Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 70

1) "AREL"

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a Kohen who is an Arel may not eat Terumah. RASHI writes that the Mishnah is referring to a Kohen who is an Arel because his brothers died from Milah, and thus he cannot have Milah because of the danger that it poses to his life.

Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand. The Gemara earlier (66a) discussed the principle that only someone who is able to eat Terumah himself is able to grant his wife the ability to eat Terumah. The Gemara there questioned this principle from the case of a Kohen who is an Arel and the case of a Kohen who is Tamei, who may not eat Terumah themselves yet they still entitle their wives to eat Terumah. The Gemara answered that in the case of an Arel and a Tamei, "it is their mouths that hurt them," which means that their inability to eat Terumah is only temporary and, as Rashi there explains, "they anticipate correcting their problem in the future becoming permitted to eat Terumah." That is why they may feed Terumah to their wives and slaves.

According to Rashi here, though, the Arel's brothers died from Milah and that is why he did not do Milah to himself. If so, he certainly is *not* able to, and expected to, correct his problem! To the contrary, he is forbidden to fix his problem because of the danger to his life! How, then, can Rashi explain that our Mishnah is referring to an Arel who cannot have Milah because his brothers died from Milah? (RASHBA and Rishonim)

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHBA answers that even if his brothers died from Milah, it is still possible for him to have Milah. At a later time, when the signs of weakness pass and he appears healthier than his brothers did at the time of their Milah, he can perform Milah (as the Rambam writes in Hilchos Milah 1:17).

(b) There is another question that may be asked on the Rashi's explanation (that an Arel is one who did not have Milah because his brothers died from Milah). The Gemara later (70b) says that one of the features of an Arel is that what prevents him from eating Terumah is "b'Yado l'Takno," it is in his ability to correct it (in contrast to Aninus, which is not in his ability to correct). How can the Gemara say that it is in his ability to correct? Even if, as the Rashba says, he can do Milah after signs of health appear, it is still not "*b'Yado* l'Takno," because right now he cannot change his status!

The YASHRESH YAKOV and the NEHOR SHRAGA answer that the Arel is considered "b'Yado l'Taken" because if, b'Di'eved, someone cuts off the Arel's Orlah, he will be permitted to eat Terumah, as opposed to an Onen, who has no way to change his status on his own. (See also Insights to Pesachim 62:1.)

Based on this, we could suggest a different explanation for the Gemara's words (66a) that "it is their mouths that hurt them." It could mean that they are considered fit to eat Terumah *not* because they anticipate becoming fit in the near future, but that they are considered ready to eat b ecause if, b'Di'eved, someone cuts off the Arel's Orlah, he will be able to eat Terumah. (In contrast, a woman who is a Chalalah has no way of becoming fit to eat Terumah.)

Why, though, did Rashi there (66a) not explain the Gemara's answer this way? Rashi there says that the Arel and Tamei anticipate correcting their problem, and that is why they are considered fit to eat Terumah! The answer is that Rashi was bothered by the wording of the Gemara there. The Gemara did not say that they may eat Terumah because "b'Yado l'Taken," but because "it is their mouths that hurt them." Rashi understood that the reason the Gemara does not say "b'Yado l'Taken" is because that does not apply to someone who is Tamei, who must wait seven days before making himself Tahor. Rather, it is because he is "Omed l'Taken" -- he anticipates becoming Tahor. That is why his wife and servants may eat Terumah. But in the case of an Arel, we do not need the reason of "Omed l'Taken," because it is "b'Yado l'Taken" right now, for if he cuts off his Orlah he makes himself fit to eat Terumah.

That might be why Rashi here (DH Nesheihem) does not mention that the Arel is "Omed l'Taken," but rather he mentions only that they are "Mechusar Takanah" -- lacking a correction -- which prevents the Arel from eating.

(I heard from a Talmid Chacham in Yerushalayim another explanation. Rashi holds that if the person whose brothers died from Milah was not expected to become healthier, and to become circumcised, then even if he circumcised himself without waiting, the Milah would *not be valid*. He inferred this from Rashi's words on 64b DH Isura.)

(c) RABEINU TAM (cited by TOSFOS in Chagigah 4b and Zevachim 22b) argues with Rashi and says that the "Arel" mentioned in the Mishnah refers to a person who refuses to do Milah to himself, even though he has no Halachic exemption. If the Arel is deliberately refusing to fulfill the Mitzvah of Milah, then why does the Torah state in one verse that a Mumar may not eat from the Korban Pesach (Shemos 12:43), and in another verse (Shemos 12:48) that an Arel may not eat the Korban Pesach? According to Rabeinu Tam, the Arel *is* a Mumar!

