ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 67
(a) In a case where two objects of Nichsei Tzon Barzel originally worth
*one* thousand Zuz, go up in price and are now worth *two* thousand - Rav
Yehudah rules that besides taking the one article that is her due, the woman
also takes the other, though she must pay for it.
(b) He says that - because of 'Sh'vach Beis Avihah.
(c) Having already taught us the principle of 'Sh'vach Beis Avihah', he
nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it here - because it is one thing
to say that she can take the object in preference to the money, but quite
another, to say that, even though she has already received what is her due,
she is permitted to buy the second object.
(a) If a Kohen who is married to a bas Yisrael dies, leaving children, Rebbi
Yossi forbids Avdei Tzon Barzel to eat Terumah, 'she'ha'Ubar Posel ve'Eino
Ma'achil' (because an Ubar [an unborn fetus] invalidates but does not feed).
When he says ...
1. ... 'she'ha'Ubar Posel' - he means that it invalidates a bas Kohen who
married a Kohen, who died leaving her pregnant. The Ubar prevents her from
eating Terumah 'in her father's house'.
(b) The reason for this may be because Rebbi Yossi holds that a fetus in the
womb of a Zarah is a Zarah. Otherwise, it might be based on the Pasuk
"vi'Y'lid Beiso Heim Yochlu be'Lachmo" - from which he infers 'Yelud
Ma'achil, Eino Yelud Eino Ma'achil'.
2. ... 've'Eino Ma'achil' - he means that a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen
may neither eat Terumah, nor feed her Avadim Terumah.
(c) The difference between the two reasons - is if a bas Kohen marries a
Kohen: according to the first reason, her Avadim will be permitted to eat,
whereas, according to the second reason, they will not.
(d) The Chachamim query Rebbi Yossi's exclusive case. According to them, he
should not have confined his words to a *bas Yisrael* who married a Kohen,
seeing as the same ought to apply to a *bas Kohen* who married a Kohen.
(a) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa replied to the Chachamim's Kashya (in our
Mishnah) 'Zu Shama'ti, ve'Zu Lo Shama'ti' - meaning that a bas Yisrael who
is pregnant does not feed her Avdei Tzon Barzel Terumah, because 'Ubar
be'Me'ei Zar, Zar Hu'; whereas a bas Kohen does, because the Ubar is not a
(b) This presents Rav Yosef (who gives Rebbi Yossi's reason as 'Yelud
Ma'achil ... ') with a Kashya - because, according to him, there is no
reason to differentiate between a bas Yisrael and a bas Kohen. Note: The
Gemara on the next Amud, nevertheless explains Rebbi Yossi according to Rav
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel says that it is only Rebbi Yossi who holds 'Ubar
Eino Ma'achil', but according to the Rabbanan - if he leaves sons, the Avdei
Tzon Barzel eat because of his sons; if not, they eat because of his
brothers, and if he does not even leave brothers, then they eat because of
the rest of the family (even if his wife is pregnant).
Shmuel (who just stated that the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yossi)
explains that, when Rebbi Zakai stated that when Rebbi Yossi repeated his
ruling in the name of Sh'mayah and Avtalyon, the Chachamim agreed with him -
he meant that they lauded his opinion, but not that they agreed with it
(otherwise, Rebbi Zakai should have said not 've'Hodu Lo', but 've'Kiblu
(b) Shmuel told Rav Chana Bagdesa'ah to collect ten men. Rav Chana was
called by that name - either because he was an expert in Agadah
(be'Agad'ta), or because he came from Baghdad.
(c) Shmuel want to declare in their presence - that if someone acquires
something on behalf of an Ubar, the Kinyan is effective, and it now belongs
to the Ubar.
(d) We see from here that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yossi - who says that an
Ubar can acquire (even though he is not yet alive).
(a) The Beraisa discusses the various possibilities (with regard to Avdei
mi'Lug and Avdei Tzon Barzel eating Terumah after the husband, who is a
Kohen, dies). Should he die, leaving behind either sons and a wife who is
*not* pregnant, or sons and a wife who *is* - Avdei mi'Lug, who belong to
the wife, may eat Terumah.
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi, if he dies leaving behind ...
1. ... sons and a wife who is not pregnant - Avdei Tzon Barzel may eat
2. ... sons and a wife who *is* - they are not permitted to eat Terumah.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi quoting his father, says that a daughter
feeds, a son does not (this will be clarified later). Rebbi Shimon says that
if he leaves behind sons, then the Avdei Tzon Barzel may eat, even if his
wife is pregnant. He does not contend with the possibility that she may give
birth to a boy ... like Rebbi Yossi (despite the fact that, in principle, he
holds like Rebbi Yossi) - because he follows the majority, and the majority
of women give birth either to a girl or to a still-born baby (and only a
minority of babies are males).
(b) If he leaves only girls, he says, the Avdei Tzon Barzel are not
permitted to eat - because, he says, perhaps the baby will be a boy, in
which case, the girls will not receive a portion, only the Ubar, and an Ubar
does not feed.
(c) It was not really necessary to attribute the prohibition to the possibil
ity that the baby will be a boy - because, even if it had turned out to be a
girl, she would, in her capacity of an Ubar who is destined to receive a
portion, not have fed the Avadim Terumah. He only wished to point out that
even if the Ubar turned out to be a boy, it would still not have been able
to feed them.
