ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 66
***** Perek Almanah le'Kohen Gadol *****
(a) Nechsei mi'Lug - is property that the wife brings into the marriage,
which is not inserted in her Kesubah and for which her husband does not
therefore take responsibility; whereas Nechsei Tzon Barzel - is property
which she does insert in the Kesubah and for which her husband takes
responsibility, and corresponding to which the husband tends to bring into
the marriage property of his own.
(b) The husband is obligated to feed his wife's Avdei mi'Lug - in spite of
the fact that they are considered her property.
(c) If a Kohen Gadol marries an Almanah, Avdei Tzon Barzel are permitted to
eat Terumah, whereas Avdei mi'Lug are not - because they belong to her, and
she is a Chalalah (this will be explained shortly).
(d) Both the Avdei mi'Lug and the Avdei Tzon Barzel of ...
1. ... a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen - are permitted to eat Terumah.
2. ... a bas Kohen who married a Yisrael - are not.
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Kohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh (Kinyan Kaspo) Hu Yochal Bo" - that the
wife (even if she is a bas Yisrael) and the Avdei Kena'anim of a Kohen are
permitted to eat Terumah.
(b) We need a Pasuk to include Eved she'Kanah Avadim", for a case where 'Mah
she'Kanah Eved Kanah Rabo' does not apply (i.e. when someone presented an
Eved with money on the express condition that his master does not acquire
2. ... "ve'Kohen ki Yikneh Nefesh *Kinyan Kaspo* Hu Yochal Bo" - that if his
wife or his Avadim acquired Avadim, they too, are permitted to eat Terumah.
(c) This Beraisa poses the Kashya - why the Tana of our Mishnah forbids
Avdei mi'Lug of an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol to eat Terumah? Why are they not
permitted because of Kinyano she'Kanah Kinyan?
(d) We initially try to resolve this problem - by restricting the right to
feed to those who are themselves *permitted to eat*, but not to those who
(a) Nevertheless, the Avadim of a Kohen who is an Areil or who is Tamei are
permitted to eat, even though they themselves are not - because their
situation is only temporary, and stands to be reversed (like someone whose
mouth hurts, who is just waiting for a cure); whereas an Almanah le'Kohen
Gadol is a permanent Chalalah.
(b) We ask on this from a Mamzer, who is not allowed to eat permanently, yet
he permits his grandmother to eat. In fact, 'Mamzer' is only mentioned
arbitrarily (because that is what the Mishnah is talking about). The case is
that of a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen, bearing him a daughter. The
daughter then married a Yisrael, bore him a son and died. The Kashya is -
from the child's grandmother, who is permitted to eat because she has
off-spring from a Kohen, even though the son himself is forbidden to eat
because he is a Zar?
(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, min ha'Torah, the Avdei mi'Lug
of an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol are permitted to eat Terumah, and it is the
Chachamim who forbade it - in order to make her feel that, if neither she
nor her Avadim are permitted to eat Terumah, she must be a Zonah, thereby
creating an atmosphere that will lead to a quick divorce.
(d) Rav Ashi too, ascribes the prohibition to a Rabbinical decree. We refute
his initial suggestion, that it is because she might continue to feed them
after her husband dies - because, if that was so, we ought to forbid every
bas Yisrael who marries a Kohen to feed her Avadim Terumah, for the same
(a) We conclude that Rav Ashi is referring to - a bas Kohen who married an
Almanah, and whose Avadim we forbid to eat Terumah, because otherwise, we
are afraid that since her Avadim were permitted to eat before she married
the Kohen Gadol, and they are still permitted now (because of her husband),
she will assume that they will remain permitted even after her divorce,
without realizing that, since she is a Chalalah, *she* will no longer be
able to feed them, and there is no other reason for them to be able to eat.
(b) The Tana does not specifically confine the decree to an Almanah who is a
bas Kohen (and not to a bas Yisrael) - because Chazal did not want to
differentiate between one Almanah and another ('Lo Plug').
(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 - because of 'Sh'vach Beis Avihah' (in honor of her father's house, a
sort of family heirloom, which has special sentimental value).
(b) According to Rav Ami, the Din is with him - because, seeing as he
accepts full responsibility (as we saw in our Mishnah), the objects are
(c) Rav Safra finds a snag with Rav Ami's reasoning in the words 'Ho'il
ve'Chayav be'Achariyusan' - which merely says that he is responsible, but
not that he actually becomes the owner.
(a) The Mishnah in Terumos say that ...
1. ... a Yisrael who hired a cow from a Kohen - is permitted to feed it oats
(b) A Kohen may feed Avdei Tzon Barzel, Terumah - because he accepts *full*
responsibility for them; whereas a Kohen who hired a cow from a Yisrael may
not - because he only accepts responsibility for theft and loss, but not for
accidents, physical decline and devaluation.
2. ... a Kohen who hired a cow from a Yisrael - is not.
(c) The Seifa of the Mishnah in Terumos, which speaks about 'Sham Parah',
conforms with our Din of Avdei Tzon Barzel - because 'Sham Parah' means that
one assesses the animal at the time of hiring, and undertakes to return the
assessed value under all circumstances, including accidents, physical
decline and devaluation.
(d) The Tana rules there 'Yisrael she'Sham Parah mi'Kohen - Lo Ya'achilenah
Karshinei Terumah, Aval Kohen she'Sham Parah mi'Yisrael, Ya'achilenah
Karshinei Terumah (just like the Din of Avdei Tzon Barzel).
(a) Rabah and Rav Yosef were sitting at Rav Nachman's Derashah when they
cited Beraisos to prove both the opinions of Rav Yehudah and of Rav Ami.
(b) The Beraisa that supports the opinion of ...
1. ... Rav Ami says that - if a husband or a wife knocks out a tooth or who
blinds the eye, of an Eved of Tzon Barzel, he goes out to freedom.
(c) The Tana adds - that he is not even permitted to sell the corresponding
property that he brought in to the marriage.
2. ... Rav Yehudah says - that the husband is not permitted to sell Nechsei
(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that - if one of them sold Nichsei Tzon
Barzel without permission the husband has the right to claim it back from
(a) Rav Nachman ruled like Rav Yehudah (that the woman is entitled to her
objects in preference to cash), despite the Beraisa that supports Rav Ami -
because his reasoning is sound.
The above ruling of Rava conforms with his own ruling regarding the three
things that remove Shi'bud - Hekdesh, Chametz and Shichrur (as we saw above
(b) When the heirs took a coat of Nichsei Tzon Barzel after their father's
death and placed it over their dead father's body - Rava ruled that 'the
dead body had acquired it' (that the woman could no longer claim it).
(c) This ruling appears to contradict Rava Amar Rav Nachman's previous
ruling - inasmuch as there, he ruled that she had the right to claim her
Nichsei Tzon Barzel after her husband divorced her (or died).
(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 - seeing as he did not say that the Nichsei Tzon Barzel belonged to
her, but that she had a right to claim them. In fact, they belonged to the
heirs. Consequently, when they placed the coat on their dead father's body
(which has a Din of Hekdesh), Hekdesh removed the Shi'bud (the right to