Rabeinu Tam explains that if a person does not perform Milah out of fear for his life, then even though that fear is unfounded, he is not called a Mumar.

According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation, the Arel is certainly "b'Yado l'Taken" and "Omed l'Taken."

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a Petzu'a Daka and a Kerus Shafchah are permitted to eat Terumah, but their wives are not. RASHI (DH Nesheihem) explains that the reason their wives may not eat Terumah is because they become Chalalos by having relations with their husbands, since they are prohibited to live with a Petzu'a Daka and a Kerus Shafchah. This is also what Rashi wrote earlier (57a, DH Ha Nami and DH Ho'il).

(a) However, we find in Kidushin (77b) that the Gemara derives from a verse that a woman becomes a Chalalah only when she has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited by one of the Isurim of Kehunah (such as an Almanah with a Kohen Gadol). For this reason, one who transgresses the Isur of "Achoso" does not make her a Chalalah. Rashi himself writes in many places (see 53b, DH Pesalah; 61b, DH v'sh'Nivalah) that a prohibited relationship makes a woman a Zonah (but not a Chalalah). How, then, could Rashi write that a woman who lives with a Petzu'a Daka is prohibited from eating Terumah because she becomes a Chalalah? (RASHBA and RITVA; see also RASHASH)

(b) Moreover, Rashi in Sanhedrin (69a) writes something even more enigmatic -- if a woman lives with a Nochri, Nasin, or Mamzer, she becomes a Chalalah. How could he write that she becomes a Chalalah from all Chayavei Lavin? In Kidushin we see that a woman only becomes a Chalalah by having relations with Isurei Kehunah? (YASHRESH YAKOV 57a)

Rashi right here in Yevamos (69a) seems to allude to this as well, when he writes that if someone who is Pasul la'Vo ba'Kahal rapes a woman, "she is Nischalelah." Why does Rashi say that she becomes a Chalalah if she did not have relations with an Isur Kehunah?

ANSWERS:

(a) The Rishonim who argue with Rashi (RASHBA, RITVA and others) explain that the reason a Petzu'a Daka invalidates a woman from eating Terumah is because he makes her a Zonah (and not a Chalalah), as the RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 18:3 and in Perush ha'Mishnayos) says, or because of "Ki Siheyeh l'Ish Zar," which is the Gemara's source (on 68b) for invalidating women who had relations with Isurei Lavim (see Insights there).

However, as TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER on the Mishnah asks, the Gemara (69a) says that one who is Machzir Gerushaso and has relations with his ex-wife does *not* make her Pesulah from eating Terumah, because he was not "Zar Etzlah m'Ikara," she was not Asur to him from the beginning. (RASHI 15b DH Hi Atzmah writes that a Yevamah l'Shuk does not become prohibited to a Kohen for the same reason.) It is clear that she is not Pesulah because of Zonah either, but is permitted to eat Terumah. If so, how can a Petzu'a Daka who became such in the middle of his marriage make his wife Pesulah from Terumah -- he is not "Zar Etzlah m'Ikara!"

The Rishonim in fact ask this question and offer a number of approaches.

1. In truth, a Petzu'a Daka does *not* make his wife Pesulah to Terumah, even though our Mishnah says that he does. The Rishonim prove this from the Beraisa earlier (68a) that lists all the prohibited relationships that make a woman Pesulah from eating Terumah and from marrying a Kohen, and it omits Petzu'a Daka. Our Mishnah, the RASHBA (in one suggested approach) asserts, must be the minority view of Rebbi Elazar (61b) who holds that even when an unmarried man has relations with an unmarried woman, that makes her a Zonah. Alternatively, the Mishnah is the minority view of Rebbi Masya ben Charash who maintains that when a man has relations with his wife when she is a Safek Sotah, she becomes a Zonah, even though he is not "Zar Etzlah m'Ikara." The view of our Mishnah, then, is not followed as the Halachah (the same must be said about the Gemara on 56b that discusses a Petzu'a Daka making his wife Pesulah to Terumah).

