ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 86
YEVAMOS 86-90 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) When Rebbi Meir says 'Terumah le'Kohen, u'Ma'aser Rishon le'Levi', he
might be coming to teach us that Ma'aser is given specifically to a Levi -
to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who maintains that it
may be given to a Kohen, too.
(b) In fact, he is coming to teach us that, not only does one give Ma'aser
to a Levi, but also that only a Levi may eat it. We might learn this from
the Lashon 'Rebbi Elazar *Matiro* le'Kohen' that follows in the Mishnah
(though the following questions seem to refute this explanation). And we
might even infer it from Rebbi Meir's own words - because if he only comes
to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, why does he need to add
(c) 'Rebbi Elazar (ben Azaryah - see Tosfos) *Matiro* le'Kohen'; a strange
statement - since it implies that there is someone who forbids a Kohen to
eat Ma'aser, which of course, is not true.
(d) So we amend it to read - 'Nosno af le'Kohen'.
(a) Rebbi Meir learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Ki es Ma'aser B'nei Yisrael Asher Yarimu la'Hashem Terumah" - that
just as Terumah is forbidden to Zarim, so too, is Ma'aser.
(b) Rav Acha Brei de'Rabah quotes these Derashos 'mi'Shmei di'Gemara' -
meaning that he did not invent them, but that he heard them from his Rebbe,
who heard them from his Rebbe ... all the way back to Rebbi Meir himself.
2. ... "u'Meisu *Bo* Ki Yechaleluhu" - that a Zar is not Chayav Misah for
eating it be'Meizid ("Bo* [bi'Terumah] 've'Lo be'Ma'aser').
3. ... "ve'Yasaf Chamishiso *Alav*" - that, if he eats it be'Shogeg, he does
not need to pay the extra fifth that one does by Terumah ("Alav" 've'Lo al
(a) According to the Rabbanan, Torah compares Ma'aser to Terumah (in the
Pasuk in Korach) - to teach us that Tevel of Ma'aser Rishon is forbidden
just like Tevel of Terumah.
(b) One is not Chayav Misah - for eating Ma'aser Rishon, Sheini or Ani.
(c) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lo Suchal
le'Echol bi'She'arecha ... " (by Ma'aser Sheini) and "ve'Achlu bi'She'arecha
ve'Savei'u" (by Ma'aser Ani in the third year) - that, just as the latter
Pasuk is clearly speaking about Ma'aser Ani, so too, is the former. Taken
out of context of the rest of the Pasuk, the Torah is therefore coming to
introduce a La'av for eating Tevel of Ma'aser Ani.
(d) We need the Hekesh of Ma'aser to Terumah - to teach us that someone who
eats Tevel of Ma'aser (Rishon or of) Ma'ser Ani is Chayav Misah (see Tosfos
Yeshanim DH 'I').
(a) Establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir will not help to explain the
Seifa - because the Tana says there 'bas Levi le'Kohen u'Bas Kohen le'Levi,
Lo Tochal Lo bi'Terumah ve'Lo be'Ma'aser', and even according to Rebbi Meir,
how will Zarus apply there?
(b) We establish the Mishnah in connection with her giving her Sh'li'ach
permission to take Terumah from her husband's crops. The Tana learns from
the Pasuk "va'Achaltem Oso be'Chol Makom Atem u'Vateichem" - that a bas
Yisrael who is *married* to a Levi (but not if she is just betrothed to
him), is permitted to appoint her own Sh'li'ach to separate Terumas Ma'aser
on behalf of her husband.
(c) We know that the Pasuk is not coming to permit the wife of a bas Levi to
*eat* Ma'aser - because if marriage permits the wife of a Kohen to eat
Terumah, then it will certainly permit the wife of a Levi to eat Ma'aser
(which is less stringent than Terumah).
(a) According to Mar Brei de'Ravina, the Seifa comes to forbid a bas Levi to
receive Ma'aser (and a bas Kohen to receive Terumah) without her husband in
attendance. Some Amaro'im (in 'Nos'in al ha'Anusah') ascribe the prohibition
of giving Terumah to a woman who comes on her own to the granary - to the
Isur of Yichud (which one is likely to transgress under these
circumstances), a reason that goes well with Mar Brei de'Ravina's
(b) According to others, it is because her husband may divorce her, and we
are afraid that the owners, unaware that she is now divorced, may continue
to give her Ma'aser, even though she has now become a Zarah.
(c) We counter 'u'le'Ta'ameich, Gerushah bas Kohen Mi Lo Achlah
bi'Terumah' - referring to the Mishnah in Nos'in al ha'Anusah 'Ishah Ein
Cholkin Lah Terumah al ha'Goren', where some explain because of a divorcee.
