ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 70
YEVAMOS 70 (2 Adar) - dedicated by Mr. Benayahu Krieger to the memory of his
sister, Aliza Ge'ulah (Goldberg) bas Hagaon Rav Yisrael Avraham Aba.
(a) We learn that an Eved does not invalidate his grandmother who is a bas
Kohen who married a Yisrael (who died), from eating Terumah - from the Pasuk
in Mishpatim "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tih'yeh la'Adonehah" (from which we see
that the Eved goes after his mother who is a Shifchah, and not after his
(b) From the Pasuk "ve'Zera *Ein Lah*" - we learn 'Ayin Alah', that even a
Mamzer also feeds his mother who is a bas Kohen le'Yisrael, and invalidates
his mother who is a bas Yisrael le'Kohen (should their respective fathers
(c) A grandchild invalidates and feeds - because it is logical to say that
'B'nei Banim Harei Heim ke'Banim' (see Sugya above 62b.).
(a) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether the author of our Mishnah
(which declares the son of an Akum ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael a Mamzer)
must be Rebbi Akiva - because Rebbi Akiva holds 'Yesh Mamzer mei'Chayvei
***** Hadran Alach, Almanah le'Kohen Gadol *****
(b) Rebbi Yochanan replied - that even the Rabbanan will agree that the
child of an Oved Kochavim and an Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael is a Mamzer, as
Rav Dimi Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi quoted in the name of Rebbi.
(c) The Beraisa cites the words of the frustrated grandmother who blessed
her son, whom she referred to as 'Kuza', but who cursed her grandson, whom
she called 'Kada'. 'Kuza' (a small vessel) - referred to her lowly son, the
Mamzer, whereas 'Kada' (a large, significant vessel) - to her grandson, the
***** Perek ha'Areil *****
(a) The wives of Areilim and other Temei'im are permitted to eat Terumah?
(b) The wives of a P'tzu'a Daka and a K'rus Shafchah are forbidden to eat
Terumah - because they become Chalalim through Bi'ah.
(c) The latter may eat Terumah however - if no Bi'ah took place from the
time that they became a P'tzu'a Daka and a K'rus Shafchah.
(a) Someone whose one Beitzah is crushed - is considered a P'tzu'a Daka.
(b) A K'rus Shafchah is not considered a P'sul Kahal - if even the slightest
amount of flesh remains beyond the crown (the row of flesh that surrounds
(a) Rebbi Eliezer derives the prohibition of an Areil to eat Terumah, from
the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Toshav ve'Sachir" "Toshav ve'Sachir" (from Pesach).
Rebbi Akiva derives it - from the Pasuk in Emor - "Ish *Ish* mi'Zera Aharon
ve'Hu Tzaru'a O Zav", which comes to include an Areil, comparing him to a
Tamei (about whom the Pasuk is speaking).
(b) We know that the Pasuk of "Ish Ish" refers to Terumah - because of the
conclusion of the Pasuk "u'Va ha'Shemesh va'Taher, ve'Achar Yochal *min
ha'Kod'shim*", which refers to Terumah (since regular Kodshim still requires
the Tamei person to bring his Korbanos on the following day, where
(c) Were it not 'Mufneh' (superfluous), Rebbi Eliezer would not be able to
learn his 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because it could be dismissed on the grounds
that Pesach has a Chumra over Terumah - inasmuch as it is subject to Pigul,
Nosar and Tamei.
