(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 82


(a) Answer: R. Yehudah holds as his reason - that something is never Batel in its own species.
(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!
2. 'This only applies if it was dissolved - but if not, it is not Batel'.
(c) Answer: The Tana prefers to teach the case of a Tahor piece among Tahor pieces.
(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?
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!
ii. Teach - 'We only say it is Batel by Tumah of liquids. But by Tumah of a reptile, it is not Batel'!
2. Answer: The Tana prefers to teach a Tahor piece mixed with Tahor pieces.
(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 Kadshim).
1. Objection: But Rabah taught, within mid'Oraisa laws, we do not distinguish between Chayavei Lavin and Chayavei Krisus!
i. This is left difficult.
(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.
(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 mid'Oraisa today?
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.
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.
(b) We understand Reish Lakish - he holds that even by mid'Rabanan laws, we require a majority.
(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).
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 Kosher.
i. (R. Yochanan): (Drawn water may be added, and water may be removed) until a majority.
ii. Suggestion: R. Yochanan requires that a majority remains!
(g) Answer #1: No, he requires that a majority is not removed (but half may be removed).
(h) Answer #2: The case of Terumah is different, since we can make a favorable assumption (the Terumah fell into the Terumah).
(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 woman.
(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.
Next daf


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