(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 75


(a) "She will not touch any Kodesh" - to include Terumah!
1. Answer (Rava): Rather, we must say that the verse gives laws both of Terumah and Kodshim.
(b) There are 3 verses by Terumah; all are needed.
1. From "Until he will be Tahor", we would not know when this is - it had to say, "At nightfall, he will be Tahor".
2. If only these verses, we would think this is for one who is not Mechusar Kipurim; but a Mechusar Kipurim cannot eat until he brings his sacrifice - therefore, it wrote "Until the completion of her days of purification".
3. If only this last verse, we would think that immersion is not needed - therefore, it had to say, "Until he will become Tahor".
(c) The Tana that argues on Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael says that the Torah speaks of a Zav that saw 3 emissions and of an absolute leper; he says that "Until he becomes Tahor" means, when he brings his sacrifice.
(d) Question: Why does he require 2 verses by Kodshim?
(e) Answer: If the Torah only wrote that a woman that gave birth must first bring her sacrifice, we would think, this is because she is Teme'ah for a long time, but a Zav could eat before bringing his sacrifice.
1. If the Torah only wrote that a Zav must first bring his sacrifice, we would think, this is because emissions always make him Tamei; but one who gave birth, who can become Tehorah even while seeing blood (of purification), could eat before bringing her sacrifice.
(f) Question: Why do we need "He will immerse and be Tamei until nightfall"?
(g) Answer (R. Zeira): To say that he makes Terumah Tamei if he touches it before nightfall.
1. (Beraisa): "And he will be Tamei" - one might think, regarding everything - therefore, it says "And he will be Tahor".
2. One might think, regarding everything - therefore, it says "And he will be Tamei".
3. Resolution: He is Tahor regarding Ma'aser, and Tamei regarding Terumah.
4. Question: Perhaps we should say the opposite!
5. Answer: Presumably, just as eating Terumah is more stringent than eating Ma'aser, also touching it is more stringent.
(h) Alternatively, "She will not touch any Kodesh, and will not come to the Temple" - this warns a Tevul Yom not to eat Terumah."
(i) Question: Perhaps this is a warning not to touch Terumah!
(j) Answer: "She will not touch any Kodesh, and will not come to the Temple" - the touching referred to is similar to coming to the Temple, for which one is liable to death (at the hands of Heaven) - this must mean, eating, since one is not liable to death for touching.
1. The verse says "touch" to teach that touching Terumah is as eating it (one that may not eat it may not touch it).
(a) (Mishnah): A Petzu'a Daka ...
(b) Question: Who taught our Mishnah, that a woman engaged to a man to whom she is forbidden mi'Dioraisa, may eat Terumah?
(c) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): The Tana'im argue on this; our Mishnah is as R. Elazar and R. Shimon.
(d) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): Our Mishnah can even be as R. Meir - our Mishnah is a case where she already ate (before he became a Petzu'a Daka).
1. R. Elazar says, the fact that she already ate does not change matters - if it did help, a Bas Yisrael
that was widowed from a Kohen would continue to eat! 2. R. Yochanan says, that case is different, since the Kohen's acquisition of her lapses when he dies.
(e) (Beraisa) Question: What constitutes a Petzu'a Daka?
(f) Answer: Any man whose Beitzim were cut, even 1 of them, even if they were punctured, shriveled, or incomplete;
(g) R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan Ben Brokah says, anyone who only has 1 Beitzah is a Seris Chamah (a Eunuch because of sickness) and is Kosher (permitted to marry).
1. Question: This cannot be!
2. Correction: Rather, he is as a Seris Chamah and is Kosher.
(h) Question: One whose Beitzim are punctured - (is he really a Petzu'a Daka) and he cannot have children?
1. There was a man that climbed a date tree, whose Beitzim were punctured by a thorn, and he had children!

(i) Answer: Shmuel declared that his children are Mamzerim (i.e. his wife must have become pregnant through another man).
(j) (Rav Yehudah): A Petzu'a Daka at the hands of Heaven is Kosher.
1. (Rava): This is why we say Petzu'a Daka, and not the Petzu'a Daka.
(k) (Beraisa): It says, "A Petzu'a Daka will not marry", and right after this, "A Mamzer will not marry"; just as a Mamzer is due to man's actions, also a Petzu'a Daka.
(l) (Rava): Cut in any of them (the Ever, Beitzim, or strings on which the Beitzim are suspended), crushed in any of them, cut off in any of them.
(m) Question: How do we know that Petzu'a Daka applies in that area - perhaps it applies to the head!
(n) Answer #1 (Rava): Since the Torah did not say how many generations are forbidden, we infer it is in that area (i.e. that makes him sterile).
1. Question: Perhaps it did not list generations, because only he is forbidden, but not his offspring!
(o) Answer #2 (Rava): Since Petzu'a Daka is written next to Crus Shafchah, we know it applies to the same area.
1. Question: How do we know that Crus Shafchah applies in that area - perhaps it applies at the lips!
2. Answer: "Shafchah (dripping)", in the place of dripping.
3. Question: Perhaps it applies at the nose!
4. Answer: It does not say, "Cut in the place of dripping (before the cut)", rather, "Crus Shafchah" - because of the cut, it drips; if not cut, it flows - but the nose, in either case it drips.
(p) (Beraisa): It says, "A Petzu'a Daka will not marry", and right after this, "A Mamzer will not marry"; just as a Mamzer results from that area, also a Petzu'a Daka.
(a) (R. Chiya Bar Aba): If it is punctured below the crown, and the other side of the puncture is above the crown, the man is Kosher.
(b) (R. Asi): R. Yehoshua Ben Levi says, the entire crown must be intact.
(c) (Mishnah): If there remains from the crown ...
(d) Question (Ravina): A thread's width - must this be on the entire crown, or on the majority?
(e) Answer (Rabah Tosfa'ah): On the majority, and towards the body.
(f) (Rav Huna): If it is cut on a slant, as a quill, he is Kosher; grooved as a gutter pipe, he is forbidden.
1. In the latter case, it is cooled by the air; in the former case, it is not.
(g) (Rav Chisda): If it is as a gutter pipe, he is Kosher; as a quill, he is forbidden.
1. In the former case, it rubs; in the latter case, it does not.
(h) (Rava): Presumably, Rav Huna is correct - the air is important; rubbing is not a problem, since it is wider further down as a barrel.
(i) (Ravina to Mereimar): Rav Papa ruled, whether as a quill or a gutter pipe, he is Kosher.
1. However, he was unsure if this is below the crown or above.
(j) Question: Certainly, this must be above - if below, even if the Ever was cut off he is Kosher!
(k) Answer: Ravina was just testing Mereimar.
(l) There was a case, Mar Bar Rav Ashi cut it as a quill, and declared that he is Kosher.
(m) There was a case, the conduit for seed was closed, and it would come out through the place for urine. 1. Rav Bivi Bar Abaye: He is Kosher.
Next daf


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