(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 72


(a) Would it be correct to say that the north-wind did not blow throughout the forty years that Yisrael traveled in the desert?

(b) What does the Pasuk in Bo "Vayehi ba'Chatzi ha'Laylah va'Hashem Hikah Kol Bechor" teach us in this regard?

(c) What reason does Rav Huna give for Chazal prohibiting a Mashuch from eating Terumah? What is a 'Mashuch'?

(a) What does 'Mashuch *Tzarich* she'Yimol' imply?

(b) Then what made the questioner think that the Tana meant mi'd'Oraysa?

(c) Which Pasuk did the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah quote to prove that it is obligatory for a Mashuch to repeat the B'ris Milah?

(d) What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(a) What do the Rabbanan prove from the days of ben Kuziba?

(b) Who was ben Kuziba? For how long did he rule?

(c) Having quoted the Pasuk "Himol Yimol", why did the Rabbanan find it necessary to add that of "es B'risi Hafer"?

(d) The questioner (in 2b.) thought that, since the Tana quotes a Pasuk, the obligation to circumcise a Mashuch must be d'Oraysa.
What is the truth of the matter? Why did the Tana quote a Pasuk?

(a) Why is ...
  1. ... a Tumtum forbidden to eat Terumah and Kodshim?
  2. ... an Androginus permitted to eat Terumah, but not Kodshim? Which category of Kodshim are we referring to?
(b) Is the wife of a Tumtum permitted to eat Terumah?

(c) What does the Tana of this Beraisa rule with regard to a Mashuch and a baby who is born already circumcised? How is this then a proof for Rav Huna (who forbade a Mashuch to eat Terumah mi'de'Rabbanan)?

(d) Why is it preferable to explain that the Beraisa is coming to teach us that he may eat mi'd'Oraysa (and is being quoted as a proof for Rav Huna), than to explain that he may not even eat mi'de'Rabbanan (in which case, it is being quoted in order prove Rav Huna wrong)?

(a) The Tana permits the wife of a Tumtum to eat Terumah.
What is the problem with this?

(b) What will be the Din if a Tumtum betrothed a woman or was betrothed by a man?

(c) Then why can we not explain that the Tana of the previous Beraisa speaks when he betrothed her anyway?

(a) Abaye establishes the Beraisa when it is only the Tumtum's *Milah* that is covered, but his *Beitzim* are on the outside (leaving us in no doubt that he is a male). Rava answers that 'Nashav' really mean his mother. What is then the Chidush? Why might we have thought that his mother is not permitted to eat Terumah because her son is a Tumtum)?

(b) The Seifa of the Beraisa rules that a Tumtum is not permitted to eat Terumah, posing a Kashya on Rava, why the Tana finds it necessary to tell us the Din of a Tumtum twice.
Why is this not a Kashya on Abaye?

(c) How will Rava answer the Kashya?

(a) In what connection does the Tana Kama of the Beraisa list a Mashuch, a Katan after the eighth day and others who need to be circumcised?

(b) What does 'others who need to be circumcised' come to include?

(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon rules that any Milah that is performed after its prescribed time may be performed by night.
How do we try to establish their Machlokes (with regard to a Mashuch)?

(d) On what grounds do we reject that interpretation?

Answers to questions



(a) So what *is* the source of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon? How is it based on the Pasuk in Tazri'a "*u*'va'Yom ha'Shemini, Yimol ... "?

(b) How does Mashuch fit into the picture? Is it d'Oraysa or de'Rabbanan?

(a) Nosar bi'Z'mano (on the day that it became Nosar) must be burned by day, because the Torah writes in Tzav "ba'Yom ha'Sh'lishi". Rebbi Yochanan ruled that Nosar she'Lo bi'Z'mano may be burned at night.
On what grounds did Rebbi Elazar query him?

(b) Why can we not answer that Rebbi Yochanan issued his ruling according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who does not Darshen from the 'Vav' of "u'va'Yom ha'Shemini Yimol"?

(c) What is the significance of the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth days that the Tana mentions with regard to Milah?

(a) What did Resh Lakish comment when Rebbi Yochanan expressed admiration for Rebbi Elazar's D'rashah?

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan heard that it was a Toras Kohanim, he learned it for three days.
How long did he then spend studying it?

(c) How does Rebbi Elazar derive that the Haza'ah of an Areil is Kasher, from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a T'vul Yom?

(d) On what grounds do we refute the Kashya on Rebbi Elazar, that a T'vul Yom is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheini, whereas an Areil is not?

(a) Why, according to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, is the Kidush (i.e. mixing the ashes of the Parah Adumah with the water) of a Tumtum invalid?

(b) What about the Kidush of an Androginus (who circumcised)?

(c) What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(d) How does Rav Yosef reconcile Rebbi Elazar (who validates the Haza'ah of an Areil) with this Beraisa?

(a) What did Rava mean to ask when he asked why no Tana mentioned Areil and Tamei in Rebbi Akiva's name?

(b) Why does the Mishnah in Chagigah 'ha'Areil ve'ha'Tamei Peturim min ha'Re'iyah' not fit the bill?

(c) In another Beraisa, the Rabbanan learn from Pesukim that anyone but a Areil, a Tamei and a Katan is eligible to gather the ashes of the Parah Adumah.
What do they say about the Kidush?

(d) What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk ...

  1. ... "*ve'Lakchu* la'Tamei ... "?
  2. ... "ve'Nasan Alav"?
(a) According to the Chachamim, why does the Torah write specifically "ve'Lakchu la'Tamei" (in the plural) and "ve'Nasan Alav" (in the singular)?

(b) Had the Torah written "ve'Hizah al ha'Tamei" why would it have been obvious that someone who is Tamei is not permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah?

(c) So why does the Torah write "ve'Hizah *ha'Tahor* al ha'Tamei"?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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