(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 82


(a) Why is it that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, it is easy to understand why the piece of Chatas which is Tahor does not become Bateil?

(b) What is the problem according to Resh Lakish?

(a) Rav Shisha Brei de'Rav Idi explains that, according to Resh Lakish, the Reisha speaks by Tum'as Mashkin.
What is the significance of Tum'as Mashkin, as opposed to other Tum'os? Why does the piece of Kodshim then become Bateil?

(b) In that case, according to Resh Lakish, why is the piece not Bateil in the Seifa?

(c) What would be the Din in the Reisha if it was speaking about Tum'as Sheretz (rather than Tum'as Mashkin)?

(d) Then why did the Seifa not remain with a piece of *Tamei* Chatas meat that fell into Tahor pieces, but when the piece became Tamei through a Sheretz (to remain with Tum'ah and Taharah, like in the Reisha)?

(a) To explain the Reisha and the Seifa of the Beraisa according to Resh Lakish, Rabah establishes the Beraisa by meat of Kodshim that did not melt, and the former is Bateil because it is only a La'av, whereas the latter is not, because it is a case of Kareis.
What does he mean? To which La'av and Kareis respectively is he referring?

(b) What is the problem with this answer from Rabah's very own words later in ha'Ishah Basra?

(c) Rav Ashi ascribes the piece not becoming Bateil in the Seifa, to the fact that it is a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin'.
Why is that ridiculous?

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say about two piles of wheat, one of Chulin and one of Terumah that fell into two boxes, one containing Chulin and the other, Terumah, and we don't know which pile fell into which box?

(b) What condition does Resh Lakish require for the Chulin box to remain Chulin and permitted to Yisre'eilim?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(d) How does this statement appear to clash with Rebbi Yochanan's opinion regarding Terumah nowadays?

Answers to questions



(a) Rebbi Yochanan answers that the author of this Beraisa is the Rabbanan, whereas his previous statement is according to Rebbi Yossi.
What does Rebbi Yossi say?

(b) How does the Seder Olam Darshen this from the Pasuk in Nitzavim "Asher Yarshu Avosecha vi'Yerishtah"?

(c) On what basis did Rebbi Yochanan make his initial statement (permitting the wife of an Androginus to eat Chazeh ve'Shok as well as Terumah) according to the opinion of Rebbi Yossi?

(d) How does he know that the opinion cited in the Seder Olam is that of Rebbi Yossi?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Mikva'os say about a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah to which one added a Sa'ah of fruit juice (or of drawn water), and then took one Sa'ah away?

(b) What would be the Din if one reversed the process, taking away a Sa'ah first and then adding the Sa'ah?

(c) Rebbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that, assuming that one keeps on doing this, it is only permitted up to a majority. Bearing in mind that Rebbi Yochanan just said that, in the case of the boxes, where it is only a Din de'Rabbanan, no majority is needed, why did we think that the two statements clash? How did we initially explain his latter statement?

(d) What did he really mean when he said that it is only permitted up to a majority?

(a) How will Resh Lakish, who forbids the wife of an Androginus to eat Chazeh ve'Shok, amend the Mishnah, which states 'Androginus Nosei'?

(b) What do we try to prove from the Lashon 'Aval Lo Nisa'?

(c) Why is there in fact, no proof from there? Why is there still a Kashya on Resh Lakish?

(d) If, as we conclude, 'Nosei' means Lechatchilah, because the Tana Kama considers him a Vaday Zachar, how will his opinion differ from that of Rebbi Eliezer, who says 'Androginus Chayavin Alav S'kilah ke'Zachar'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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