(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 66

***** Perek Almanah le'Kohen Gadol *****


(a) What is the difference between Nechsei mi'Lug and Nechsei Tzon Barzel?

(b) Is the husband obligated to feed his wife's Avdei mi'Lug?

(c) If a Kohen Gadol marries an Almanah, Avdei Tzon Barzel are permitted to eat Terumah, whereas Avdei mi'Lug are not.
Why is that?

(d) Is there any difference (with regard to eating Terumah) between the Avdei mi'Lug and the Avdei Tzon Barzel of ...

  1. ... a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen?
  2. ... a bas Kohen who married a Yisrael?
(a) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Emor ...
  1. ... "ve'Kohen ki Yikneh Nefesh (Kinyan Kaspo) Hu Yochal Bo"?
  2. ... "ve'Kohen ki Yikneh Nefesh *Kinyan Kaspo* Hu Yochal Bo"?
(b) Why do we need a Pasuk to include Eved she'Kanah Avadim"? Why do we not just say that 'Mah she'Kanah Eved Kanah Rabo' (whatever a slave acquires, belongs automatically to his master)?

(c) What problem does this Beraisa pose with the Avdei mi'Lug of an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol in our Mishnah?

(d) How do we initially try to resolve this problem?

(a) In view of what we just learned, why should an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol be any different than a Kohen who is an Areil or who is Tamei, whose Avadim are permitted to eat, even though they themselves are not?

(b) We ask on this from a Mamzer, who is not allowed to eat, yet he causes his grandmother to eat.
What is the case? What would be the Din if he was not a Mamzer?

(c) Ravina answers that the Tana is not forbidding *anyone* who cannot eat to cause others to eat, only someone who himself eats only because he is a Kinyan. Rava disagrees; according to him, the Avdei mi'Lug of an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol are permitted to eat Terumah min ha'Torah.
Why did the Chachamim forbid it?

(d) Rav Ashi too, ascribes the prohibition to a Rabbinical decree.
On what grounds do we refute his initial suggestion, that it is because she might continue to feed them after her husband dies?

(a) We conclude that Rav Ashi is referring to a decree whose reasoning is confined to an Almanah who is a bas Kohen.
Which decree are we talking about?

(b) Then why does the Tana not specifically state that the decree is confined to an Almanah who is a bas Kohen, but not to a bas Yisrael?

Answers to questions



(a) If a divorced woman claims back objects of Nichsei Tzon Barzel, and her husband insists on paying her money, Rav Yehudah rules that the Din is with her.
Why is that?

(b) According to Rav Ami, the Din is with him.

(c) What snag does Rav Safra find with Rav Ami's reasoning in the words 'Ho'il ve'Chayav be'Achariyusan'?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Terumos say (with regards to feeding Terumah) about ...
  1. ... a Yisrael who hired a cow from a Kohen?
  2. ... a Kohen who hired a cow from a Yisrael?
(b) How come that a Kohen may feed Avdei Tzon Barzel, Terumah (precisely because he is responsible for them), whereas a Kohen who hired a cow from a Yisrael may not?

(c) The Seifa of the Mishnah in Terumos, which speaks about 'Sham Parah', conforms with our Din of Avdei Tzon Barzel.
What does 'Sham Parah' mean?

(d) What distinction does the Tana make there between Yisrael she'Sham Parah mi'Kohen, and Kohen she'Sham Parah mi'Yisrael?

(a) At whose D'rashah were Rabah and Rav Yosef sitting when they cited Beraisos to prove both the opinions of Rav Yehudah and of Rav Ami?

(b) What does the Beraisa that supports the opinion of ...

  1. ... Rav Ami say with regard to a husband or a wife who knocks out a tooth or who blinds the eye, of an Eved of Tzon Barzel?
  2. ... Rav Yehudah say with regard to the husband selling Nichsei Tzon Barzel?
(c) What does the Tana add to Nichsei Tzon Barzel in this regard?

(d) What did Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rule with regard to Nichsei Tzon Barzel which one of them sold without permission from the other?

(a) On what grounds did Rav Nachman rule like Rav Yehudah (that she is entitled to her objects in preference to cash), despite the Beraisa that supports Rav Ami?

(b) What did Rava rule when the heirs took a coat of Nichsei Tzon Barzel after their father's death and placed it over their dead father's body?

(c) How does this ruling appear to contradict Rava Amar Rav Nachman's previous ruling?

(d) In reply, Rav Kahana explained to Na'na'i (Rava's grandson) that even Rav Yehudah would concede that, in this case, the widow would have no claim. Why is that?

9) The above ruling of Rava conforms with his own ruling regarding the three things that remove Shi'bud.
What are the three things?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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