(a) With regard to Terumah, "Toshav" implies an Eved that is Kanuy Kinyan
Olam (until the Yovel), and "Sachir", one that is Kanuy Kinyan Shanim (for
six years). The Torah did not really need to tell us that both a Kanuy
Kinyan Olam and a Kanuy Kinyan Shanim are not permitted to eat Terumah -
because once we know that a Toshav (who is a permanent Kinyan) cannot eat,
it goes without saying that a Sachir (who is only a temporary one) is not
(b) Nevertheless, the Torah found it necessary to write "Sachir" as well as
"Toshav" - because, had it just written "Toshav", we would have translated
it as a Kanuy Kinyan Shanim, and we would not have known that a Kanuy Kinyan
Olam is not permitted to eat either. It is only after the Torah has written
both, that we translate "Toshav" as Kanuy Kinyan Olam, and "Sachir" as Kanuy
(a) "Toshav" and "Sachir" by Pesach cannot possibly refer to a Kanuy Kinyan
Olam and a Kanuy Kinyan Shanim - because from the fact that they cannot eat
Terumah, it is evident that their master does not acquire them fully (in the
way that he does an Eved Ivri - see Tosfos DH 'Alma'). Consequently, the
Torah could not possibly be informing us that they are Patur from the Korban
Pesach, or that, because they are servants, they are restricted in any way.
(b) Despite the fact that it is only "Toshav ve'Sachir" that is written by
Pesach which is Mufneh, and Rebbi Eliezer himself holds that a
'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh on only one side, can nevertheless be
refuted by a Kashya, this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is considered Mufneh on *both*
sides - because, seeing as both "Toshav" and "Sachir" are Mufneh, we place
one ('Im Eino Inyan' - since it is not needed by Pesach) by Terumah.
(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina derives from "ve'*Chol Zar* Lo Yochal
Kodesh" - that 'Zarus Amarti Lach, ve'Lo Aninus', to teach us that an Onan
is permitted to eat Terumah.
(b) If not for this D'rashah - we would have forbidden a Kohen who is an
Onan to eat Terumah, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Toshav ve'Sachir"
(c) We know that an Onan is forbidden to eat the Pesach - from a 'Kal
va'Chomer' from Ma'aser Sheini, where it is written explicitly.
(d) And we preclude an Onan from "ve'*Chol Zar* ... ", and include an Areil
from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (and not vice-versa) - because the P'sul of Arlus
has more stringencies than that of Aninus (as we shell now see).
(a) Milah is more stringent than Aninus (in *four* respects): because it is
lacking an act on one's body, because one is Chayav Kareis - because it is
punishable by Kareis and because the Milah of one's sons and Avadim also
prevent a person from eating it.
(b) Aninus is more stringent than Arlus (in *three*): because it can occur
many times in a person's life, because it pertains to women as well as to
men - and because there is nothing one can do to rectify it (until its
(c) Rav maintains that, even if the Pesach would not have more stringencies,
we would not learn Terumah from Pesach with regard to Aninus (rather than
Orlah) - because Orlah is written *explicitly* by Pesach, whereas Aninus is
only learnt from Ma'aser Sheini.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "u'Malta Oso, Oz Yochal *Bo*" - to preclude the
eating of Terumah from the prohibition of Milas Zecharav va'Avadav (i.e.
that a Kohen who has uncircumcised children or Avadim, may nevertheless eat
(b) We would otherwise have applied the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Toshav ve'Sachir"
"Toshav ve'Sachir" and forbidden it.
(c) It is not possible however, to Darshen "Kol Areil Lo Yochal *Bo*", in
the same way, to permit an *Areil* to eat Terumah - because of "Toshav
ve'Sachir" "Toshav ve'Sachir".
(d) We prefer to *preclude* Milas Zecharav va'Avadav from the prohibition of
eating Terumah from "u'Malta Oso, Oz Yochal *Bo*", and to *include* that of
an Areil from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', because the latter has more
stringencies. Others say that, even if it did not, we would not switch them
(to forbid Milas Zecharav va'Avadav to eat Terumah, and to permit an
Areil) - because it would be illogical to permit someone who is himself an
Areil to eat Terumah, and to forbid him to do so on the grounds that his
children and Avadim are Areilim.
1. Arlus is more stringent than Milas Zecharav va'Avadav - inasmuch as it is
lacking an act on one's own body and because it is punishable by Kareis.
2. Milas Zecharav va'Avadav is more stringent than Arlus - inasmuch as it
can occur many times during one's life.