ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 73
Please note that throughout the current Sugyos, Ma'aser refers specifically
to Ma'aser *Sheini* (which must be eaten in Yerushalayim) unless otherwise
(a) We learn from Ma'aser - that an Onan is forbidden to eat Korban Pesach.
(b) They asked Rav Sheishes whether an Areil is permitted to eat Ma'aser
Sheini. Although we can learn Pesach from Ma'aser with regard to Onan, we
might not however, be able to learn Ma'aser from Pesach with regard to
Arlus - because Pesach is more stringent than Ma'aser (and how can one use a
'Kal va'Chomer' to learn a leniency from a strict case to a more lenient
one) - see Tosfos DH 'Kal'?
(a) Terumah and Bikurim have seven points in common (all of which do not
apply to Ma'aser. One is Chayav ...
1. ... Misah (bi'Y'dei Shamayim) for eating them - when one is Tamei.
(b) Seeing as only a Kohen is permitted to eat them - 've'Hein Nechsei
Kohen' means that he may use them to betroth a woman or to purchase with
them anything he wishes.
2. ... to pay an extra fifth - if one is a Zar (a non-Kohen) who ate them
be'Shogeg (whereas a Zar is permitted to eat Ma'aser).
(c) Ma'aser-Sheini money is restricted to the purchase of food, drink and
oils (for anointing).
(a) Terumah and Bikurim become Bateil in a hundred and one - Ma'aser
requires only a majority.
(b) Fruit of Ma'aser requires Rechitzas Yadayim (because hands are assumed
to be Sh'niyos le'Tum'ah) - whereas someone who washes his hands for fruit
of Chulin or of Ma'aser (as opposed to bread) is conceited.
(c) And a Kohen who Toveled must wait for nightfall before he is permitted
to eat them - whereas the owner is permitted to eat Ma'aser the moment he
(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah that they asked Rav Sheishes (whether an
Areil is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheini or not) from the above Beraisa - by
the fact that the Tana does not insert that Terumah and Bikurim are Asur to
an Areil, whereas Ma'aser is permitted (insinuating that an Areil is Asur to
eat Ma'aser as well).
(b) Our rejection of this proof is based on the principle 'Tana ve'Shayer'
(that the Tana sometimes leaves out cases - which is perfectly legitimate as
long as the case in question is not the only one to be omitted).
(c) All Tana'im agree - that Ma'aser and Bikurim must be taken to
Yerushalayim and that one is obligated to read a Parshah (neither of which
applies by Terumah - which falls under the category of 'Kodshei ha'G'vul',
which may be eaten anywhere within the borders of Eretz Yisrael).
(d) According to the Tana Kama, they are also forbidden to an Onan and are
Chayavin be'Bi'ur. 'Chayavin be'Bi'ur' means - that if one failed to take
them to Yerushalayim and to do what is necessary, one had to take them at
the end of the third year and make a declaration (as laid out in Ki Savo).
Failing that, they had to be destroyed wherever they were.
(a) Rebbi Shimon permits Bikurim to an Onan and exempts them from the Chiyuv
(b) One is also not permitted to burn Ma'aser and Bikurim as fuel - and one
receives Malkos for eating them when they (the fruits) are Tamei ('be'Tum'as
(c) Terumah may be burned as fuel, and one does not receive Malkos for
eating it when it is Tamei. The Tana does not add these two distinctions to
the above list of differences - because of the principle 'Tana ve'Shayer'.
(d) This helps us to answer the Kashya we asked previously (why the Tana
omitted the [alleged] distinction between Terumah and Bikurim (which are
forbidden to an Areil), and Ma'aser (which is permitted) - because 'Tana
ve'Shayer' in the Seifa, enables us to omit this case in the Reisha.
(a) In the Pasuk "Lo Suchal le'Echol bi'She'arecha Ma'aser Degancha ...
u'S'rumas Yadecha", since "T'rumas *Yadecha*" cannot refer to Terumah -
because Terumah is Kodshei ha'G'vul (as we explained in 4c.) - it must
therefore refer to Bikurim (by which the Torah uses the word "*Yad*" -
ve'Lakach ha'Kohen ha'Tene *mi'Yadecha"*).
