(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld


Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 74

YEVAMOS 74 (6 Adar I) - dedicated by Harav Avi Feldman & family in memory of his father, ha'Tzadik Rav Yisrael Azriel ben ha'Rav Chaim (Feldman) of Milwaukee, on his Yahrzeit.

1) AN AREL'S LIMITATIONS

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses whether an Arel is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheni. It attempts to bring proof from a Beraisa which lists the unique Halachos of Terumah, Ma'aser, and Parah. It does not list the Halachah that an Arel is prohibited from eating Terumah as a Halachah that is unique to Terumah and which does not apply to Ma'aser (which an Arel is permitted to eat) or to Parah (for which an Arel is permitted to do Haza'ah), so it must be that an Arel is also prohibited from eating Ma'aser, and thus this Halachah is not unique to Terumah.

The Gemara refutes this proof and says that the Beraisa is following the view of Rebbi Akiva. This means, as Rashi explains, that according to Rebbi Akiva, an Arel is prohibited from doing Haza'ah of the Mei Chatas of the Parah, and thus the Arel's Isur to eat Terumah is not unique to Terumah, since he is also Asur to do Haza'ah as well. (He might indeed be permitted to eat Ma'aser, though; see, though, ARUCH LA'NER.)

The Gemara then asks (according to our Girsa and according to Rashi's understanding) who is the Tana that argues with Rebbi Akiva and says that an Arel is *permitted* to do Haza'ah. The Gemara answers by citing a Tana who says that a person who is Mechusar Kipurim may burn the Parah Adumah. Just like he permits a *Mechusar Kipurim* to burn the Parah Adumah, he also permits an *Arel* to take part in the Avodah of the Parah Adumah (Rashi, DH Hachi Garsinan).

This Gemara is difficult to understand in light of what the Gemara said earlier. Earlier (72b), the Gemara cited a Machlokes between Rav Yosef and Rava regarding the view of Rebbi Akiva. According to Rav Yosef, Rebbi Akiva says that an Arel is compared to a Tamei, and thus he may not even touch Terumah. That is why he may not do the Haza'ah of the Mei Chatas. Rava refutes this by pointing out that we never find in any Mishnah that an Arel cannot touch Terumah, and if Rebbi Akiva had said that, we would have found it in a Mishnah. It must be that the reason that the Tana of the Beraisa there does not allow an Arel to do Haza'ah is because of the Chumra of Parah (as Rashi there explains).

Here, the Gemara now says that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from doing Haza'ah because an Arel is like a Tamei. That, however, is only *Rav Yosef's* opinion of what Rebbi Akiva held, which the Gemara earlier rejected! Is the Gemara now returning to the logic of Rav Yosef? Furthermore, why does the Gemara here not use the logic of Rava, who said that an Arel may not do Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah? Had the Gemara used that reasoning, it could have said that the Beraisa here follows even the view of the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Akiva!

ANSWER: There are two ways to understand the Gemara, depending on how we understand the Gemara earlier (72b).

When Rava, in that Sugya, rejects Rav Yosef's view and suggests that an Arel cannot do Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah, is he saying that even according to the Rabanan the Arel cannot do Haza'ah? Or is he only saying that according to Rebbi Akiva an Arel cannot do Haza'ah, but the Rabanan permit an Arel to do Haza'ah? (TOSFOS there, DH Hasam, asks a similar question regarding the exemption of an Arel from Re'iyah ba'Azarah.)

(Bear in mind that even if, according to Rava, the Rabanan agree that an Arel cannot do Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah, that is only according to the *second* Beraisa (on that Amud), that says that an Arel is prohibited to do Haza'ah. The first Beraisa (on 72b), which argues and permits an Arel to do Haza'ah, is apparently following another version of the opinion of the Rabanan.)

(a) The first way to understand our Gemara is to learn that our Gemara is following the opinion of Rav Yosef who holds that Rebbi Akiva compares an Arel to a Tamei. Why, though, did the Gemara not suggest that the reason an Arel cannot do Haza'ah is because of the Chumra of Parah, like Rava holds? Perhaps the Gemara wants to avoid the becoming involved in the Machlokes between Rav Yosef and Rava. It therefore goes out of its way to explain the Beraisa even according to Rav Yosef, who is of the opinion that it is *only* Rebbi Akiva who prohibits an Arel from doing Haza'ah. The Gemara is saying that even according to Rav Yosef, the Beraisa can be understood (by saying that it is following the opinion of Rebbi Akiva). According to Rava, the Beraisa can be explained even according to the Rabanan.

This appears to be the way TOSFOS (DH Hachi Garis) understands the Gemara. However, as Tosfos and the Rishonim point out, according to this understanding the continuation of the Gemara is very unclear. The Gemara asks who it is that argues with Rebbi Akiva and says that an Arel *may* do Haza'ah. What is the Gemara's question? We already learned (70a) that the Tana Rebbi Eliezer is the one who argues with Rebbi Akiva and does not accept the view that an Arel is compared to a Tamei!

