Daf Yomi - Yevamos 75 - Highlights

The Gemora states that there are three verses which teach us that a tamei person cannot eat terumah, and they are all necessary.

If the Torah would have only written the verse: A man, a man from the offspring of Aaron who is a metzora or a zav shall not eat from the holies until he becomes purified, I would not have known with which purification process was meant (immersion alone, nightfall after immersion or perhaps only after the bringing of the atonement offering); the Torah therefore wrote the verse: And the sun shall set and he shall become purified; this teaches us that he must wait for nightfall. And if the Torah would have only written the verse: And the sun shall set and he shall become purified, I would have thought that this is only when he is not required to bring the atonement offering, but where he would be required to bring the atonement offering, he will be prohibited from eating terumah until after he brings the atonement offering; the Torah therefore wrote the verse: Until the completion of her days of purification; this teaches us that a tamei person is not required to wait until they bring the atonement offering. And if the Torah would have only written the verse: Until the completion of her days of purification, I would have thought that a tamei person may eat terumah even without immersion, provided that the days of purification are completed; the Torah therefore wrote the verse: until he becomes purified; this teaches us that a tamei person must undergo immersion in order to be considered tahor. (75a)

The Gemora asks: According to the Tanna who disagrees, and holds that these verses are referring to kodoshim and not terumah, what is the necessity of having two verses to teach us that a mechusar kippurim (one who was tamei, but has immersed himself in a mikvah, and has waited until nightfall; he is just lacking atonement until he brings his offerings the next day) may not eat kodoshim until he brings his atonement offering?

The Gemora answers: Both verses are necessary. If the Torah would have only written this law regarding a childbearing woman, I would have thought that she is required to wait until after she brings the atonement offering because we are strict with her in respect to the amount of days that she is tamei (eighty days for a female baby). However, regarding a zav (a man who has an emission similar but not identical to a seminal discharge), whose tumah period is shorter, perhaps he would not be required to wait until after the atonement offering. And if the Torah would have only written this law regarding a zav, I would have thought that he is required to wait until after he brings the atonement offering because we never find any lenient exceptions. However, regarding a childbearing woman, where there are lenient exceptions (some vaginal blood which is discharged by a new mother does not contaminate her), perhaps she would not be required to wait until after the atonement offering. It is therefore necessary for the Torah to write both verses. (75a)

The Gemora asks: What is the necessity for the following verse [Vayikra 11:32]: It shall be immersed into water, and it shall be tamei until the evening, and then it shall be pure?

Rabbi Zeira said: It is to teach us the halacha that a tamei person may not touch terumah until he immerses himself and waits until nightfall. The Gemora cites a braisa which reconciles an apparent contradiction between two verses. One verse teaches us that a tamei person may touch maaser sheini immediately after immersion, and the other verse teaches us that a tamei person may not touch terumah until after he immerses himself and waits until nightfall. (75a)

The Gemora cites an alternative Scriptural source teaching us the halacha that a tamei person may not touch terumah until he immerses himself and waits until nightfall. It is written [Vayikra 12:4]: Anything holy she may not touch, and she may not enter the Sanctuary. The Torah compares the two prohibitions: Just as the prohibition of entering the Beis Hamikdosh (while tamei) involves the loss of life (kares, if violated), so too, the prohibition regarding holy things involves the loss of life. Since by touching holy things, there is no taking of life, the verse is obviously referring to the prohibition of eating holy things. The reason why eating was expressed by a term denoting touching is to indicate that touching and eating are equally forbidden. (75a)

The Mishna had stated: One who has wounded or crushed testicles and one whose member is severed, they and their slaves are permitted to eat terumah. Their wives, however, are not permitted to eat terumah. If they did not have relations with their wife after becoming one with wounded or crushed testicles or one whose member is severed, their wives are permitted to eat terumah.

The Gemora asks: Who is the Tanna of our Mishna that holds that a woman awaiting a Biblically forbidden cohabitation may nevertheless eat terumah?

Rabbi Elozar answers: This is indeed a matter of dispute, and it reflects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon. (They maintain that if a widow (daughter of a Yisroel) becomes married to a Kohen Gadol, or a divorcee or chalutzah becomes married to a regular Kohen; she is permitted to eat terumah from the time of erusin (she has not become disqualified yet; after cohabitation, she would become disqualified).

Rabbi Yochanan said: Our Mishna can even follow Rabbi Meir’s viewpoint (who holds that if a widow (daughter of a Yisroel) becomes married to a Kohen Gadol, or a divorcee or chalutzah becomes married to a regular Kohen; from the time of erusin, they are not allowed to eat terumah), for here it is different, since the wife of the maimed Kohen has already been eating terumah before becoming a woman awaiting a Biblically forbidden cohabitation.

