(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Yevamos 74

YEVAMOS 74 (6 Adar I) - dedicated by Harav Avi Feldman & family in memory of his father, ha'Tzadik Rav Yisrael Azriel ben ha'Rav Chaim (Feldman) of Milwaukee, on his Yahrzeit.



(a) The Beraisa states that if strands that hold back the Milah remain, the owner is not permitted to eat Terumah, Pesach, Kodshim or Ma'aser. The latter cannot mean Ma'aser Beheimah - because Ma'aser Beheimah is included in Kodshim.

(b) The Tana nevertheless needs to insert Pesach, because, had he only mentioned ...

1. ... Pesach - we would have confined the prohibition to Pesach, since that is where the Isur of Arlus is mentioned.
2. ... Kodshim - we would have interpreted Kodshim to mean Pesach (and gone on to restrict the prohibition to the Pesach, using the same argument that we used in 1.).
(c) To avoid being forced to resolve the She'eilah whether an Areil is forbidden to eat Ma'aser Sheini or not - we might interpret Ma'aser to mean Ma'aser Rishon, establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Meir, who forbids Zarim (non-Levi'im, i.e. Yisre'eilim) to eat Ma'aser Rishon. Consequently, he will also be stringent with regard to an Areil eating it.
(a) An Onan and a T'vul Yom are permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah - because although the Parah Adumah is considered Kodshim, it is only Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (and not Kodshei Mizbei'ach).

(b) A T'vul Yom who is also a Mechusar Kipurim - is not permitted to sprinkle the ashes, because if a Mechusar Kipurim even *after* nightfall is forbidden to do so, it is obvious that *before* nightfall he will not be permitted.

(a) Seeing as an Areil is forbidden to eat Terumah and permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah, we try to prove from the fact that the Tana does not include Areil in his list - that an Areil must be forbidden to eat Ma'aser; otherwise, the Tana should have said 'Areil Asur bi'Terumah, u'Mutar be'Parah u've'Ma'aser'.

(b) We reject this proof however, by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Akiva - who considers an Areil as if he was Tamei, forbidding him even to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah.

(c) The Tana who argues with Rebbi Akiva is the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yosef ha'Bavli. Rebbi Yosef ha'Bavli permits an Onan to burn the Parah, but forbids a Mechusar Kipurim - the Tana Kama permits even a Mechusar Kipurim, too.

(d) This proves that he is the Tana who argues with Rebbi Akiva - because, we assume that, just as he argues with the Tana of the Beraisa with regard to a Mechusar Kipurim, he also argues with him with regard to an Areil, permitting both whereas the Tana of the Beraisa forbade them.

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak (like Rebbi Akiva) forbids an Areil to eat Ma'aser - because of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Mimenu" "Mimenu" from Pesach.

(b) The 'Gezeirah-Shavah' must be Mufnah - because otherwise we could ask that Pesach is different, inasmuch as it is subject to Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah.

(a) The Torah writes "Al Tochlu *Mimenu* Na", because it belongs there, and "ve'Lo Sosiru *Mimenu* ad Boker" for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'. It might write "ve'ha'Nosar *Mimenu* ... ", because it goes together with the phrase which comes as an Asei to rectify the La'av - or to teach us that whatever is left over until the morning (the first morning of Yom-Tov) must be burned on the following morning (from which we learn the prohibition of burning Kodshim on Yom-Tov).

(b) We need the Pasuk (by Ma'aser) "Lo Achalti *Mimenu* be'Tamei", because it belongs there. We need the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lo Bi'arti *Mimenu* be'Tamei" for the D'rashah of Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan - who learns from there that one may burn Tamei Terumah as fuel (see 73b.).
2. ... "ve'Lo Nasati Mimenu le'Meis" for the D'rashah of Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Samya - who learns from there 'le'Meis Hu de'Lo Nasati, Ha le'Chai Dumyah de'Meis Nasati', from which we derive the concession of using Ma'aser Sheini oil to anoint oneself.
(c) We know that the latter D'rashah is speaking about *Tamei* Ma'aser - because "Mimenu" also relates to the *previous Pasuk*, "Lo Bi'arti Mimenu be'Tamei".

(d) If not for the Pasuk permitting it - we would have thought that anointing with Tamei oil is forbidden, because of the principle that we find by Terumah 'Sichah ki'Sh'siyah', and drinking it (the Tamei Ma'aser) is certainly forbidden.

(a) We suggest that perhaps "le'Meis" means that he did not buy with the Tamei Ma'aser a coffin and shrouds - in which case we would deduce from there that for a live person, one may use it to buy clothes (but not to anoint).

(b) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua answers that "Mimenu" implies from the Ma'aser itself and not from its proceeds. Rav Ashi learns the same thing from the Hekesh of "Lo Nasati" to "Lo Achalti" (that the former, like the latter, refers to the actual object and not to the proceeds.

(c) In any event, it is only "Mimenu" by *Pesach* that is Mufnah (and not the one by *Ma'aser*). Those who learn that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufnah on only one side (see above 70b.) can be refuted, will learn the concession of burning Tamei Terumah as fuel from Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah. He learns it from the Pasuk "va'Ani Hanei Nasati Lecha es Mishmeres *Terumosai*" - in the plural, from which we derive that the Torah gave the Kohen *two* Terumos, Terumah Tehorah and Terumah Temei'ah, both of which are "Lecha", for him to use (if not to *eat*, then to use as *fuel*.