Since when, we are asking, may a divorcee who is a bas Kohen, not eat
(a) So we finally forbid both a bas Kohen to receive Terumah and a bas Levi
to receive Ma'aser, at the granary - because a bas Yisrael who was married
to a Levi or a Kohen, but who is now divorced.
(b) And despite the fact that we are not talking about eating, but about
receiving a portion, the Tana nevertheless mentions that they are
'betrothed' (despite the fact that the same prohibition will apply even if
they are married) - only because of the Reisha, where it is specifically a
bas Yisrael who is *betrothed* to a Kohen who is forbidden to eat Terumah.
(a) According to Rebbi Akiva in the Beraisa, Terumah is given to a Kohen,
and Ma'aser Rishon, to a Levi. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah says - that Ma'aser
may be given to a Kohen, too.
(b) Rebbi Akiva's source is the Pasuk in Korach "ve'el *ha'Levi'im* Tedaber
... ". Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, we explain, will hold like the statement of
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - who says that in twenty-four places in T'nach, the
Kohanim are referred to as Levi'im, and this is one of them.
(c) Rebbi Akiva agrees with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement in
principle, only in his opinion, this Pasuk cannot be one of those
twenty-four places - because the Torah also writes there "va'Achaltem Oso
be'Chol Makom", and whereas a Levi may eat Ma'aser anywhere (even in a Beis
ha'K'varos), a Kohen may not.
(d) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah explains the Pasuk "va'Achaltem Oso *be'Chol
Makom*" - to mean that Ma'aser is not confined to the walls of Yerushalayim,
but can be eaten anywhere, and that it may be eaten by someone who is Tamei
(the second part of the Derashah is unclear, since it has nothing to do with
(a) Rebbi Akiva moved the entrance to that garden from which Rebbi Elazar
ben Azaryah used to take Ma'aser Rishon - so that the sole access to it was
via a Beis ha'K'varos (and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah was a Kohen).
(b) He did that - because, in his opinion, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah had no
right to collect Ma'aser Rishon.
(a) The Mishnah in Sotah states that Yochanan Kohen Gadol nullified the
Mitzvah of Viduy Ma'aser - because the text " ... ve'Gam Nesativ la'Levi ...
" was no longer correct, seeing as he himself instituted that one may also
give it to the Kohanim.
(b) Rebbi Yonasan and the elders argue over the reason for Chazal punishing
the Levi'im. According to one of them, it was because most of the Levi'im
did not return to Eretz Yisrael with Ezra - according to the other, it was
so that the Kohanim should have something to fall back on when they were
(c) We reject this version of their Machlokes - because there is no
justification to penalize the Levi'im purely in order to benefit the
(a) In fact, everyone agrees that the punishment was due because they failed
to return from Bavel. What they argue over is to whom Ma'aser was to be
given; whether it is exclusively to the poor, or whether the Kohanim are
also considered Tamei during the time that they are Tamei.
(b) Even assuming that the Kohanim during their days of Tum'ah are also
considered poor, Rebbi Akiva nevertheless moved the entrance of that garden
to face a grave-yard - because Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah was a wealthy man,
and even if other Kohanim may be considered poor when they are Tamei, he was
certainly not (Agados Maharsha).
(c) We know that most of the Levi'im did not go back with Ezra - because so
we are told by a Pasuk in Ezra (see Tosfos DH 'u'mi'B'nei')?
(d) The change that took place in the judicial system of Eretz Yisrael as a
result of most of the Levi'im remaining in Bavel - was the fact that whereas
previously, they used to appoint police officers from the Levi'im, they now
began appointing them from among the Yisre'eilim.
(a) If a bas Yisrael ...
1. ... married, first a Kohen, and then, after he died, a Levi - she may eat
(b) If she had a son from the Yisrael too, and then first her Yisrael
husband and then, her son from him, died - she may eat Ma'aser.
2. ... remained with a son from both husbands - she may eat Ma'aser.
3. ... then married a Yisrael - she may eat only Chulin.
(c) And if ...
1. ... her son from her Levi husband then died - she may once again eat
2. ... her son from her Kohen husband then died, too - she is permitted to
eat only Chulin.
(a) Exactly the same situation exists with regard to a bas Kohen who marries
a Yisrael and a Levi, but in the reverse. If a bas Kohen marries a Yisrael,
who dies leaving her with a son, and she then marries a Levi, who also dies
leaving her with a son, she may ...
1. ... not eat Terumah.
(b) Should she then marry a Kohen, who dies, leaving her with a son - she
may eat Terumah.
2. ... eat Ma'aser.
(c) If all three sons then die - she may return to her father's house and