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 82
1) WHEN IS TUMAH BATEL
(a) Answer: R. Yehudah holds as his reason - that something
is never Batel in its own species.
2) TERUMAH NOWADAYS
(b) Question: But if it wasn't dissolved, would the law be
that it is not Batel?
1. If so, rather than teaching, 'But a piece of a Tahor
sin-offering which was mixed with 100 Tahor Chulin
pieces is not Batel(') - we should make the
distinction within a Tamei piece itself!
(c) Answer: The Tana prefers to teach the case of a Tahor
piece among Tahor pieces.
2. 'This only applies if it was dissolved - but if not,
it is not Batel'.
(d) Question: According to Reish Lakish, what is the
difference between the beginning and end of the Beraisa?
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Shisha Brei d'Rav Idi): In the beginning,
it became Tamei through liquids, which is only
mid'Rabanan; the end deals with Tumah mid'Oraisa.
1. Question: But if it became Tamei through a reptile
(which is mid'Oraisa) - what would be the law - it
is not Batel?
(f) Answer #2 (Rabah): The beginning permits Chayavei Lavin
(Bitul permits eating a Tamei piece); the end deals with
Chayavei Krisus (Bitul permits a Tamei person to eat
i. Rather than teaching that a piece of a Tahor
sin-offering which was mixed with 100 Tahor
Chulin pieces is not Batel - we should make the
distinction within a Tamei piece itself!
2. Answer: The Tana prefers to teach a Tahor piece
mixed with Tahor pieces.
ii. Teach - 'We only say it is Batel by Tumah of
liquids. But by Tumah of a reptile, it is not
1. Objection: But Rabah taught, within mid'Oraisa laws,
we do not distinguish between Chayavei Lavin and
(g) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The end deals with something which
is permitted in another situation, and such a thing is
never Batel, even if mixed with 1000 pieces.
i. This is left difficult.
(h) Objection: Rav Ashi's answer makes no sense!
1. For a Kohen - the piece is always permitted!
2. For a Yisrael - it is always forbidden!
i. Rav Ashi's answer makes no sense.
(a) Question: Does R. Yochanan really hold that Terumah is
1. (Beraisa): 2 baskets, 1 of Chulin, and 1 of Terumah;
in front of them are 2 Se'im (measures), 1 of
Terumah, 1 of Chulin. The Se'im fell into the
baskets: the Chulin basket is still permitted,
because we say that the Terumah fell into the
Terumah, and the Chulin into the Chulin.
(b) We understand Reish Lakish - he holds that even by
mid'Rabanan laws, we require a majority.
i. (Reish Lakish): This is only if there is more
Chulin (in the basket) than the Se'ah of
Terumah which might have fallen in.
ii. (R. Yochanan): Even if there is not more Chulin
than the Terumah which may have fallen in.
(c) Question: It is hard to understand R. Yochanan (if
Terumah is mid'Oraisa - why don't we need a majority?
(d) Answer: This Beraisa is as Chachamim; R. Yochanan holds
as R. Yosi.
(e) (Beraisa - Seder Olam): "That your fathers inherited, and
you will inherit" - there is a 1st and 2nd inheritance,
not a 3rd (i.e. the 2nd Kedushah never ceased).
3) IS AN ANDROGINUS DEFINITELY A MALE?
1. (R. Yochanan): R. Yosi taught Seder Olam.
(f) Question: Does R. Yochanan really not require a majority
by Rabbinic prohibitions?
1. (Mishnah): A Mikvah that has exactly 40 Se'ah - a
Se'ah was put in, and a Se'ah was removed - it is
(g) Answer #1: No, he requires that a majority is not removed
(but half may be removed).
i. (R. Yochanan): (Drawn water may be added, and
water may be removed) until a majority.
ii. Suggestion: R. Yochanan requires that a
(h) Answer #2: The case of Terumah is different, since we can
make a favorable assumption (the Terumah fell into the
(a) (Question - Mishnah): An Androginus may marry (a woman;
this shows, he is certainly a man - if so, his wife
should be allowed to eat the chest and foreleg)!
(b) Answer: It means, if he married.
(c) Objection: But it says, he may marry!
(d) Counter-question: How will you explain, he may not be
married to a man!
1. Just as that is b'Di'eved, also, if he married a
(e) Rejection: No! He may marry a woman connotes,
Lechatchilah -but even b'Di'eved, he may not stay married
to a man! (The question against Reish Lakish remains.)
(f) Defense of Reish Lakish: Since R. Eliezer says that one
is liable for relations with an Androginus, as a male -
this implies, the 1st Tana is in doubt!
(g) Rejection: No - all agree, he is certainly a male - they
argue, if one is also liable to stoning for relations in
the place of his female genitals.
1. The 1st Tana says, yes; R. Eliezer says, only for
(abnormal relations as with a regular) man.