(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon ... ve'Hu Tzaru'a O Zav, ba'Kodshim Lo Yochal" - that a Kohen who is Tamei is forbidden to eat Terumah. We know that the Pasuk is referring to Terumah, because of the words "mi'Zera Aharon", which implies something pertaining to *all* Kohanim (and not just to *the males*, like Kodshei Kodshim do).

(b) We suggest that perhaps the Torah is referring to Chazeh ve'Shok, which female Kohanim are also permitted to eat. 'Chazeh ve'Shok' is - the chest and the right calf of each Shelamim, which went to the Kohen.

(c) We know that that is not what the Torah is referring to here - because a Kohenes who married a Yisrael, and who returns to her father's house to eat Terumah, is not permitted to eat Chazeh ve'Shok.

(d) That is quite different than a Chalalah, who is also forbidden to eat Terumah - because a Chalalah is not considered a Kohenes (in which case, *all* Kohanim are permitted to eat Terumah, but not Chazeh ve'Shok).

(a) A Zav who had *two* sightings is permitted to eat Terumah at nightfall immediately following his Tevilah on the seventh day - whereas one who had *three*, has to still wait until he has brought his Korban on the following day.

(b) Similarly, a Metzora Musgar (who was 'locked up') is permitted to eat Terumah at nightfall immediately following his Tevilah - whereas a Muchlat (who is sent outside the camp) has to still wait until he has brought his Korban on the following day.

(c) The Mishnah in Nega'im differentiates between three levels of Tum'ah. We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Nefesh Asher Tiga Bo ... ve'Lo Yochal min ha'Kodshim Ki im Rachatz Besaro ba'Mayim" - that as soon as he has Toveled, he is permitted to eat Ma'aser.
2. ... "u'Va ha'Shemesh ve'Taher ve'Achar Yochal min ha'Kodashim" - that immediately after nightfall, he is permitted to eat Terumah.
3. ... "ve'Chiper Alehah ha'Kohen ve'Taheirah" - that the following day, after he has brought his Korbanos, he may eat Kodshim.
(a) Terumah is more stringent than Ma'aser in four regards (Mi.Ch.Pi.Z. - the same Chumros that it has over Kodshim, as we saw above on 73b.). The Chumros of Ma'aser over Terumah are contained in the acronym Ha.D.As.Tu.B - which represent Hava'as Makom; Viduy; Asur le'Onan; Asur le'Ochlan be'Tum'ah; Chayavin be'Bi'ur.

(b) Despite the fact that Ma'aser has more Chumros than Terumah, Terumah is more stringent (in the above context) than Ma'aser, for one of two reasons. One of them, because it is punishable by Misah. Rava maintains that even without that, the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yochal min ha'Kodshim" could only be speaking about Ma'aser - because the Pasuk begins with the word Nefesh, implying everyone, and not just Kohanim (which would have been the case had it referred to Terumah).

(a) From the Pasuk (written in connection with a Yoledes) "ad Me'los Yemei Taharah" - that even a Kohen who will require a Korban may eat Terumah as soon as the *day* (in this case it is *days* - forty for a boy and eighty for a girl) ends, the Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah, and from "ve'Kiper Alehah ha'Kohen ve'Taheirah" - that Kodshim only becomes permitted after the subsequent Korban has been brought.

(b) We would otherwise have thought - that it is only a T'vul Yom who does not have to bring a Korban who is permitted to eat Terumah at nightfall, but a Mechusar Kipurim must wait until after he has brought his Korban (even to eat Terumah).

(c) We have already learned how Kodshim is more Chamur than Terumah. Rava, inferring from the word "ve'Taheirah", proves that this latter Pasuk can only be referring to Kodshim (and the former one to Terumah) - because the word "ve'Taheirah" implies that before bringing her Korban (i.e. a Mechuseres Kipurim, referred to in the Pasuk "ad Melos ... "), the Yoledes was still Tamei. So bearing in mind that the Torah writes in Tzav "ve'ha'Basar (shel Kodshim) Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'acheil", how could the Pasuk of "ad Melos ... " be speaking about Kodshim (and "ve'Kiper ... " about Terumah), seeing as it is still considered Tamei?

(a) The Beraisa derives from the Pasuk "Daber el B'nei Yisrael ... *Ishah* ki Sazri'a ... " - that even a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres are subject to Tum'as Leidah.

(b) The problem with the previous D'rashah now is - that we established the Pasuk of "ad Melos ... " (written in the same Parshah) with regard to *Terumah*, and a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres (who are both forbidden to a Kohen) are prohibited from eating Terumah?

(c) On the other hand, we prove from the Pasuk (in the same context) "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" - (which can only be referring to Terumah, as the Gemara concludes in Makos) that this Parshah must be speaking about Terumah.

(d) We reconcile the fact that, on the one hand, the Pasuk is referring to a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres, and on the other, it speaks about eating Terumah - that this Parshah incorporates different topics; on the one hand it teaches us about when a Kohen may Terumah and Kodshim, on the other, which women can become Tamei Leidah.

Next daf


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