ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 75
(a) The Tana has quoted three Pesukim to teach us that Terumah is permitted
at nightfall: "Ad Asher Yithar", "u'Ba ha'Shemesh ve'Taher" and "ad Melos
Yemei Taharah". Having written ...
1. ... "Lo Yochal ad Asher Yithar", it nevertheless needed to write "u'Ba
ha'Shemesh ve'Taher" - because otherwise, we would not have known exactly
when he becomes Tahor to eat Terumah.
(b) On the previous Amud, we quoted Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who
establishes the Pasuk "ad Asher Yithar" by a Zav who had two sightings and a
Metzora who is a Musgar. The Tana who disagrees with him establishes the
Pasuk - by a Zav who had three sightings (and a Metzora Muchlat), and the
Torah is coming to restrict Kodshim, not Terumah.
2. ... "u'Ba ha'Shemesh ve'Taher", it nevertheless needs to write "ad Melos
Yemei Taharah" - to teach us that even a bar Kaparah is permitted to eat
Terumah as soon as night falls.
3. ... "ad Melos Yemei Taharah", it nevertheless needs to write "Ad Asher
Yithar" - to teach us that nightfall must be preceded by Tevilah.
(c) Despite the fact that, according to him, we have the Pasuk (forbidding
Kodshim to be eaten) until after the Kaparah ...
1. ..."ve'Chiper Alehah, ve'Taheirah" (with regard to a Yoledes), we
nevertheless need another Pasuk by Zav - because we would have otherwise
restricted the Chumra to a Yoledes, because she has a particularly long
spell of Tum'ah (regarding Terumah and Kodshim - forty days for a boy and
eighty, for a girl).
2. ... "ad Asher Yithar" (with regard to a Zav), we need another Pasuk by
Yoledes - because those same days of Tum'ah have the unique distinction of
permitting her to her husband even though she sees blood, so we could not
have learned the Chumra in question from Zav.
(a) We need the Pasuk (with regard to Terumah) ...
1. ... "ba'Mayim Yuva ve'Tamei ad ha'Erev" - to teach us that, not only is
one forbidden to *eat* Terumah when one is Tamei, but that a vessel (which
is only a Sheini le'Tum'ah) that touches it, renders it Tamei (a Sh'lishi -
as does a T'vul Yom, who is a Sheini), and that this too, is forbidden.
(b) We know to establish the former Pasuk by Terumah, and the latter by
Ma'aser and not vice-versa - because we take our cue from eating, where we
have already seen that Terumah is more stringent than Ma'aser.
2. ... ve'Taher - that a Sheini does not render Ma'aser a Sh'lishi.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learns the Isur of touching Terumah be'Tum'ah
from another source. He learns from "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga, v'El ha'Mikdash
Los Savo" that - just as one is Chayav Kares for Bi'as Mikdash (mentioned in
the second phrase), so too, does the first phrase speak in a case when one
is Chayav Kares (i.e. for *eating* Terumah, where Kares is mentioned), and
not by just *touching* Terumah, where Kares is not mentioned.
(b) We learn from ...
1. ... "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga, ve'el ha'Mikdash Lo Savo" - that Kodesh,
just like Mikdash, must be speaking in a case where one is Chayav Misah
(i.e. for *eating* it be'Tum'ah, by which the Torah writes in Emor "u'Meisu
Bo Ki Yechalaluhu), whereas for touching, there is no Misah.
2. ... the fact that the Pasuk uses the Lashon "Lo Siga" - that whatever is
forbidden to eat be'Tum'ah, is also forbidden to render Tamei by touching
(a) Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) establishes our Mishnah, which permits the wife
of a Kohen who became a P'tzu'a Daka, to eat Terumah, as long as there has
been no Bi'ah, like Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, who permit a woman who is
betrothed to someone whose Bi'ah is Pasul. According to Rebbi Yochanan, even
Rebbi Meir who normally forbids it will agree that here, she may continue to
eat - on the grounds that, since she had already been eating when her
husband became a P'tzu'a Daka, she may continue to do so?
(b) Rebbi Elazar discounts Rebbi Yochanan's proof - because, if that was the
case, every bas Yisrael who married a Kohen should be permitted to continue
to eat after her husband's death.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan refutes Rebbi Elazar's counter-proof - on the grounds
that a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen is different than a woman who is
married to a Kohen who became a P'tzu'a Daka, inasmuch as the Kinyan of the
former dissipates with her husband's death.
(a) Someone whose Beitzim are holed or shriveled is considered a P'tzu'a
(b) We learned in our Mishnah that someone whose one Beitzah is crushed, is
also considered a P'tzu'a Daka. Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah quoting the
Chachamim in Kerem be'Yavneh says - that a man who has only one Beitzah is a
S'ris Chamah (a natural eunuch) and is therefore Kasher.
(c) We ask on his statement (' ... Eino Ela S'ris Chamah, ve'Kasher') - how
Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah can possibly call such a person a S'ris Chamah,
when it is simply not true?
