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


Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Yevamos 73


(a) "And the Tahor will sprinkle on the Tamei" - implying, he is considered Tahor for sprinkling, but is otherwise Tamei!
1. This teaches, a Tevul Yom may engage in the red heifer.
(b) Question: May an Arel eat Ma'aser (Sheni)?
1. Just as we learn from Ma'aser to Pesach that an Onen may not eat - we learn from Pesach to Ma'aser that an Arel may not eat!
2. Or, perhaps we can learn (Pesach, which is) stringent from (Ma'aser, which is) lenient, but not lenient from stringent.
(c) Answer (Rav Sheshes - Mishnah): Terumah and Bikurim (first fruits) - one is liable to die for them, one must pay an additional fifth for them, they are forbidden to a non-Kohen, they are the property of the Kohen, they become Batel (nullified) if mixed with 100 times as much Chulin (regular food), one must wash for them, and must wait until dark to eat them (if he was a Tevul Yom);
(d) These apply to Terumah and Bikurim, but not to Ma'aser.
1. If an Arel was permitted to eat Ma'aser - the Mishnah should also say, an Arel is forbidden to eat Terumah and Bikurim, but is permitted to eat Ma'aser!
(e) Rejection: This is no proof - we can say, the Tana omitted this case.
(f) Question: If so - what else did he omit?
(g) Answer #1: He omitted a case in the end of the Mishnah.
1. (Mishnah): Ma'aser and Bikurim must be brought to Yerushalayim , require confession, are forbidden to an Onen; R. Shimon permits to an Onen;
2. They require Bi'ur (eradication); R. Shimon exempts.
i. The Mishnah omits saying that they may not be burned if they are Tamei, and one is lashed for eating them if they are Tamei, which do not apply to Terumah!

(h) (Mishnah): Ma'aser and Bikurim are forbidden to an Onen; R. Shimon permits.
(i) Question: From where do Chachamim learn (that Bikurim are forbidden)?
(j) Answer: "You may not eat ... Ma'aser ... and the Terumah of your hands".
1. It was taught - "Terumah of your hands" is Bikurim; and the verse equates them to Ma'aser.
i. Just as Ma'aser is forbidden to an Onen, also Bikurim.
2. R. Shimon: The Torah called them Terumah; just as Terumah is permitted to an Onen, also Bikurim.
(k) (Mishnah): They require Bi'ur; R. Shimon exempts.
1. Chachamim equate Bikurim to Ma'aser, R. Shimon does not.
(l) Question: We said, they may not be burned if they are Tamei, and one is lashed for eating them if they are Tamei - from where do we know this?
(m) Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon): "I did not consume (Ma'aser) in Tumah" - whether I was Tamei and they were Tahor, or vice-versa;
1. Question (R. Shimon): I do not know where the Torah warned not to eat them (we only see that the Torah tells him to say that he did not do so)!
i. Question: The Torah explicitly warns a Tamei person not to eat them - "He will not eat from the Kodashim..."!
ii. Answer: R. Shimon asks, where did the Torah warn not to eat them when they are Tamei.
2. Answer (R. Shimon): "You may not eat in your gates, Ma'aser..."; another verse says, "In your gates you will eat (sacrifices which became unfit and were redeemed), a Tahor person with a Tamei person.
i. (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): The Tahor and Tamei may eat in the same plate (even though this makes the food Tamei).
3. That (sacrifices which became unfit and were redeemed) may be eaten when they are Tamei, but not Ma'aser.
(a) (Above Beraisa): These do not apply to Terumah.
(b) (R. Avahu): This is learned from "I did not eradicate it in Tumah" - you may not burn (Ma'aser) in Tumah, but you may burn Terumah oil which is Tamei.
(c) Question: Why don't we say, you may not burn (Ma'aser) in Tumah, but you may burn Kodesh oil which is Tamei?
(d) Answer: A Kal v'Chomer teaches that this is not so.
1. Ma'aser is lenient, and it may not be burned in Tumah - Kodesh which is stringent, all the more so!
(e) Objection: If so, the same applies to Terumah!
(f) Answer: "It" teaches that we may burn Tamei Terumah.
(g) Question: Why not say that "It" teaches about Kodesh?
(h) Answer: Kodesh has these stringencies:
1. It can become Pigul (abomination, if a sacrifice was offered with intent to eat it outside the allotted time);
2. It becomes Nosar if not eaten in the allotted time.
3. It is brought inside the Temple.
4. One transgresses Me'ilah for improper benefit of Kodesh.
5. A Tamei person who eats it is liable to Kares,
6. It is forbidden to an Onen.
(i) Question: Rather, we should not learn that Tamei Terumah may be burned, since it has these stringencies:
1. A Tamei person who eats it is liable to death (at the hands of Heaven).
2. A non-Kohen that mistakenly eats it must add a fifth when paying for what he ate.
3. There is no redemption for it.
4. It is forbidden to a non-Kohen.
(j) Answer #1: There are more stringencies to Kodesh.
(k) Answer #2 Kares is more severe than death.
(l) (Above Beraisa): One who eats them when they are Tamei is lashed; this does not apply to Terumah.
1. He is not lashed - but it is forbidden.
(m) Question: From where do we learn this?
(n) Answer: "In your gates you will eat *it*" -this (an unfit sacrifice which was redeemed, and became Tamei) and not something else (Tamei Terumah).
1. A Lav derived from an Ase is considered an Ase.
(o) Answer #2 (to question 1:f - Rav Ashi): We can also deduce from the beginning (of the Mishnah): that the Tana omitted some cases.
Next daf


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