevertheless important in its own right since it is a "Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskabed," a portion worthy of honoring someone with (by presenting it to him to eat). Such an item is never Batel, as the Gemara says in Chulin 97b.

Why, then, is the cut of Chatas meat Batel in the Reisha, which discusses Chatas Tamei falling into pieces of Chatas Tahor? Tosfos explains that meat of a Chatas can never be called "worthy of honoring someone with," since Kohanim do not give out meat of Korbanos to honor their guests. The meat is divided equally among the Kohanim serving there, and is not served to guests. Since, when we apply the laws of Bitul, the meat will not be used to serve to guests, it can become Batel. In the Seifa, when the Chatas fell into *Chulin*, since, if we would apply the laws of Bitul, the meat would *not* be considered meat of a Korban and it would be possible to serve it to guests, the meat is considered "Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskabed," and it cannot become Batel.

Tosfos himself asks, though, that according to this explanation it makes no difference whether Chatas *Tahor* or Chatas *Tamei* fell into Chulin. In either case, it would not become Batel. If so, it is not clear why the Beraisa chose to discuss specifically Chatas *Tahor* that fell into Chulin, in the Seifa. (According to Rashi, of course, the reason it discussed Chatas Tahor is because it is only when Kohanim can eat the meat that the Chatas is not Batel, according to Rebbi Yochanan, or is more easily Batel, according to Reish Lakish; see though RASHASH and PORAS YOSEF on the words of Rashi here and BA'AL HA'ME'OR.)

(c) Some of the Rishonim (see BA'AL HA'ME'OR and MILCHAMOS) had a different Girsa in the Gemara, in which the Gemara does not preface its question with "And according to Reish Lakish...." They explain that both according to Rebbi Yochanan and according to Reish Lakish, the Gemara has not yet found an explanation for the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa.

(The GE'ONIM, cited by the Rashba, had yet a third Girsa, according to which the Gemara is asking for the difference between the Reisha and Seifa only according to *Rebbi Yochanan*. According to the way the MILCHAMOS explains our Gemara, the Gemara indeed *cannot explain* the difference between the Reisha and Seifa according to Reish Lakish -- since there should have been a Gezeirah enacted that Tamei in Tahor is not Batel just like Chatas in Chulin is not Batel. That is why the Gemara asks for the difference only according to Rebbi Yochanan.)

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which discusses two baskets, one with Chulin and one with Terumah. Two dishes, one of Chulin and one of Terumah, fell into the two baskets, and it is not known which dish fell into which basket. The Halachah is that we assume that the Terumah fell into the basket of Terumah, and that the Chulin fell into the basket of Chulin. The Gemara says that even if the Terumah fell into the Chulin it would only create an Isur d'Rabanan, and that is why we may be lenient in this case.

Why, though, would Terumah mixed into Chulin only be an Isur d'Rabanan? Reish Lakish explains that it is because the basket of Chulin contains more Chulin than the dish of Terumah that might have fallen into it, so even if the Terumah fell into the Chulin basket, mid'Oraisa it is Batel b'Rov.

However, we know that Terumah is Batel with only one in one hundred. The SIFRI derives this from the verse, "Es Mikdesho Mimeinu" (Bamidbar 18:29; see TOSFOS 73a, DH Mah, and RASHI in Chulin 99a, DH sh'Nisbashlu), which teaches that if the amount that one was Mekadesh as Terumas Ma'aser falls back into the original produce from which it was removed, it all becomes Asur, because it is one out of a hundred (one part Terumah and 99 parts Chulin). From there we learn that if it falls into one hundred parts (one part Terumah and one hundred parts Chulin), it is Batel.

Why, then, does our Gemara say that if there is more Chulin in the basket, the Terumah would be Batel mid'Oraisa? Terumah is only Batel mid'Oraisa when there is at least one hundred parts of Chulin in the mixture! (It cannot be that when it says that there is mostly Chulin in the basket, it means that there is one hundred times more Chulin than Terumah, because then there would be no question that the Terumah is Batel, and we would not need the Heter that "we say that the Terumah dish fell into the Terumah basket." Even if the Terumah fell directly into the basket of Chulin and there was no basket of Terumah there, the basket of Chulin would be Mutar because the Terumah is Batel in one hundred parts of Chulin.)


(a) TOSFOS (73a, DH Mah sh'Ein and elsewhere) proves from this Gemara that the Sifri is teaching only an Asmachta. Mid'Oraisa, even Terumah is Batel b'Rov. This seems to be the way that all of the Rishonim learned this Gemara.

(b) The OR SAME'ACH (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 15:16) suggests a novel approach. He says that perhaps the Sifri is indeed teaching a Halachah d'Oraisa, and Terumah is *not* Batel b'Rov mid'Oraisa. Why, then, does Reish Lakish say that there must be more Chulin than Terumah, if the Terumah still will not be Batel mid'Oraisa until there is a hundred times more Chulin than Terumah?

The Or Same'ach says, based on the RAMBAM in Hilchos Shechitah 5:3, that an Isur that is explicitly written in the Torah is treated with greater stringency than an Isur that is not written explicitly in the Torah (even though it may still be d'Oraisa; see also RAN in Nedarim 8a, DH Ha Ka Mashma Lan, and SHITAH MEKUBETZES Kesuvos 40a, DH Hachi Nami). The Isur of Terumah that fell into a Rov of Chulin (and less than one in one hundred) is not written explicitly in the Torah, whereas the Isur of a mixture that is *mostly* Terumah is explicitly forbidden by the Torah. That is why Reish Lakish says that we are lenient once there is Rov Chulin.


Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,