ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 72
(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
(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
(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah - a Mashuch should not circumcise, because it
(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.
1. A Tumtum is forbidden to eat Terumah and Kodshim - because he is a Safek
(b) The wife of a Tumtum is permitted to eat Terumah (because he is like
someone whose mouth is hurting, which can be rectified).
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.
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(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
(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
(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
(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
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).