(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 81



(a) Our Mishnah states that if *a Saris* made Bi'ah with his Yevamah, *he invalidates her* - from which we can infer that if *someone else* did so, he does *not*.

(b) This is not a Kashya on Rav Hamnuna, who says that a Shomeres Yavam who committed adultery with another man, becomes a Zonah and is Pasul to marry a Kohen - because, in reality, our Tana too, does not differentiate between the Bi'ah of the Yavam and that of another man; and the reason he confines his statement to the Yavam, is because of the Seifa, where he specifically speaks about the Chalitzah of the Yavam.

(c) The author of our Mishnah, which says that an Aylonis becomes Pasul to marry a Kohen only if one of the brothers performs Bi'ah with her, cannot be Rebbi Yehudah - who considers an Aylonis to be a Zonah anyway.

(a) Our Mishnah states that a S'ris Chamah Kohen who marries a *bas Yisrael* may feed her Terumah - a S'ris Adam (i.e. a P'tzu'a Daka) will even invalidate a *bas Kohen* from eating Terumah.

(b) Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon say - that an Androginus Kohen who marries a bas Yisrael may feed her Terumah (because they consider him to be a Vaday Zachar).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah says - that a Tumtum who tears open and discovers that he is a male is not permitted to perform Chalitzah (if there are other brothers), because he is a S'ris Chamah.

(d) The Tana Kama permits an Androginus to marry but not to be married. Rebbi Eliezer - obligates someone who commits adultery with him as if he was a male.

(a) When the Tana permits the wife of a Kohen who is a S'ris Chamah to eat Terumah - he is teaching us that even a Kohen who is unable to have children may also feed his wife Terumah.

(b) According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon permit the wife of an Androginus to eat Terumah but not Chazeh ve'Shok. This statement makes no sense however - because Terumah is as much an Isur d'Oraysa as Chazeh ve'Shok.

(c) Resh Lakish is in fact, referring to Terumah nowadays, as we suggest. However, when he refers in the Seifa to Chazeh ve'Shok - he means 'bi'Z'man Chazeh ve'Shok', forbidding even Terumah de'Rabbanan then (in case she goes on to eat Terumah d'Oraysa).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan - permits the wife of an Androginus to eat even Chazeh ve'Shok.

(a) The text of the Beraisa referred to by Resh Lakish is 'Igul be'Igulim, Oleh' - meaning either that a ring of figs of Terumah becomes Bateil in a hundred rings of Chulin; or that a ring of Tamei figs of Terumah becomes Tahor in a hundred rings of Tahor figs of Chulin.

(b) From the fact that Resh Lakish learns 'Igul be'Igulim, Oleh' we see that Terumah nowadays must be de'Rabbanan (in spite of the fact that the Terumah of figs is only mi'de'Rabbanan anyway) - because if it was d'Oraysa, he would decree Terumah de'Rabbanan on account of Terumah d'Oraysa.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. He cites a Beraisa that reads 'Chatichah ba'Chatichos, Olah' - meaning that even a piece of Tamei Chatas that falls into pieces of Tahor Chatas (an Isur d'Oraysa), becomes Bateil.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish disagree in the Bitul of something that is sometimes counted independently, but not always (according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir): according to Rebbi Yochanan it is Bateil, even by an Isur d'Oraysa; whereas according to Resh Lakish, it is only Bateil by a pure de'Rabbanan (as we shall now see).



5) Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem normally become Batel in two hundred. Nevertheless, Rebbi Meir, in the Mishnah in Orlah, declares that bundles of Tilsan (fenugreek - a kind of legume) of K'lai ha'Kerem do not become Bateil in two hundred - because anything that is counted does not become Bateil.


(a) According to the Chachamim, the only six 'fruits' that do not become Bateil are nuts from Perech (possibly coconuts), pomegranates from Baden, sealed barrels of wine, young mangold (a type of beet) -shoots, the cabbage of Eretz Yisrael (which used to be as large as a tree) and a Greek gourd. Rebbi Akiva adds - privately-baked loaves.

(b) The Isur of ...

1. ... Orlah but not K'lai ha'Kerem - will apply to the nuts, the pomegranates and the barrels of wine.
2. ... K'lai ha'Kerem but not Orlah - applies to the mangold, the cabbage and the gourd.
(c) Rebbi Meir learns 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' - which Rebbi Yochanan interprets to mean 'es she'Darko Limanos (something that is always counted); but what is only 'Kol she'Darko Limanos (sometimes counted), does become Bateil.

(d) Resh Lakish leaves Rebbi Meir's words as they are: 'Kol she'Darko Limanos'.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana of the Beraisa holds that even Chatichah (Temei'ah) ba'Chatichos is Bateil too - and the same applies to a piece of Tamei Lechem ha'Panim that fell into pieces of Tahor bread.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees - because, in his opinion, 'Min be'Mino Eino Bateil' (something only becomes Bateil in another species, not in the same species as itself. According to Tosfos [DH 'Rebbi Yehudah'], *he* holds 'Kol she'Darko Limanos', and this seems to go better with the flow of the Sugya).

(c) If the piece of Chatas, or of Lechem ha'Panim that fell into the hundred pieces of Chulin was also Tahor, even the Tana Kama would agree that it would not become Bateil - because, says Rebbi Yochanan, seeing as the pieces can all be sold to a Kohen (except for the one piece of Chatas), the owner incurs little loss, and wherever there is little loss to the owner, an Isur d'Oraysa does not become Bateil.

(d) Nevertheless, the cake of figs of Terumah becomes Bateil in the cakes of Chulin figs in the Reisha (even though they can all be sold to a Kohen - with little loss to the owner) - because there, the Isur is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(a) Resh Lakish, who learned above that Kol she'Darko Limamos *does not become Bateil*, will explain the Reisha of the Beraisa (which holds that *it does*) - by a piece of melted bread that fell into melted bread (which becomes Bateil because it has left the realm of something that is counted).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees - because, in his opinion, 'Min be'Mino Eino Bateil' (as we explained earlier - only here, even Tosfos will agree, because the bread is melted).

(c) Nevertheless, in the Seifa, the Tana preferred to move to when the piece of Chatas is Tahor (rather than teach us that if it did not melt, then it does not become Bateil intrinsically, even when it is *Tamei*, and not because of the fact that the loss is only a small one) - because he prefers to teach us that despite the fact that the piece that fell was Tahor, and Bitul should be more easily applicable (as we find in the Mishnah in Terumos), it is still not Bateil.

Next daf


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