Previous daf

1)

(a) It is incorrect to say that the north-wind did not blow throughout the forty years that Yisrael traveled in the desert - because it blew every night at midnight (see also Tosfos DH 'Lo Nashvah').

(b) The Pasuk "Vayehi ba'Chatzi ha'Laylah va'Hashem Hikah Kol Bechor" teaches us that midnight is a time of goodwill (for Yisrael) - and that explains why the north-wind always blows then, even when we have fallen out with Hashem (as e did in the desert).

(c) Rav Huna explains that Chazal prohibit a Mashuch (who pulled back his foreskin to cover over the location of the Milah), from eating Terumah - because he looks like an Areil.

(a) 'Mashuch *Tzarich* she'Yimol' implies - that it is only mi'de'Rabbanan (otherwise the Tana would have said 'Mashuch Harei Hu Areil').

(b) The questioner thought that the Tana meant mi'd'Oraysa - because, in the Seifa, the Chachamim quote a Pasuk in this regard, suggesting that it is d'Oraysa.

(c) The Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah quote the Pasuk "Himol Yimol" ('Afilu Mei'ah Pe'amim'), to prove that it is obligatory for a Mashuch to repeat the B'ris Milah.

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah - a Mashuch should not circumcise, because it is dangerous.

(a) The Rabbanan prove cite the days of ben Kuziba - when many people repeated the Milah (after the Romans had forcibly pulled over their foreskins), which suggests that it is not so dangerous after all.

(b) ben Kuziba is a pseudonym for bar Kochba. He overpowered the Romans in the final revolt and ruled for two and a half years in Beitar.

(c) The Rabbanan found it necessary to add the D'rashah of "es B'risi Hafer" - in case one uses the Pasuk of "Himol Yimol" to obligate the removal of the strands that invalidate the Milah.

(d) The questioner (in 2b.) thought that, since the Tana quotes a Pasuk, the obligation to circumcise a Mashuch must be d'Oraysa. The truth of the matter is - that the obligation is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Pasuk is no more than an Asmachta.

(a)

1. A Tumtum is forbidden to eat Terumah and Kodshim - because he is a Safek Areil.
2. An Androginus (who circumcised) is permitted to eat Terumah, but not Kodshim - because 'Kodshim' here, refers to Kodshei Kodshim, which can only be eaten by male Kohanim, and an Androginus is a Safek male, Safek female.

(b) The wife of a Tumtum is permitted to eat Terumah (because he is like someone whose mouth is hurting, which can be rectified).

(c) The Tana of this Beraisa rules - that (mi'd'Oraysa) a Mashuch and a baby who is born already circumcised, may eat Terumah - proving that the prohibition to do so can only be mi'de'Rabbanan, and not mi'd'Oraysa.

(d) It is preferable to explain that the Beraisa is coming to teach us that he may eat mi'd'Oraysa (and is being quoted as a proof for Rav Huna), than to explain that he may not even eat mi'de'Rabbanan (in which case, it is being quoted in order prove Rav Huna wrong) - because we later suggest that the Tana'im argue over whether a Mashuch is Pasul to eat Terumah mi'd'Oraysa or only mi'de'Rabbanan (and nobody holds that he is permitted to eat even mi'de'Rabbanan).

(a) The Tana permits the wife of a Tumtum to eat Terumah. But how can a Tumtum have a wife, seeing as he\she is not permitted to get married?

(b) If a Tumtum betrothed a woman or was betrothed by a man - the Kidushin is valid.

(c) Nevertheless, we cannot explain that the Tana of the previous Beraisa speaks when he betrothed her anyway - because even though his Kidushin is valid Bedieved, that is only le'Chumra (to require a Get or to become Asur to each other's relatives), but certainly not le'Kula (to allow the woman he betrothed to eat Terumah).

(a) Abaye establishes the Beraisa when it is only the Tumtum's *Milah* that is covered, but his *Beitzim* are on the outside (leaving us in no doubt that he is a male). Rava answers that 'Nashav' really mean his mother - whom we might otherwise have thought cannot eat Terumah on his account, because (perhaps) it is only someone who can have children who feeds Terumah, but not someone who cannot.

(b) The Seifa of the Beraisa rules that a Tumtum is not permitted to eat Terumah, posing a Kashya on Rava, why the Tana finds it necessary to teach us the Din of a Tumtum twice. This is not a Kashya on Abaye - because the Reisha speaks about a Vaday Areil (whose Beitzim are exposed), and the Seifa adds that even a Safek is Asur.

(c) Rava answers - that when the Seifa mentions Tumtum, the Tana really means Areil, to teach us that the reason that a Tumtum is forbidden to eat Terumah is because he is a Safek Areil.

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa lists a Mashuch, a Katan after the eighth day and others who need to be circumcised - to teach us that all of these can only be circumcised by day.

(b) 'Others who need to be circumcised' - comes to include someone who has two Arlos.

(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon rules that any Milah that is performed after its prescribed time may be performed by night. We try to establish their Machlokes with (regard to a Mashuch) - by whether the obligation to circumcise a Mashuch is d'Oraysa (the Tana Kama), or only mi'de'Rabbanan (Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon).

(d) We reject that interpretation - on the grounds that they also incorporate a Katan after eight days in their Machlokes, and *his* obligation to circumcise is certainly min ha'Torah.

8)

(a) We therefore conclude that the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon is - whether to Darshen the 'Vav' in "u'va'Yom ha'Sh'mini" (to give she'Lo bi'Z'mano the same Din as bi'Z'mano - the opinion of the Tana Kama), or not (Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - who therefore permits she'Lo bi'Z'mano even by night).

