Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHY WE DIDN'T CIRCUMCISE IN THE WILDERNESS

(a) Answer #2: Because the north wind did not blow.

1. (Beraisa): All 40 years that Yisrael were in the wilderness, the north wind did not blow.

(b) Question: Why not?
(c) Answer #1: Bnei Yisrael were excommunicated.
(d) Answer #2: Because it would have scattered the Clouds of Glory.

1. Rav Papa: Therefore, we do not circumcise on a cloudy day, nor on a day when the south wind blows, and we do not do bloodletting.
2. Nowadays that many people do this, "Hash-m watches over the simple".

(e) (Beraisa): All 40 years in the wilderness, each night the north wind blew at midnight - "At midnight, Hash-m killed every firstborn".
(f) Question: How is this learned from this verse?
(g) Answer: We see that midnight is a time when Hash-m is appeased.

(a) (Rav Huna): mi'Dioraisa, a Mashuch (a circumcised person whose foreskin covers the crown) may eat Terumah; mi'Derabanan, it was decreed that he may not, because he looks like an Arel.
(b) Question (Beraisa): A Mashuch must be circumcised.
(c) Answer: That is only mi'Derabanan.

1. Question: The one who asked should have anticipated the answer!
2. Answer: The end of the Beraisa made him err.

i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): He should not circumcise, because it is dangerous;
ii. Chachamim: But many were circumcised in the days of Ben Koziva, and had children! - "Circumcise, circumcise" - even 100 times! And it says "He annulled my covenant" - to include a Mashuch!
iii. Question: Why was the 2nd verse needed?
iv. Answer: We might have thought, circumcision is only repeated for strands which invalidate the circumcision; the 2nd verse teaches, even a Mashuch must circumcise again.

3. The one who asked thought that since verses are brought, thew law is mi'Dioraisa.

i. This is wrong - the law is mi'Derabanan, the verses are only Asmachtos.

(d) Question (Beraisa): A Tumtum does not eat Terumah; his wives and slaves eat; a Mashuch and one born circumcised eat;
(e) An Androginus eats Terumah, but not Kodshim; a Tumtum eats neither Terumah nor Kodshim.

1. The Beraisa taught that a Mashuch and one born circumcised eat - this refutes Rav Huna.

(a) (Beraisa): A Tumtum does not eat Terumah; his wives and slaves eat.
(b) Question: How does a Tumtum have wives?

1. Suggestion: Perhaps he engaged a woman.

i. (Beraisa): A Tumtum that engaged a woman or was engaged to a man - the engagement takes effect.

2. Rejection: It takes effect to be stringent, not to be lenient!

i. A Tumtum may be a woman; if so, when she engaged a woman, it is not engagement!

(c) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, the Beitzim can be recognized.
(d) Answer #2 (Rava): The 'women' he feeds means his mother (if he is a Kohen, and his mother was widowed or divorced).
(e) Objection: That is obvious!
(f) Answer: One might have thought, one who can have children, permits eating; one who cannot have children, does not permits eating.

1. The Beraisa teaches, this is not so.

(g) (Beraisa): A Tumtum eats neither Terumah nor Kodshim.

1. This fits well according to Abaye - the beginning of the Beraisa teaches about a certain Arel (we know he is a man from the Beitzim); the end teaches about a doubtful Arel.
2. Question: According to Rava, what new matter is taught in the end?
3. Answer: When it says Tumtum, it refers to an Arel.
4. Objection: If a doubtful Arel cannot eat (as taught in the beginning of the Beraisa). Would I think that a certain Arel can?!
5. Answer: The Beraisa explains why a Tumtum cannot eat.

i. A Tumtum cannot eat Terumah nor Kodshim, because he is a doubtful Arel, and an Arel may not eat Terumah or Kodshim.

(h) Suggestion: Tana'im argue on Rav Huna's law.

1. (Beraisa): The following may only be circumcised in daytime: a Mashuch; a convert that was circumcised before converting; a baby past his time (8 days); and all other ones that are circumcised, i.e. one that has 2 foreskins;
2. R. Elazar Bar Shimon says, in the proper time, circumcision is only by day; after the time, by day or night.

