FOOD FOR THOUGHT - Yevamos 79 - Daf Yomi

*** Why did Dovid wait another year to investigate other sins; as soon as he saw that it wasn’t because of idol worship, he should have checked if it was because of promiscuous behavior?

*** Why did Dovid wait three years until inquiring of the Urim Vetumim?

*** According to the opinion that maintains that a eulogy is for the sake of the living, why were the Jewish people punished for not eulogizing Shaul correctly? They obviously were mochel it?

*** What happens if there is a person that only has one or two of the characteristics of a Jew, but he doesn’t have all three?

*** Why does the Gemora state that it is better to uproot one word in the Torah etc.? They uprooted an entire verse.

*** How did they accept one hundred and fifty thousand converts after this incident? We previously learned that they didn’t accept converts in the times of Dovid and Shlomo.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 79 - Highlights

The Mishna had stated: The Nesinim are prohibited from marrying into the congregation.

Rav Chana bar Adda said: Dovid decreed that the Nesinim may not marry into the congregation (this Gemora is following Rava’s initial understanding on Daf 76a that the Torah prohibits the Nesinim while they are idolaters, but after they convert, they are permitted to marry a Jew; Dovid issued a Rabbinic ordinance against marrying the Nesinim even after they converted) at it is written [Shmuel II, 21:2]: And the king called the Gibeonites and said to them - now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel. This alludes to the fact that they were not permitted to marry into the congregation.

The Gemora asks: Why did Dovid issue this decree?

The Gemora answers: For it is written [ibid. v.1]: And there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year. During the first year, Dovid said to the Jewish people: “Perhaps there are idol worshippers among you? For it is written [Devarim 11: 16-17]: And worship strange gods and prostrate yourselves before them….and He will close off the heavens, and there will be no rain etc.” They checked, but they could not find anyone worshipping idols. During the second year, Dovid said to the Jewish people: “Perhaps there are sinners who engage in promiscuous behavior among you? For it is written [Yirmiyahu 3:3]: And the rains were withheld, and there has been no latter rain, and you had a harlot's forehead; you refused to be ashamed.” They checked, but they could not find anyone engaging in promiscuous behavior. During the third year, Dovid said to the Jewish people: “Perhaps there are men who announce specified sums for charity in public but do not give them? For it is written [Mishlei 25:14]: Clouds and wind, but no rain-so is a man who boasts with a false gift.” They checked, but they could not find any such people. Dovid said: “It must be my fault.” Immediately, And David sought the face of Hashem [Shmuel II, 21:1]. What is the meaning of this? Rish Lakish said: He asked the Urim Vetumim.

Hashem answers Dovid: [ibid.]: And Hashem said: “It is for Shaul, and also for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites.” The Gemora explains: “It is for Shaul” is referring to the fact that Shaul was not eulogized in a manner befitting him; and “for his bloody house” is referring to Shaul’s sin, “because he put to death the Gibeonites.”

The Gemora asks: Where do we find that Shaul killed the Gibeonites?

The Gemora answers: Since he killed the residents of Nov the city of Kohanim who supplied the Gibeonites with water and food, it was considered as if Shaul killed them.

The Gemora asks: Hashem demanded justice for Shaul because he was not properly mourned for, and simultaneously demanded justice because he put to death the Gibeonites?

The Gemora answers: Yes! For Rish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written [Tzephaniah 2:3]: Seek Hashem all you humble of the land, who have fulfilled his law? When there is judgment, there can also be found his righteous deeds. (78b)

Dovid said: “In regards to fixing the sin of not eulogizing Shaul properly, twelve months have already lapsed since Shaul died, and it is no longer fitting to eulogize him. However, in regards to the Nesinim, let us summon them and appease them. Immediately they were called, as it is written [Shmuel II, 21, 2-3]: And the king called the Gibeonites and said to them … “What shall I do for you, and with what shall I make atonement so that you shall bless the inheritance of Hashem?” The passage continues [ibid. v.4-6]: And the Gibeonites said to him: “We have no matters of silver and gold with Shaul, or with his house, and we don’t care to put to death any man in Israel … Let there be delivered to us seven men from among his sons, and we will hang them for the sake of Hashem etc.” Dovid tried to pacify them, but they were not appeased. Dovid said: “There are three distinguishing characteristics of the Jewish people; they are merciful, bashful and benevolent. Whoever has these three characteristics are fitting to cleave to this nation (as the Gibeonites displayed a spirit of revenge and vindictiveness they were excluded from, and forbidden even to enter, the assembly of Israel).”