Another difficulty with this explanation is that the Gemara answers its question by citing a Tana in a Beraisa that says that a Mechusar Kipurim may do Haza'ah. The Gemara assumes that the same applies to an Arel. Why? What is the connection between a Mechusar Kipurim and an Arel? They have nothing to do with each other! An Arel is like a person who is an Av ha'Tum'ah, and not just like a Mechusar Kipurim (who is only marginally Tamei).

Also, why does the Gemara discuss this question here? It should have discussed it earlier (on 72b), where the Gemara first mentioned that Rebbi Akiva compares an Arel to a Tamei and says that an Arel may not do Haza'ah!

(b) Therefore, it is possible that Rashi had another approach to the Sugya. When Rava (72b) said that an Arel may not do Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah (and not because an Arel is compared to a Tamei), he was not saying that everyone -- both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan -- agree with that ruling. Rather, Rava was saying that only *Rebbi Akiva* prohibits an Arel from doing Haza'ah for this reason. Rava agreed with Rav Yosef that Rebbi Akiva is more stringent than the Rabanan with regard to an Arel. Rava, though, had heard Rav Yosef say that (according to Rebbi Akiva) an Arel is so similar to a Tamei that he is not permitted to touch Terumah (Rashi 72b, DH Ish Ish). Rava disagreed, saying that Rebbi Akiva does not go so far as to say that an Arel is like a Tamei. Rather, Rebbi Akiva is stringent with an Arel, like with a Tamei, in certain cases, such as Parah Adumah, because of our overall stringency with regard to the Parah Adumah. Therefore, Rebbi Akiva does not permit an Arel to do Haza'ah. It is because of the Chumra of Parah, and not because of the Tum'ah of the Arel.

According to this understanding, our Gemara -- that says that the Beraisa which prohibits an Arel to do Haza'ah is the view of Rebbi Akiva who compares an Arel with a Tamei -- is consistent with the conclusion of Rava (on 72b) that Rebbi Akiva does *not* make an Arel completely like a Tamei and yet he still prohibits an Arel from doing Haza'ah. (This is why Rashi here does not write that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from touching Ma'aser Sheni -- because our Gemara is not citing Rav Yosef's opinion that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from touching Kodshim; Rebbi Akiva only prohibits Haza'ah of the Parah Adumah (according to Rava)! See also ARUCH LA'NER.)

This approach also explains the continuation of the Gemara. The Gemara asks who is the Tana who argues with Rebbi Akiva. The Gemara does not want to say that it is Rebbi Eliezer because the reason we say that Rebbi Akiva is stringent with regard to an Arel is because of the Chumra of Parah. Rebbi Eliezer only argues with Rebbi Akiva about comparing an Arel to a Tamei, but perhaps Rebbi Eliezer agrees that the Chumra of Parah prohibits the Arel from doing Haza'ah!

We now can also answer the question of the Rishonim as to why the Gemara associates an Arel with a Mechusar Kipurim when they are completely unrelated. If the reason an Arel is prohibited from doing Haza'ah is because of the Chumra of Parah, then that same reason applies to be stringent (at least mid'Rabanan) with a Mechusar Kipurim as well, because he also retains a certain degree of Tum'ah with regard to Kodshim. Now that we see that there is a Tana who is lenient l'Chatchilah with the Chumra of Parah regarding a Mechusar Kipurim, we may assume that that Tana is also lenient with an Arel and does not hold that the Chumra of Parah prevents him from doing Haza'ah.

The reason why the Gemara did not discuss earlier (on 72b) the identity of this Tana is because earlier, when Rava learned that the reason for the Beraisa that prohibits the Arel from doing Haza'ah is because of the Chumra of Parah, the Gemara thought that according to both the Rabanan *and* Rebbi Akiva, the Chumra of Parah could prohibit it. The Machlokes between the Beraisos there is whether the Chumra of Parah indeed prohibits the Arel from doing Haza'ah or not, according to both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan. The Machlokes between the Beraisos, therefore, is unrelated to the Machlokes between the Rabanan and Rebbi Akiva.

From this Sugya, however, we see that even Rava wants to establish the Beraisa that is Machmir with an Arel to be *only* according to Rebbi Akiva. The Gemara is now asking why should Rava limit it to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. He must have wanted to make the earlier Beraisa, that permits an Arel to do Haza'ah, to be following the opinion of the Rabanan, the majority opinion, while the later one, which prohibits an Arel from doing Haza'ah, will be the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, a minority opinion. Rava must have found another Tana who permits an Arel to do Haza'ah, and since Rava agreed with that Tana, he preferred to set up the Beraisa which permits an Arel to do Haza'ah to be like the majority opinion (that of the Rabanan). The Gemara therefore asks who is this Tana who is lenient with regard to Parah, with whom Rava seems to agree?

The Gemara answers that we find a Tana in a Beraisa who permits a Mechusar Kipurim to do the Avodah of the Parah, and that is how we rule. Since Rava also ruled like that Tana, that is why he preferred to set up the Beraisa that permits an Arel to do Haza'ah to be the view of the Rabanan, the majority opinion, and the Beraisa that prohibits an Arel to do Haza'ah is reflecting only the view of Rebbi Akiva. (M. Kornfeld)


74b

Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il