Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHO MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH?

(a) Answer: Apostasy forbids eating from Pesach, but not from Ma'aser.
(b) Question: How will we expound "Any Arel will not eat in it"?
(c) Answer: An Arel may not eat from Pesach, but he eats Matzah and bitter herbs.

1. It was necessary to write both the prohibitions of Arel and of an apostate.
2. If only the prohibition of Arel was written - one would think, he is forbidden because he is repulsive, but an apostate may eat!
3. If only the prohibition of an apostate was written - one would think, he is forbidden because he does not want to serve Hash-m - but an Arel who wants to serve Hash-m may eat!

(d) Question: Why did the Torah repeat write "From it ... from it" (by Pesach)?
(e) Answer: As Rabah taught (74A, to teach a Gezeirah Shaveh and another teaching).
(f) (Beraisa (70A) - R. Akiva): We need not learn from there - It says "A man, a man", to include an Arel (that he may not eat Terumah, just as one who is Tamei).
(g) Question: Perhaps this comes to include an Onen!
(h) Answer: (R. Yosi Bar Chanina): "Any non-Kohen" - a non-Kohen is forbidden to eat, but not an Onen.
(i) Question: Why not say, a non-Kohen is forbidden to eat, but not an Arel!
(j) Answer: "A man, a man" forbids an Arel.
(k) Question: Why not learn the other way ("Any non-Kohen" excludes an Arel, "A man, a man" includes an Onen)?
(l) Answer: It is more reasonable to forbid an Arel, since he has the following shortcomings:

1. He is lacking a physical action (circumcision);
2. This action must be done to his own body;
3. The punishment for staying uncircumcised is Kares;
4. The prohibition applied before the giving of the Torah;
5. Failure to circumcise his male slaves stops him (from eating Pesach).

(m) Question: Why don't we learn that an Onen is forbidden, since:

1. It can apply at any time;
2. It applies to men and women;
3. An Onen cannot fix himself (end his Aninus).

(n) Answer #1: There are more stringencies by an Arel.
(o) Answer #2 (Rava): Even if there would not be more, we would learn this way!

1. "A man, a man" comes to teach about something which applies to a man, not a woman - namely, an Arel!

(a) Question: What will R. Akiva learn from "A resident or hired worker" (since he does not need it to teach that an Arel may not eat Terumah)?
(b) Answer #1(Rav Shemaya): That a circumcised Arab or Givoni may not eat the Pesach sacrifice.
(c) Question: Are they really considered circumcised?

1. (Mishnah): A person says 'Konam (should be forbidden as Hekdesh) any benefit I get from Arelim' may benefit from an uncircumcised Yisrael, but not from a circumcised Nachri; 'Konam any benefit I get from circumcised people', he may benefit from a circumcised Nachri, but not from an uncircumcised Yisrael.

(d) Answer #2: Rather, it includes a convert that was circumcised but did not immerse, and one born circumcised.

1. R. Akiva holds, we must take blood from someone born circumcised to fulfill the covenant.

(e) R. Eliezer has no source to learn these laws - he holds, a convert that was circumcised but did not immerse is a full convert; and, we need not take blood from someone born circumcised.
(f) . Question: What does R. Eliezer learn from "A man, a man"?
(g) Answer: He does not expound it - the Torah speaks as people do.

(a) Question (Rav Chama Bar Ukva): May we anoint an uncircumcised baby with Terumah oil?

1. Does Orlah (the foreskin) forbid one to eat Terumah even before the proper time for circumcision (the 8th day), or not?

(b) Answer (R. Zeira - Beraisa): The Torah only said that failure to circumcise one's sons forbids him to bring the Pesach sacrifice, and failure to circumcise his male slaves forbids him to eat the Pesach sacrifice; a Gezeirah Shaveh "Then - then" teaches that failure to circumcise sons also forbids eating, and failure to circumcise slaves also forbids bringing.

