POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Yevamos 72
1) WHY WE DIDN'T CIRCUMCISE IN THE WILDERNESS
(a) Answer #2: Because the north wind did not blow.
2) A MASHUCH
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
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.
(e) (Beraisa): All 40 years in the wilderness, each night the
north wind blew at midnight - "At midnight, Hash-m killed
2. Nowadays that many people do this, "Hash-m watches
over the simple".
(f) Question: How is this learned from this verse?
(g) Answer: We see that midnight is a time when Hash-m is
(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.
3) A TUMTUM
(b) Question (Beraisa): A Mashuch must be circumcised.
(c) Answer: That is only mi'Derabanan.
1. Question: The one who asked should have anticipated
(d) Question (Beraisa): A Tumtum does not eat Terumah; his
wives and slaves eat; a Mashuch and one born circumcised
2. Answer: The end of the Beraisa made him err.
i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): He should not
circumcise, because it is dangerous;
3. The one who asked thought that since verses are
brought, thew law is mi'Dioraisa.
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
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.
i. This is wrong - the law is mi'Derabanan, the
verses are only Asmachtos.
(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
(b) Question: How does a Tumtum have wives?
1. Suggestion: Perhaps he engaged a woman.
(c) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, the Beitzim can be
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
i. A Tumtum may be a woman; if so, when she
engaged a woman, it is not engagement!
(d) Answer #2 (Rava): The 'women' he feeds means his mother
(if he is a Kohen, and his mother was widowed or
(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
(h) Suggestion: Tana'im argue on Rav Huna's law.
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
i. A Tumtum cannot eat Terumah nor Kodshim,
because he is a doubtful Arel, and an Arel may
not eat Terumah or Kodshim.
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
(i) Suggestion: The 1st Tana says, that Mashuch must be
circumcised mi'Dioraisa, and R. Elazar Bar Shimon says,
4) CAN AN AREL SPRINKLE PURIFYING WATER?
(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
(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
(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
(b) Support (Beraisa): The sprinkling of an Arel is valid;
there was a case, and Chachamim validated his sprinkling.
2. Objection: One cannot learn from a Tevul Yom, since
he is permitted to eat Ma'aser (Sheni, but an Arel
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!
(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
(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
(g) Objection: We do find this! 'An Arel and a Tamei are
exempt from Re'iyah (the Mitzvah to enter the Temple
(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
(j) (Beraisa): All are valid to sanctify (water with ashes of
the red heifer) except for a deaf person, lunatic or
(k) R. Yehudah says, a minor may sanctify, but not a woman or
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
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
ii. Answer: It says, "*He* will put", not "She will
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