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 70
YEVAMOS 70 (2 Adar) - dedicated by Mr. Benayahu Krieger to the memory of his
sister, Aliza Ge'ulah (Goldberg) bas Hagaon Rav Yisrael Avraham Aba.
1) AN ENGAGED GIRL THAT IS PREGNANT
2) WHO IS ALLOWED TO EAT TRUMAH
1. If she was suspected of relations with him, even if
also suspected of relations with others, we would
attribute the child to her husband.
(b) Answer (Rava): Rather, we must say, she is also suspected
of relations with others.
2. (Rava): I say this because the Mishnah teaches, if
(a woman raped or enticed by a Kohen) gave birth,
she may eat.
3. Question (Rava): What is the case?
i. Suggestion: If she is suspected of relations
with him, but not with others - of course she
eats, the Mishnah need not teach this!
1. Even though she is forbidden both to him and to all
others - we assume that the child is from him.
(c) Objection (Abaye): Really, one can say, whenever she is
suspected of others, even if she is also suspected of her
betrothed, Rav said that the child is a Mamzer.
2. Here (by the engaged girl), she is permitted to her
husband and forbidden to all others - all the more
so, we should assume the child is from her husband!
1. The case of our Mishnah is when she was not
suspected of relations at all (except for the time
she was raped or enticed).
(d) (Mishnah): A slave disqualifies because of relations,
(but not because of seed).
(e) Question: What is the source of this?
(f) Answer: "(The slave) and her children will be (slaves)".
(g) (Mishnah): A Mamzer can disqualify or permit eating.
(h) (Beraisa): "She does not have seed" - one would only know
that this applies to children; "She does not have seed" -
this teaches, even grandchildren are considered seed;
(i) One would only know that this applies to proper seed;
"She does not have seed" - this teaches, even Mamzerim
are considered seed.
(j) Question: But this verse was already used to teach that
grandchildren are considered as seed!
(k) Answer: The verse is not needed for that - grandchildren
are as children.
1. The verse is only needed for Mamzerim.
(l) Question (Reish Lakish): (The Mishnah says, if a Nachri
or slave had relations with the daughter, her child is a
Mamzer. Is this as R. Akiva, who says that Mamzerim come
from Chayavei Lavin?
(m) Answer (R. Yochanan): It is even as Chachamim - they
admit by a Nachri or slave.
1. (Rav Dimi, citing Rebbi): A Nachri or slave that has
relations with a Bas Yisrael, the child is a Mamzer.
(n) (Mishnah): Sometimes a Kohen Gadol can forbid eating.
(o) His grandmother says, 'I should be an atonement for my
grandson the Mamzer, who permits me to eat Terumah, but
not for my grandson the Kohen Gadol, who prohibits me to
(a) (Mishnah): An Arel (uncircumcised man) or one who is
Tamei may not eat Terumah; his wife and slaves may eat.
(b) A Petzu'a Daka or Krus Shafchah - he and his slaves may
eat, but not his wife; if he did not have relations with
her since becoming a Patzu'a Dacha or Krus Shafchah, she
1. A Patzu'a Dacha is one whose Beitzim were crushed,
even one of them;
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Eliezer) Question: How do we know
that an Arel may not eat Terumah?
2. A Krus Shafchah is one whose Ever was cut.
i. If there remains from the crown, even as a
hair's breadth, he is permitted.
(d) Answer #1 (R. Eliezer): It says "A resident or hired
worker" regarding the Pesach sacrifice, and also by
1. Just as by Pesach, an Arel is forbidden, also by
(e) Answer #2 (R. Akiva): We need not learn from there - It
says "A man, a man", to include an Arel (that he may not
eat Terumah, just as one who is Tamei).
1. Suggestion: The words ("A resident or hired worker",
the Gezeirah Shaveh from which R. Eliezer learns)
must be extra, for otherwise we can challenge the
(f) Question: Which words are extra, those written by Pesach
or by Terumah?
i. The Pesach sacrifice is more stringent - one is
liable for eating it if it is Pigul (was
offered with intent to eat it past the allowed
time), or leftover, or if one eats it when he
is Tamei; we cannot learn to Terumah, which
lacks these stringencies.