(b) Mashuch in fact - is only de'Rabbanan, even according to the Rabbanan, only they give it the same Din as a Katan she'Avar Z'mano, because of the principle 'Kol de'Tikun, ke'Ein d'Oraysa Tikun' (the Rabbanan generally institute their laws along the same lines as those of the Torah).

(a) Nosar bi'Z'mano (on the day that it became Nosar) must be burned by day, because the Torah writes in Tzav "ba'Yom ha'Sh'lishi". Rebbi Yochanan ruled that Nosar she'Lo bi'Z'mano may be burned at night, but Rebbi Elazar queried him from a Beraisa - which derives from "u'va'Yom" that even a baby that is circumcised on the ninth, tenth, eleventh or the twelfth days must be circumcised by day, so the same should apply to Nosar she'Lo bi'Z'mano, where the Torah also writes "ve'ha'Nosar" (with an extra 'Vav' and 'Hey').

(b) We cannot answer that Rebbi Yochanan issued his ruling according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who does not Darshen from the 'Vav' of "u'va'Yom ha'Sh'mini Yimol" - because even those Tana'im who do not Darshen an extra 'Vav', will Darshen an extra 'Vav' and 'Hey'.

(c) The ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth days that the Tana mentions with regard to Milah - refers to a baby that is born during Bein ha'Sh'mashos of a weekday; when the baby is born during Bein ha'Sh'mashos of Erev Shabbos; when he is born during Bein ha'Sh'mashos of Shabbos, and Yom-Tov falls on the tenth day, and when he is born during Bein ha'Sh'mashos of Shabbos, and Rosh ha'Shanah falls on the tenth and the eleventh days (respectively).

(a) When Rebbi Yochanan expressed admiration for Rebbi Elazar's D'rashah - Resh Lakish pointed out that he had not expressed his own opinion, but that of a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim.

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan heard that it was a Toras Kohanim (that was compiled by Rav), he learned it for three days - and studied it for three months.

(c) Rebbi Elazar derives that the Haza'ah of an Areil is Kasher, from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a T'vul Yom, because - if a T'vul Yom, who is Asur to touch Terumah, is permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah, then an Areil who is permitted to touch Terumah, should certainly be permitted to do so.

(d) We refute the Kashya on Rebbi Elazar's 'Kal va'Chomer' (that a T'vul Yom is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheini, whereas an Areil is not) - on the grounds that our Sugya is not concerned with *eating*, but only with *touching*.

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, the Kidush (i.e. mixing the ashes of the Parah Adumah with the water) of a Tumtum is invalid - because he is a Safek Areil, and an Areil is not permitted to perform the Kidush.

(b) The Kidush of an Androginus (who circumcised) is Kasher - despite the fact that he is a Safek woman, because a woman is permitted to perform it.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah invalidates the Kidush of a woman. Consequently - that of an Androginus is invalid too.

(d) Rav Yosef reconciles Rebbi Elazar (who validates the Haza'ah of an Areil) with this Beraisa - by establishing its author as Rebbi Akiva, who considers an Areil, Tamei (as we learned above on 70a.), whereas *he* follows the opinion of the Rabbanan.

(a) When Rava asked why no Tana mentioned Areil and Tamei in Rebbi Akiva's name - he meant that if Rebbi Akiva really considers an Areil Tamei, *in all regards* (and not just with regard to Terumah - where it is written), then why did no Tana ever place Areil and Tamei together in a Mishnah that speaks about Tum'ah in Rebbi Akiva's name, to teach us that fact?

(b) The Mishnah in Chagigah 'ha'Areil ve'ha'Tamei P'turim min ha'Re'iyah' do not fit the bill - because, who says that the reason there is because of Tum'ah, and not because it is considered disgusting for them to appear in the Azarah?

(c) In another Beraisa, the Rabbanan learn from Pesukim that anyone but an Areil, a Tamei and a Katan is eligible to gather the ashes of the Parah Adumah - and whoever is eligible to gather the ashes is also eligible to perform the Kidush, and that those who are Pasul by the former are also Pasul by the latter.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "*ve'Lakchu* la'Tamei ... " - that a Katan is eligible to perform the Kidush too.
2. ... "ve'Nasan Alav" - "ve'Nasan", 've'Lo ve'Nasnah' (to disqualify the Kidush of a woman).

(a) According to the Chachamim, the Torah specifically writes "ve'Lakchu la'Tamei" (in the plural) and "ve'Nasan Alav" (in the singular) - because had it written "ve'Lakach ... ve'Nasan" we would have thought that one person must take the ashes (and not two) and one must pour the water; and had it written "ve'Lakchu ... ve'Nasnu" we would have thought that two people must take the ashes and two must pour the water. So the Torah "ve'Lakchu ... ve'Nasan" to teach us - that if two people take the ashes and one person pours the water, the Kidush is also valid.

(b) Had the Torah written "ve'Hizah al ha'Tamei" it would have been obvious that someone who is Tamei is not permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah - because the Torah refers to it as 'a Chatas'.

(c) The Torah write "ve'Hizah *ha'Tahor* al ha'Tamei" - to teach us that even though he is considered Tamei in some areas of Halachah, he is nevertheless Tahor as regards Parah Adumah (i.e. a T'vul Yom, who is Tahor regarding Ma'aser Sheini, but Tamei regarding Terumah and Kodshim).