(b) The Tana Kama learns from the Hekesh of Bikurim to Ma'aser - that
Bikurim, like Ma'aser, is forbidden to an Onan.
(c) Rebbi Shimon permits Bikurim to an Onan - because the Torah calls it
Terumah (which a Kohen who is an Onan is permitted to eat).
(d) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon, who exempts Bikurim
from Bi'ur, and the Rabbanan, who include them in the obligation - is that
the Rabbanan compare Bikurim to Ma'aser, whereas Rebbi Shimon does not.
(a) Rebbi Shimon (and the Rabbanan) learn from the Pasuk (by Ma'aser Sheini)
"ve'Lo Bi'arti Mimenu be'Tamei" - that Ma'aser is forbidden whether the
person is Tamei and the Ma'aser Tahor, or vice-versa.
(b) The Pasuk "Nefesh Asher Tiga Bo ve'Tam'ah ad ha'Erev ve'Lo Yochal min
ha'Kodshim" - is a La'av for someone who is Tamei to eat Terumah.
(c) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael explains the Pasuk "bi'She'arecha Sochlenu,
ha'Tamei ve'ha'Tahor Yachdav ka'Tz'vi ve'cha'Ayal" to mean - that two people
may eat P'sulei ha'Mukdashin from the same dish even if one of them is Tahor
and the other Tamei (despite the fact that the one who is Tamei will render
the meat Tamei, and the Tahor person will then eat it).
(d) We then learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "She'arecha" (in the Pasuk that
we just quoted) "She'arecha" (in the Pasuk "Lo Suchal le'Echol bi'She'arecha
Ma'aser Degancha") - that the same Tum'ah (of the object rather than of the
person) which the Torah permitted by 'P'sulei ha'Mukdashin', it now forbids
(a) Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan infers from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Bi'arti
*Mimenu* be'Tamei" - that it is permitted to burn Terumah that became Tamei
We infer from the Pasuk (by P'sulei ha'Mukdashin) "bi'She'arecha Tochlenu" -
that, although there is no Malkos for eating Tamei Terumah, one does
however, transgress an Asei ("bi'she'Arecha Tochlenu", 'la'Zeh ve'Lo
le'Acher' - i.e. Terumah), because a La'av that is inferred from an Asei is
(b) We preclude Terumah (which is generally more stringent than Ma'aser)
from the prohibition of burning it as fuel when it is Tamei, rather than
Kodshim (which we include on the grounds that it is more stringent than
Ma'aser) - because Kodshim is more stringent than Terumah.
(c) In fact, Kodshim has six Chumros over Terumah, whereas Terumah has only
four Chumros over Kodshim. The acronym ...
1. ... Pi.No.Ko.I.Ka.As. stands for - Pigul, Nosar, Korban, Me'ilah, Kareis
and Asur le'Onan.
(d) We conclude that, even if Kodshim did not have more Chumros that
Terumah, we would still preclude Terumah from "Mimenu", and include *it*
from the 'Kal va'Chomer' - because the fact that one is Chayav Kareis for
eating it be'Tum'as ha'Guf overrides all other Chumros.
2. ... Mi.Cho.Pi.Za - stands for Misah, Chomesh, Ein Lah Pidyon and Asur
We learned above (see last question on the previous Amud) that the Tana
omits cases in the Seifa (regarding the Chumros of Ma'aser and Bikurim over
Terumah) in order to authorize the omission (in the Reisha) of the Chumra of
an Areil being prohibited by Terumah and Bikurim, but permitted by Ma'aser.
Besides the fact that Terumah and Bikurim cannot be redeemed, whereas
Ma'aser can - Rav Ashi points out that the Tana omitted in the Reisha itself
the Chumra that Terumah and Bikurim apply throughout the six years of the
cycle, whereas Ma'aser Sheini is confined to the first and second, fourth
and fifth years.