2. Conclusion: Correct! The words are extra.
1. The words by Terumah are needed!
(g) Answer: The words are extra regarding Pesach.
i. (Beraisa): "A resident" - this is a Jewish
slave acquired until Yovel; "a hired worker" -
this is a Jewish slave acquired for (6) years.
2. Suggestion: It should suffice for the Torah to say
that a resident does not eat!
i. We would know, if one acquired until Yovel does
not eat, all the more so, one acquired for
3. Answer: If it only said "resident" - we would think,
this refers to one acquired for years, but one
acquired until Yovel eats!
i. By also writing "hired worker", the Torah
teaches that even one acquired until Yovel does
1. Question: "A resident or hired worker" written by
Pesach - to whom do they refer?
2. Suggestion: If they mean, one acquired for years or
until Yovel - is he exempt from Pesach?!
i. We hold, he may not eat Terumah (even if his
master is a Kohen) - this shows, he is not
really owned by his master!
3) WHY DO WE ONLY LEARN AREL FROM PESACH?
(h) Question: But still, the Gezeirah Shaveh is only extra
from one side, and R. Eliezer holds that we learn from
such a Gezeirah Shaveh only if there is no question
ii. Regarding Pesach, he should be obligated, since
his master does not own him!
3. Answer: Rather, the words are extra,
(i) Answer: Since neither word ("resident" or "hired worker")
is needed - we can apply one of them to what we wish to
learn (Terumah), and one to the source (Pesach), and now
the Gezeirah Shaveh is extra from both sides.
(a) Question: We should say - just as an Onen is forbidden to
eat the Pesach sacrifice, he is also forbidden to eat
(b) Answer (R. Yosi Bar Chanina): "A non-Kohen (will not eat
Terumah)" - a non-Kohen is forbidden, but not an Onen.
(c) Suggestion: Let us learn, a non-Kohen is forbidden, but
not an Arel!
(d) Answer: The Gezeirah Shaveh teaches that an Arel is
(e) Question: Why does he say that the Gezeirah Shaveh speaks
of an Arel, and "A non-Kohen" comes to exclude an Onen
(and not vice-versa)?
(f) Answer: It is more reasonable to say an Arel, since he
has the following shortcomings:
1. He is lacking a physical action (circumcision);
(g) Question: Why don't we learn that an Onen is forbidden,
2. This action must be done to his own body;
3. The punishment for staying uncircumcised is Kares;
4. The prohibition applied before the giving of the
5. Failure to circumcise his male slaves stops him
(from eating Pesach).
1. It can apply at any time;
(h) Answer #1: There are more stringencies by an Arel.
2. It applies to men and women;
3. An Onen cannot fix himself (end his Aninus).
(i) Answer #2 (Rava): Even if there would not be more - we
would rather learn Arel from Pesach to Terumah, since
Arel was written by Pesach, whereas Onen was not written
by Pesach, rather was learned from Ma'aser.
(j) Suggestion: Just as failure to circumcise his male slaves
stops him from eating Pesach, let us say it stops him
from eating Terumah!
(k) Rejection: "You will circumcise him, then he will eat it"
- failure to circumcise his male slaves stops him from
eating Pesach, but not Terumah.
(l) Question: If so, we should also learn "Any Arel will not
eat it" - an Arel may not eat Pesach, but he may eat
(m) Answer: The Gezeirah Shaveh "resident and hired worker"
teaches that an Arel may not eat Terumah, either.
(n) Question: Why not say, the Gezeirah Shaveh forbids one to
eat Terumah until he circumcises his slaves!
(o) Answer: It is more reasonable to learn an Arel himself,
1. The action must be done to his own body;
(p) Question: Rather say, we learn regarding one that has not
circumcised his slaves, because it can apply at any time!
2. The punishment for staying uncircumcised is Kares;
(q) Answer #1: There are more stringencies by an Arel
(r) Answer #2: Even if there would not be more - we never
find that one's own Arelus does not prevent him, but
someone else's Arelus does!
(s) Question: If we expound the words "in it" - how will we
expound "Any apostate will not eat in it"?