(d) We therefore amend it to read - 'Harei Hu *ki*'S'ris Chamah'.
(a) When Shmuel heard about a certain man who had children, even though his
Beitzim had been pierced by a thorn - he sent to Rav that he should go and
check who the children's father really was.
(b) Rava deduced from the fact that the Torah speaks about "*P'tzu'a* Daka"
and not "*ha'Patzu'a* Daka" - that a natural P'tzu'a Daka (through thunder,
hail or from birth) is Kasher (because 'ha'P'tzu'a Daka' would imply that he
was born like that).
(c) The Tana of the Beraisa learns the same thing from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
from "Yavo" "Yavo" - from Mamzer, whose existence is the result of an action
by human-beings, and not natural, at the Hand of Hashem.
(d) The Pesulim of cut, severed and crushed, apply to three cases, the Milah
and the Beitzim are two of them - the third, is the sinews to which the
Beitzim are attached.
(a) Rava assumes that, the reason that the Torah does not mention (how many)
generations (are forbidden) in the case of P'tzu'a Daka must be - because he
cannot have children (which in turn proves that it is his Milah which is
crushed and not part of his head).
The Tana of the Beraisa learns that K'rus Shafchah refers to the Milah -
from the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' as he learned above (in 6c.) - from "Yavo"
"Yavo" - from Mamzer (who is certainly caused by the Milah).
(b) The Torahs reason for not mentioning generations is in fact - because
unlike the other P'sulei Kahal - only *he* is prohibited, but not *his
(c) We know that P'tzu'a Daka refers to the Milah and not to the head -
because it is juxtaposed next to K'rus Shafchah, which certainly does (as we
shall now see).
(d) We know that K'rus Shafchah refers to the Milah ...
1. ... and not to the lips - because one *ejects* the spit from the mouth,
it does not *flow* (as "Shafchah" implies) ...
2. ... or the nose - because it too, does not flow, but drips.
(a) When Rebbi Chiya bar Aba wanted to validate someone whose Milah was
holed diagonally, so that one end of the hole was above the crown and the
other end, below it, Rebbi Asi told him - that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi
invalidated any case where the hole traversed the entire Atarah (such as
(b) When Ravina asked Rabah Tosfa'ah if 'as thin as a thread' (with regard
to the flesh of the Atarah - that the Tana permits in our Mishnah) referred
to *all the way* across all whether *most of the way* would suffice - he
replied that most of the way was sufficient (see ha'Gahos ha'Gra).
(c) And when he added 'towards the top' - he meant that it must be the
majority of the Atarah which has been cut off, with the strip of flesh at
the top, together with the main part of the Milah to which it is connected
that remains intact. But if it is the top section of the Atarah that has
been cut away, and the strip of flesh that remains is the lower part (that
is connected to the flesh at the tip of the Milah - with no part of the
Atarah adjoining the main section of the Milah), he is not Kasher.
(a) Rav Huna validates someone whose Milah is cut like a pen - meaning that
the sides are cut in the shape of the letter 'vee', but invalidates him if
it is cut like a pipe - meaning that the inside has been hollowed out. The
reason is - because whereas in the latter case, the air gets in and cools
down the Zera, preventing it from shooting out, in the former case, this
will not happen.
(b) Rav Chisda says that if it is cut ke'Kulmus (like a pen) it is Pasul -
because then the Milah *does not touch the sides of the womb*, whereas
ke'Marzev (like a pipe) it is Kasher - because it *does*.
(c) Rava agrees with Rav Huna. He refutes Rav Chisda's argument, using as an
example, the tap of a barrel, according to the text ...
'ke'Marzev G'rid, ke'Kulmus Eino G'rid' - by pointing out that, like the tap
of a barrel, even if the narrow part of the tap (which used to be thick at
one end and thin at the other) did *not touch the sides* of the barrel as it
was pushed through the hole into which it was placed, the wide end *did*.
(a) Ravina quoting Mar Zutra Amar Rav Papa validated both ke'Kulmus and
ke'Marzev. His query to Mereimar, whether Mar Zutra was speaking below the
Atarah or above, is strange - inasmuch as we have already learned that even
if the top section of the Milah is severed completely, he is still Kasher.
Consequently, it is obvious that Mar Zutra was speaking to above the Atarah.
(b) He only asked the She'eilah - in order to pick Mereimar's brains.
(c) When a case of Marzev occurred in Masa Machsaya - Mar bar Rav Ashi cut
the outer walls of the Milah until it was shaped like a Kulmus, which he
then declared Kasher (like Rav Huna).
(d) When Rav Bibi bar Abaye wanted to validate a man whose Zera- duct was
stopped up so that the Zera was being emitted through the urine-duct - he
declared him invalid, on the grounds that Zera not in its place will not
germinate. And he asked Rav Bibi whether it was because he came from an
unfortunate (see Tosfos) lineage (Eli ha'Kohen, who were all destined to die
young) that he made 'unfortunate' statements.