1. We understand, he may have (uncircumcised) slaves at the time of eating, but did not have them at the time of bringing (and we need to learn the prohibition to eat) - he bought slaves in between!
2. Question: How is it possible to have (uncircumcised) sons at the time of eating, but did not have them at the time of bringing?

i. Suggestion: It must be, they were born in between - we see, Orlah forbids, even before its time!
ii. Rejection (Rava): This cannot be! The Torah said, "Circumcise every male, then he will bring" - before its time, he may not circumcise!

3. Answer #1: Rather, the case is, his son had a fever at the time of bringing (and could not be circumcised), and recovered before the time of eating.
4. Question: If so, we must wait 7 days before circumcising!
5. Answer: We did - the case is, he recovered 7 days before the Pesach sacrifice!
6. Question: If so, he should have been circumcised in the morning (and it suffices to prohibit bringing the sacrifice before circumcising)!

7. Answer: We require 7 24-hour days from the time of recovery (and the baby recovered between the time of bringing and the time of eating).
8. Question: But Ludah taught, The day of recovery is as the day of birth!

i. Suggestion: Just as we need not wait 7 24-hour days from the time of birth, we need not wait 7 24-hour days from the time of recovery!
ii. Rejection: No, the day of recovery is more severe than the day of birth - the day of birth does not need 7 24-hour days, but the day of recovery does.

9. Answer #2 (To question 2 - Rav Papa): The baby's eyes hurt him at the time of bringing, and healed before the time of eating.
10. Answer #3 (Rava): His parents were imprisoned at the time of bringing, and were released before the time of eating.
11. Answer #4 (Rav Kahana Brei d'Rav Nechemyah): The baby was a Tumtum. The genitals were covered at the time of bringing; the covering was torn, and the baby was found to be a boy before the time of eating.
12. Answer #5 (Rav Sharbiya): The baby's head left the womb 7 days earlier, but he was only born 7 days later, between the time of bringing and the time of eating.
13. Question: Can such a baby really survive?

i. (Beraisa): Once the baby enters the air of the world, what was closed is opened, and what was open is closed; if not, the baby would die right away!

14. Answer: The case is, he was nourished by a fever.
15. Question: From whose fever?

i. Suggestion: If from the baby's fever - we must wait 7 days from the end of the fever!

16. Answer #1: Rather, the mother's fever fed him.
17. Answer #2: The Beraisa only spoke of a baby that did not cry; in our case, the baby cried.

(a) (R. Yochanan): We may sprinkle (purifying water) on an Arel, as was done to our forefathers - "The nation came up from the Jordan River on the 10th of the 1st month."

1. They were not circumcised on the 10th because they were weak from travelling.

(b) Question: When were they sprinkled on?
(c) Answer: When they were still Arelim (on the 10th, so the purification could be completed on the 14th, in time to bring the Pesach sacrifice)!

1. Suggestion: Perhaps they did not bring the Pesach that year (and the sprinkling was after they circumcised)!
2. Rejection: The verse says, "They did the Pesach"!
3. Objection (Mar Zutra): Perhaps the Pesach was brought in Tumah!
4. Answer (Rav Ashi - Beraisa): They circumcised, immersed and did the Pesach in Taharah.

(a) (Rabah Bar Yitzchak): Avraham was not commanded to do Pri'ah by circumcision - "At that time Hash-m said to Yehoshua, make sharp knives".
(b) Question: Perhaps that was for those that had not been circumcised - "... Those born in the wilderness had not circumcised"!
(c) Answer: The verse says, "Again" - it must be, this time, Pri'ah was done.
(d) Question: Why does the verse say "A 2nd time"?
(e) Answer: To equate the end of circumcision with the beginning.

1. Just as one is an Arel before the start of circumcision - also, before the end (i.e. if Pri'ah is not done).

i. (Mishnah): These strands invalidate a circumcision - skin which covers most of the crown; such a person may not eat Terumah.
ii. (Ravina): Skin which covers most of the height of the crown.

(f) Question: Why didn't they circumcise in the wilderness?
(g) Answer #1: Because they were weak from travelling.