2. Others answer that perhaps the Mishnah is indeed followed as the Halachah, and the requirement that he be "Zar Etzlah m'Ikara" only means to exclude a person who is not Pasul la'Vo ba'Kahal (meaning he is only Asur to this woman and not to anyone else.) That is, if he is only "Zar *Etzlah*," prohibited to *her* alone, he must be "Zar me'Ikara." When, then, does the Beraisa earlier (68a) omit Petzu'a Daka from the list of relationships that invalidate the woman from eating Terumah? The RASHBA suggests that the Beraisa argues with the reasoning of the Mishnah and holds that a Petzu'a Daka and a Kerus Shafchah will *not* invalidate her, because in order to invalidate her they must indeed be "Zar Etzlah m'Ikara." Alternatively, the Beraisa simply left out the case of Petzu'a Daka, along with the case of Kerus Shafchah, even though both of those will also invalidate her (that is, the Beraisa was "Tana v'Shayar"). The RITVA writes that the Beraisa did not find it necessary to mention all of the cases since it says "Nasin and Mamzer," and those cases include all of the other Pesulei Kahal b'Lav.

Rashi seems to have been bothered by the question of the Rishonim that a Petzu'a Daka is not "Zar Etzlah m'Ikara," and that is why he did not write that a Petzu'a Daka makes the woman a *Zonah*, but rather a *Chalalah*. How, though, does he make her a Chalalah? What is Rashi's source for this?

The Gemara (15b and 44b) suggests that the child from the relationship of a Machzir Gerushaso should be Pasul l'Kehunah based on a Kal v'Chomer from the case of an Almanah married to a Kohen Gadol, where the child from that union is Pasul. The Gemara rejects the Kal v'Chomer only because the Isur of an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol is more severe than the Isur of Machzir Gerushaso, in that the Almanah herself becomes Pesulah by living with the Kohen Gadol, whereas the woman who remarried her former husband does not become Pasul.

TOSFOS (15b, DH Mah, and Nidah 69b) asks why we do not make the same Kal v'Chomer to make the woman herself Pasul in the case of Machzir Gerushaso. We should say that if the Almanah becomes a Chalalah, then certainly the woman in the case of Machzir Gerushaso should become a Chalalah! Tosfos answers by citing the Gemara in Kidushin (77b) that says that only Pesulei Kehunah can make a woman into a Chalalah. Tosfos asks, however, that we should learn that the woman in a case of Machzir Gerushaso is Pesulah from a "Mah ha'Tzad:" we know that an Almanah becomes a Chalalah by living with a Kohen Gadol, even though that type of Chalalah is only made by having relations with Pesulei Kehunah. We also find that having relations with Isurei Lavim also makes a woman Pesulah to Terumah and Kehunah (Yevamos 68b). Based on those two Halachos, we should learn that any woman who is prohibited to a man becomes Pesulah by having relations with him, even Machzir Gerushaso! Even though we cannot learn it from Isurei Lavim alone, because they are "Zar Etzlah m'Ikara" while Machzir Gerushaso is not, we can learn it from Almanah, where he is not "Zar Etzlah m'Ikara." We cannot learn Machzir Gerushaso from the case of Almanah alone, though, because the case of Almanah is a case of Pesulei Kehunah, and therefore we also need to learn it from Isurei Lavim (which are learned from the verse "Ki Siheyeh l'Ish Zar"). Between the two of them, we should be able to learn that Machzir Gerushaso becomes Pesulah l'Kehunah and l'Terumah!

Perhaps Rashi holds that a Petzu'a Daka indeed invalidates a woman from Terumah through that very "Mah ha'Tzad." As for why this Mah ha'Tzad does not invalidate Machzir Gerushaso as well, it might be suggested that there is another common denominator between Almanah and Isurei Lav (that are "Zar me'Ikara"). Both involve relations with men who are Asur not only to her, but to a broader group of people. That is why Rashi writes that a woman who lives with a Petzu'a Daka is a Chalalah -- because the Pesul of a woman who has relations with a Petzu'a Daka is derived from the "Meh ha'Tzad," which incorporates the case of an Almanah with a Kohen Gadol, which is a case of a Pesul l'Kehunah.

(b) As for Rashi in Yevamos 69b that uses the term "Nischalelah," Rashi seems to use that term because it denotes her complete loss of her Kehunah, even as far as eating *Terumah* (as Rashi writes on 68b DH Giluy Milsa). That may be the intention of Rashi in Sanhedrin 69a as well; not that all Chayavei Lavin make a Chalalah.

70b