Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 72

72b

QUESTION: The Gemara questions whether an Arel is permitted to do Haza'ah of the Mei Chatas on another person. The Gemara suggests a Kal v'Chomer to prove that an Arel is permitted to do Haza'ah: Since a person who is a Tevul Yom, and may not touch Terumah (and Kodshim -- TOSFOS), may nevertheless do Haza'ah, then certainly an Arel, who may touch Terumah (and Kodshim), should be permitted to do Haza'ah.

The Gemara then cites a Beraisa that says that an Arel may not do Haza'ah. The Gemara says that the Beraisa is the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. Rava explains, in the Gemara's conclusion (according to Rashi, DH Lo), that it is because of the Chumra of the laws of the Parah Adumah that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah (see Chart #22, and Insights to 75:1).

The MAHARSHA asks that according to the Gemara's conclusion that an Arel is indeed not able to do Haza'ah, we should learn from a Kal v'Chomer that he may not touch Terumah or Kodshim either! Since we know that a Tevul Yom who may do Haza'ah, may not touch Terumah or Kodshim, then certainly an Arel, who may *not* do Haza'ah, should not be permitted to touch Terumah or Kodshim!

ANSWERS:

(a) Since the Torah tells us that an Arel is not allowed to *eat* Terumah or Kodshim (as the Gemara says on 70a), we can infer that it must be permitted for him to *touch* it. Otherwise -- if it was prohibited for him to touch Terumah, it would be obvious that he may not *eat* Terumah, and why would we need a verse to prohibit eating it? (MAHARSHA)

The YASHRESH YAKOV, however, questions this answer and says that perhaps the verse is just teaching that he gets *Malkus* for eating Terumah, while he does not get Malkus for touching it (since it is learned only from a Kal v'Chomer, and "Ein Onshin Min ha'Din"). That is why we need a verse to teach that there is a Lav, and Malkus, for eating Terumah.

(b) The YASHRESH YAKOV himself answers that when the verse teaches that an Arel may not eat Terumah, it implies that *only* eating is prohibited, but touching Terumah is *permitted*.

(c) It is possible that the Kal v'Chomer cannot be made in the first place. The reason an Arel may not do Haza'ah with the Mei Chatas is, as Rashi explains, because of the Chumra of Parah Adumah. Why exactly should the Chumra of Parah prevent the Arel from performing part of the service? The reason is because an Arel is "Ma'us" -- he is considered loathsome because of his Arelus, and thus it is improper for him to take part in the Avodah of the Parah Adumah. The Gemara suggests a similar logic when it exempt an Arel from coming to the Beis ha'Mikdash during the festival "since he is loathsome."

Accordingly, the Chumra of Arel only applies to situations where it would be loathsome, Ma'us, for the Arel to perform the act. For an Arel to do Haza'ah on another person in order to be Metaher that person is improper, because his loathsome nature should prevent him from *being actively involved* in the Avodah of the Parah Adumah, or in being Metaher another person. Similarly, it is inappropriate for someone who is considered "Ma'us" to *enter* the Azarah, which is a Makom Kadosh. In contrast, having *contact* with an item that is Kadosh, such as touching Terumah, cannot be prohibited just because the person is "Ma'us." Therefore, the Kal v'Chomer does not apply.