The passage continues: It is written [ibid. v.8-9]: And the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Ayah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzilai the Meholathite. And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the mountain before the Lord, and they fell all seven together. And they were put to death in the days of the harvest, in the first days, at the beginning of the barley harvest.

The Gemora asks: Why were these seven men chosen?

Rav Huna answers: Dovid passed Shaul’s descendants before the Holy Ark. He whom the Ark detained was condemned to death, and he whom the Ark did not detain was spared for life.

Rav Chana bar Katina asked him from the following verse [ibid. v.7]: But the king took pity on Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Shaul. How could Dovid have mercy on him if it was determined by the Holy Ark?

The Gemora answers: Dovid did not pass him before the Ark.

The Gemora asks: It would seem that Dovid is showing favoritism by holding him back?

The Gemora answers: He did pass him before the Ark, and the Ark detained him. Dovid begged for mercy on his behalf, and the Ark released him.

The Gemora asks: It would seem that Dovid is still showing favoritism?

The Gemora answers: Dovid begged that the Ark should not detain him.

The Gemora asks: But is it not surely written [Devarim 24:16]: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children and sons shall not be put to death because of fathers?

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: It is better that a letter be uprooted out of the Torah than that the Divine Name shall be publicly profaned. (78b – 79a)

The passage continues: It is written [Shmuel II, 21:10]: And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took the sackcloth and she spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of the harvest until water was poured upon them from heaven; and she allowed not the birds of the heaven to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.

The Gemora asks: But is it not written [Devarim 21:23]: His body shall not remain for the night on the gallows?

Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: It is better that a letter be uprooted out of the Torah and the Divine Name shall be publicly sanctified. For passersby would inquire, “What kind of men are these?” They would be told, “These are royal princes.” The passersby would then ask, “And what have they done?” They would be told, “They laid their hands upon unaccepted converts.” Then they exclaimed: “There is no nation in existence which one ought to join as much as this one. If the punishment of royal princes was so great, how much more so of that of common people; and if such was the justice done for unattached converts, how much more so for accepted converts.” Immediately, one hundred and fifty thousand converts joined the Jewish people. (79a)

The Gemora asks: Was it Dovid who issued the decree against the Nesinim? Didn’t Moshe already decree against them?

The Gemora answers: Moshe only decreed for his generation; Dovid decreed for all future generations.

The Gemora asks: Didn’t Yehoshua decree against them for all future generations?

The Gemora answers: Yehoshua’s decree was only applicable during the time that the Beis Hamikdosh was standing; Dovid’s decree was for afterwards as well.

The Gemora records: In the times of Rebbe, they wished to release the Nesinim from their slave status, and thereby permitting them to marry into the congregation. Rebbe said to them: “Our portion we can release, but we cannot release the Mizbeach’s portion (they were designated as slaves for the people and for the Mizbeach).”

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba disagrees: He said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The portion of the people is forbidden forever (unless the Beis Din would renounce their ownership), but the portion belonging to the Mizbeach is only forbidden during the time that the Beis Hamikdosh is standing. (79a – 79b)

The Mishna states: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard that a saris (a man who is sterile) submits to chalitzah, and they submit to chalitzah from his wife. I also heard that a saris does not submit to chalitzah, and they do not submit to chalitzah from his wife, and I cannot explain it (the two contradictory rulings). Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain. A saris-adam (one who became sterile after birth) submits to chalitzah, and they submit to chalitzah from his wife, because he had a time of fitness. A saris-chamah (one who was born sterile) does not submit to chalitzah, and they do not submit to chalitzah from his wife, because he did not have a time of fitness. Rabbi Eliezer said: Not so, but rather a saris-chamah submits to chalitzah, and they submit to chalitzah from his wife, because he has a cure. A saris-adam does not submit to chalitzah, and they do not submit to chalitzah from his wife, because he does not have a cure. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beseira testified about ben Megusas, a saris-adam who was in Yerushalayim, and his wife was married by yibum, thus confirming the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

A saris does not submit to chalitzah, and he does not perform yibum. And similarly, an aylonis does not perform chalitzah, and she is not married by yibum. If a saris submitted to chalitzah from his yevamah, he does not disqualify her. If he cohabited with her, he disqualifies her, because it is an illicit cohabitation. And similarly, if brothers submitted to chalitzah from an aylonis, they have not disqualified her; if they cohabited with her, they disqualify her, because cohabitation with her is an illicit cohabitation. (79b)

[END]

Read more!