(i) Suggestion: The 1st Tana says, that Mashuch must be circumcised mi'Dioraisa, and R. Elazar Bar Shimon says, mi'Derabanan.
(j) Rejection: Is this reasonable?! It is learned with a baby past his time, which all agree is mi'Dioraisa!

1. Rather, all agree, Mashuch is mi'Derabanan. The 1st Tana expounds "And on the day"; R. Elazar does not expound it.

(k) Similarly: R. Yochanan taught, Nosar (sacrifices which were not eaten in the allotted time), in the proper time (to burn it) must be burned by day; after the proper time for burning, it may be burned by day or at night.
(l) Question (R. Elazar - Beraisa): I would only know that a baby circumcised on the 8th day may only be circumcised by day. "And on the day" - this teaches that even on the 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th day, it must be by day.

1. Further: even the opinion that does not expound "And" - he expounds "And the" (and would expound "And the Nosar" to teach that it must always be by day)!

(m) R. Yochanan was silent. After R. Elazar left, R. Yochanan said, he expounds as Moshe learning from Hash-m!

1. Reish Lakish: He did not expound on his own - he learned it from a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim!
2. He went and learned Toras Kohanim in 3 days, and spent 3 months thinking it over.

(a) (R. Elazar): An Arel that sprinkled (water sanctified with ashes of the red heifer), the sprinkling is valid.

1. This is as a Tevul Yom (a person on the day he immersed to become Tahor) - even though a Tevul Yom is forbidden to Terumah, he may engage in the red heifer.
2. Objection: One cannot learn from a Tevul Yom, since he is permitted to eat Ma'aser (Sheni, but an Arel is not)!
3. Answer: We did not learn from a Tevul Yom's prohibition to eat Terumah, rather from his prohibition to touch it!

i. A Tevul Yom may not touch Terumah, but he may engage in the red heifer - an Arel, that may touch Terumah, all the more so, he may engage in the red heifer!

(b) Support (Beraisa): The sprinkling of an Arel is valid; there was a case, and Chachamim validated his sprinkling.
(c) Question (Beraisa): A Tumtum that sanctified, his sanctification is invalid, since he might be an Arel (i.e. if he is male), and the sanctification of an Arel is invalid; an Androginus that sanctified, his sanctification is valid;
(d) R. Yehudah says, even an Androginus that sanctified, his sanctification is invalid, since he might be a female, and the sanctification of a female is invalid.

1. We see that an Arel or doubtful Arel may not sanctify!

(e) Answer (Rav Yosef): That Tana holds as the Tana from R. Akiva's house, that considers an Arel as Tamei.

1. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "A man, a man" - to include an Arel (that he has the law of a Tamei person).

(f) Question (Rava): Why is it, we never find a Tana that teaches, 'An Arel and a Tamei', and we will say it is as R. Akiva?!
(g) Objection: We do find this! 'An Arel and a Tamei are exempt from Re'iyah (the Mitzvah to enter the Temple every festival)'.
(h) Answer (Rava): There, he is not exempt because he is considered Tamei, but rather because he is repulsive.
(i) R. Yehudah and Chachamim are consistent with their positions elsewhere.
(j) (Beraisa): All are valid to sanctify (water with ashes of the red heifer) except for a deaf person, lunatic or minor;
(k) R. Yehudah says, a minor may sanctify, but not a woman or Androginus.

1. Chachamim learn from "They will gather for the Tamei from the ashes of the burning of the Chatas (sin-offering, in this case the red heifer)" - those that may not gather, may not sanctify; those that may gather, may sanctify.
2. R. Yehudah: If so, the verse should say, "He will take"! Rather, it says "*They* will take", to teach that even those that may not sanctify may gather.

i. Question: If so, a woman should also be allowed to sanctify!
ii. Answer: It says, "*He* will put", not "She will put".

3. Chachamim: If it said "He will take ... he will put", one would think, one person takes the ashes, and one puts the water on them (Rashi; Tosfos - the same person that put the ashes in the water must mix them together); therefore, the Torah wrote, "They will take".

i. If it said "They will take ... they will put", one would think, two people take, and two put; therefore, the Torah wrote, "They will take ... he will put", that even 2 may take and 1 may put.