Rabbi Elozar does not concur with this logic, for if we would say that “because she has already been eating” would be enough of a reason for her to eat terumah; we should say the same logic in the following case: If a daughter of a Yisroel marries a Kohen, and he subsequently dies, she should be permitted to eat terumah even if he did not have children from her because of this logic that she has already been eating. This obviously is not the halacha.

Rabbi Yochanan would answer that these two cases are not comparable. If a daughter of a Yisroel marries a Kohen, and he subsequently dies, she may not eat terumah even though she has already eaten because his acquisition has completely lapsed. However, in the case where the Kohen became a petzua daka, his acquisition of her has not lapsed, and therefore, she still may eat terumah. (75a)

The Mishna had stated: What is a petzua daka? Any man whose testicles were wounded, and even if only one of them was wounded.

The Gemora cites a braisa: What is a petzua daka? Any man whose testicles were wounded, and even if only one of them was wounded; and even though they were only punctured, crushed, or simply defective. Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Berokah said: I heard from the mouths of the Sages at the Vineyard of Yavneh (so called because the students were sitting in rows arranged like the vines in a vineyard) that any man who only has one testicle is regarded as a seris chamah (sterile as a result of illness), and is therefore eligible to marry into the congregation. (75a)

The Gemora asks: Is it true that one with a punctured testicle cannot father a child? Why, there was once a man who climbed up a palm tree and a thorn pierced his testicles, and his semen issued from him like a thread of pus, and nevertheless, he fathered children.

The Gemora answers: Shmuel sent this case before Rav, and Rav said to him: “Go out and investigate as to the parentage of his children (his wife probably committed adultery).” (75a - 75b)

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: If one becomes a petzua daka through an act of Heaven (thunder, hail or from birth), he is eligible to marry into the congregation.

Rava said: That is why the verse states: One who is wounded, and does not state: The one who is wounded.

A Tanna taught in a braisa: It is written [Devarim 23:2]: One who has wounded or crushed testicles should enter into the congregation of Hashem, and the next verse states: A mamzer should not enter the congregation of Hashem. Just as a mamzer comes about because of an act of man, so too, a petzua daka is only when it comes about through an act of man. (75b)

Rava said: A petzua daka includes the following: If any of the reproductive organs are wounded, crushed or severed.

The Gemora explains: One will be regarded as a petzua daka whether his member was wounded, whether his testicles were wounded, or whether his spermatic cords were wounded. One will be regarded as a petzua daka whether his member was crushed, whether his testicles were crushed, or whether his spermatic cords were crushed. One will be regarded as a petzua daka whether his member was severed, whether his testicles were severed, or whether his spermatic cords were severed. (75b)

One of the Sages asked Rava: How do we know that petzua daka is referring to the organs in “that place” (genital area), perhaps it is referring to his head?

Rava replied: Since the Torah does not mention a number of generations for him (at which point his generations will be permitted to enter into the congregation), this proves that we are referring to the organs of “that place” (the organs which will prevent him from procreating).

The Gemora asks: Perhaps the reason his succeeding generations are not mentioned is because only the petzua daka is prohibited from entering the congregation, but his children are eligible to enter the congregation?

The Gemora answers: Rather, the way we know that petzua daka is referring to the organs of procreation is because it is mentioned together with the disqualification of one who is a kerus shofchah. Just as a kerus shofchah is referring to the severed organ of “that place,” so too, the petzua daka is referring to the organs of “that place.”

The Gemora asks: How do we know that kerus shofchah is referring to the organs in “that place,” perhaps it is referring to his lip?

The Gemora answers: It is written: shofchah. This indicates that we are referring to an injury in an area that spills its liquids (saliva from the lip does not spill, rather, it is ejected).

The Gemora asks: Perhaps it is referring to his nose (where the mucus spills)?

The Gemora answers: It is not written, “Severed at the organ that spills (from beforehand),” but “a severed organ that spills;” thus implying that the organ which in consequence of the injury spills, and in the absence of an injury does not spill, but flows out. This excludes the nose which in either case spills its liquid.

A Tanna taught in a braisa: It is written [Devarim 23:2]: One who has wounded or crushed testicles should enter into the congregation of Hashem, and the next verse states: A mamzer should not enter the congregation of Hashem. Just as a mamzer is created because of “that place,” so too, a petzua daka is referring to the organ of “that place.”

[END]