A MAMZER WILL NOT SURVIVE - Yevamos 78 - Daf Yomi

Rish Lakish said: A mamzeres is permitted to marry into the congregation after ten generations. The Gemora cites the Scriptural source for this.

They asked Rabbi Eliezer: What is the halacha regarding a mamzeres after ten generations?

He said to them: If you would give me a third-generation mamzer, I will render him pure. (This scenario is not possible, because Heaven does not allow third-generation mamzeirim to be in existence, in order that the ordinary Jews will not unknowingly marry them.)

Rav Huna said: Mamzeirim do not survive.

The Gemora asks: But we learned in our Mishna that the prohibition regarding mamzeirim is eternal? It would seem that they do survive, and they have future generations.

Rabbi Zeira answers: Rav Yehudah explained to me the following: A known mamzer survives (since there is no danger of intermarriage with them or their descendants). An unknown mamzer does not survive. A mamzer that is known, but unknown (it is not common knowledge) will survive until three generations, but not longer (by that time, everyone will have forgotten).

Reb Yonasan Eibshitz explains: Up until ten generations, the strength of the father still exists in his descendants.

The Vilna Gaon states: A father and mother are equal partners in a child. A grandson would have twenty-five percent from the father. The third generation will have an eighth. The fourth will have a sixteenth. The fifth will have one thirty-second from the original mamzer. The sixth will have one sixty-fourth. The seventh generation will only have one out of one hundred and twenty-eight. The eighth will have one out of two hundred and fifty-six. The ninth will have one out of five hundred and twelve. The tenth generation will only have one out of one thousand and twenty-four from the original mamzer.

The portion of the mamzer that exists in the tenth-generation descendant has now become nullified. The Yerushalmi states that a berya, a complete creature can become nullified if it is intermingled among a mixture of more that nine hundred and sixty.

The Yerushalmi states that an unknown mamzer will not survive even for thirty days. The Aruch lener explains: This is only true when he is halachically classified as a mamzer (there were witnesses), but it is not public knowledge. Since he is forbidden to enter into the congregation, and people do not know this, there is a decree from heaven that he will die. However, in a case where there is a doubt if he is a mamzer, he will survive, because the halacha is that an uncertain mamzer is permitted to enter into the congregation. (Reb Elchonon disagrees with this.)

The Beis Shmuel (E”H, 2:18) cites a Sefer Chasidim who states that a mamzer will not survive twelve months, similar to a tereifah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 78 - Highlights

The Mishna had stated: An Egyptian convert and an Edomite convert are prohibited only for three generations, both males and females. Rabbi Shimon permits the females immediately. Rabbi Shimon said: This can be derived by means of a kal vachomer: If in the case where the males are prohibited eternally (an Ammonite convert and a Moabite convert), the females are permitted immediately, in the case where the males are prohibited only for three generations, shouldn’t it stand to reason that the females should be permitted immediately! They said to him: If it is a halacha (a tradition from your teachers), we shall accept, but if you derived it through the kal vachomer, there is a refutation. He said to them: It is not so (there is no refutation), but regardless, I am stating a halacha!

The Gemora asks: What was the objection that the Rabbis could have advanced to refute Rabbi Shimon’s kal vachomer?

Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: They could have said that the Torah’s prohibition of arayos (illicit relations under the penalty of kares) indicates that the kal vachomer is incorrect. The Torah prohibits relatives until three generations, and yet the prohibition of arayos is applicable to males and females.

Rabbi Shimon would answer: The prohibitions cannot be compared. Arayos carries the penalty of kares (and perhaps that is why the females are prohibited; marriage with an Egyptian is merely a negative precept).

The Rabbis would answer: The prohibition regarding a mamzer indicates that even when there is no penalty of kares, both males and females are prohibited.