(a) We explained above that Rebbi Shimon does not contend with the fact that
the Ubar might turn out to be a boy, because he goes after the majority. In
fact, it is possible to establish his opinion even if he contends with the
minority - because Rebbi Shimon speaks when the Beis-Din distributed the
property in such a way that the children who were already born received the
Avadim, and the Ubar, other property, like Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel.
(b) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says that when orphans come to divide up their
father's property - Beis-Din provide them with an Apotropos (an
administrator) to give each one property that is the most suitable for him.
(c) According to Shmuel, when the orphans grow up, they will have the
authority to nullify the Beis-Din's division of property, and will be
permitted to re-divide it. Rav Nachman says - that to so would be tantamount
to undermining the Beis-Din's authority. Consequently, he maintains, the
Beis-Din's decision, in this matter, is final.
(a) Rebbi Shimon maintains that, if the Kohen dies and leaves sons, the
Avdei Tzon Barzel are permitted to eat Terumah; the Tana Kama holds that
they are not. We initially suggest that Rebbi Shimon holds of Rav Nachman
Amar Shmuel's Takanah, whilst the Tana Kama does not. As a matter of fact,
the Tana Kama too, would agree with the Takanah, if they had been arguing in
a case when the Beis-Din divided the orphans' property. But that is not the
case. In fact - they are arguing when the orphans divided the property
themselves; Rebbi Shimon, who permits the Avadim to eat, *does not contend
with the minority* (of cases that the Ubar will turn out to be a boy - as we
explained on the previous Amud), whereas the Tana Kama *does*.
(b) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi quoting his father, says that a daughter
feeds, a son does not. Abaye initially establishes this by a case of
'Nechasim Mu'atim' - where normally, the daughters are fed from the
property, and the sons must go begging, if necessary.
(c) The case of 'ha'Bas Ma'achil' of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi is - when
there is one daughter and one son, and the deceased Kohen's wife is
(d) The reason that we do not forbid the Avdei Tzon Barzel to eat in case
the Ubar turns out to be a daughter is because - mi'Mah Nafshach; if the
Ubar turns out to be a son, he is not better than the first son, who has no
portion in the property anyway. Whereas, should it turn out to be a
daughter, then she too, will not receive a portion as an Ubar, seeing as the
fact that daughters receive Nechasim Mu'atim and not sons, is
mi'de'Rabbanan, and it is only by a Yerushah *d'Oraysa* that Rebbi Yossi
holds that an Ubar inherits, but by a Yerushah mi'de'Rabbanan, he inherits
only when he is born.
(a) Although Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi is speaking by Nechasim Mu'atim,
we currently contend, Rebbi Shimon (whose statement 'Nekeivos, Lo Yocheilu,
Shema Yimatzei Ubar Zachar, *ve'Ein le'Banos be'Makom Ben*' follows that of
Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi) - is nevertheless speaking by Nechasim
(b) We have been assuming that Nechasim Mu'atim belong to the daughters. Rav
Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan says however, that - if the sons sold Nechasim
Mu'atim, their sale is valid.
(c) According to what we just said, Nechasim Mu'atim (in spite of the fact
that it is the *daughters* are fed from them) really belongs to the sons,
proving our explanation of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi (that the daughters
feed the Avdei Tzon Barzel) incorrect.
(d) So we explain the '*ha'Bas* Ma'acheles' of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi
to mean '*ha'Eim* Ma'acheles' - meaning that she feeds her Avdei *mi'Lug*
Terumah (because she has sons). This is indeed the same as the Tana Kama
quoting Rebbi Yossi. The Tana Kama however, is none other than Rebbi
Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi.
(a) An Ubar, a Yavam, betrothal, a deaf-mute, and a nine-year old have in
common - the fact that, on the one hand, they invalidate a bas Kohen
le'Yisrael from eating Terumah, and, on the other, they do not authorize a
bas Yisrael le'Kohen to eat it.
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah also incorporates a Safek nine-year old and a
Safek Gadol who betrothed a woman, in this list.
(c) 'Nafal ha'Bayis Alav ve'al Bas Achiv (who is his wife), ve'Eino Yadu'a
Eizeh Meis Rishon'. If *he* died first - then both wives will fall to Yibum
simultaneously, in which case, the Tzarah will be Patur from Yibum because
of Tzaras ha'Bas (even though, the Tzaras ha'Bas subsequently died; whereas,
if the *Bas Achiv* died first, then the Tzarah alone will fall to Yibum, and
there will be no reason to exempt her from Yibum.
(d) The Tana therefore rules - that she performs Chalitzah and not Yibum.
(a) 'ha'Ubar Posel' (by a bas Kohen le'Yisrael). We learn this from the
Pasuk "ki'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - because, due to her state of pregnancy,
she is not like she was in her youth (before she was married).
(b) 'ha'Ubar Eino Ma'achil" (by a bas Yisrael le'Kohen) - because 'Yelud
Ma'achil, she'Eino Yelud, Eino Ma'achil' (like Rav Yosef on the previous
(c) We learn 'ha'Yavam Posel' from the Pasuk "ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah"
(since a Yevamah is not free to return to her father's house). We learn
'Eino Ma'achil' from "Kinyan Kaspo" - because she is not *his* Kinyan Kaspo,
but the Kinyan Kaspo of his brother.
(a) Eirusin invalidates a Bas Kohen to a Yisrael from eating Terumah -
because the Yisrael has acquired her.
(b) And it does not feed a bas Yisrael to a Kohen because of Ula - who
explains that Chazal decreed, forbidding her to eat, in case she sends a cup
of wine that her future in-laws give her, to her brothers and sisters (who