Rabbi Shimon would answer: You cannot compare to the prohibition of mamzer; a mamzer may never enter into the congregation, whereas an Egyptian may enter after three generations.

The Rabbis would answer: The arayos prohibition proves that females will be prohibited even in prohibitions that are permitted after three generations.

The argument repeats itself, and in conclusion, we can learn from the common characteristic of the two cases. The common characteristic in the two cases (mamzer and arayos) is that they are prohibited, and the prohibition applies to males and females; so too, the prohibition regarding the Egyptian converts will apply to males and females.

Rabbi Shimon would answer: You cannot compare the prohibition regarding an Egyptian convert to these cases. Both of these prohibitions have an element of kares, whereas, regarding an Egyptian convert, there is no kares.

The Rabbis would answer: We can derive the prohibition of the females from the chalal (instead of the mamzer) who is the offspring of a union between those who through it, are guilty of transgressing only a positive commandment (in a case where a Kohen Gadol cohabited with a non-virgin) and in accordance with the view of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (who maintains that the child from such a union is a chalal). (Thus, it has been proven that even where there is no element of kares, both males and females are included in the prohibition. Similarly, in the case of the Egyptians converts, the females will be included.)

This is what Rabbi Shimon meant when he stated: “It is not so.” I don’t subscribe to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. And as for you, who do hold like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, I am stating a halacha (a tradition which I receives from my teachers). (77b)

The Gemora cites a braisa: It is written [Devarim 23:9]: Sons who are born to them in the third generation may enter the Congregation of Hashem. This implies that only sons must wait for the third generation, but females are permitted immediately; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehudah says: It is written: Sons who are born to them. The Torah is stating that it is dependent on birth (and females must also wait until the third generation).

Rabbi Yochanan said: If Rabbi Yehudah had not declared that the Torah is stating that it is dependent on birth, he would not have found his hands and feet at the Beis Medrash (his position would have been untenable regarding a different ruling of his). Since he stated that the congregation of converts is considered the congregation (and therefore, a mamzer, an Ammonite and Moabite convert would not be permitted to marry a convert), how would a second-generation Egyptian convert attain purity (allowing the next generation to marry into the congregation)? (If Egyptian women were not included in the prohibition to enter the congregation, then, they would be included in the Congregation of Hashem, and a second-generation Egyptian convert would be prohibited from marrying Egyptian female converts; accordingly, it would be impossible to produce a third-generation Egyptian.)

The Gemora asks: Perhaps the Torah is referring to a case where a second-generation Egyptian convert married illegally (either an ordinary Jewess or a convert)?

The Gemora answers: The Torah does not discuss cases that would only occur if someone violated the halacha.

The Gemora asks: Why, the Torah discusses a case of mamzer, and that can only occur if the halacha was violated?

The Gemora answers: The Torah would discuss cases that would only occur if someone violated the halacha, if it would lead to a prohibition (such as mamzer); however, the Torah does not discuss cases that would only occur if someone violated the halacha, if it leads to permissibility. (77b – 78a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: It is written regarding an Egyptian convert: Sons who are born to them in the third generation may enter the Congregation of Hashem. If it states “sons,” why does it state “generations”? And if it states “generations,” why does it state “sons”?

The braisa answers: If the Torah would state “sons” and not “generations,” I would have thought that the first and the second son of the Egyptian convert are prohibited from marrying into the congregation, but the third son is permitted. It is for this reason that the Torah wrote “generations,” to teach us that all the sons of the Egyptian convert are prohibited (because they are all second-generation Egyptians); the grandchildren are permitted. If the Torah would state “generations” and not sons,” I would have thought that the Torah is referring to those that were standing at Har Sinai (any third-generation Jew would be permitted to marry an Egyptian convert). It is for this reason that the Torah wrote “sons,” to teach us that third generation descending from an Egyptian convert is permitted to marry into the congregation.

The braisa continues by asking the following: Why does the Torah state “to them”? It is to teach us that we follow their disqualification (whether the father is an Egyptian convert and the mother is a Jewess, or whether the mother is an Egyptian and the father is a Jew, the children are in either case ineligible until the third generation).

It was necessary for the Torah to write “to them,” and it was also necessary for it to write “who are born.” For if the Torah would have written only “who are born,” it might have been presumed that the three generations must begin from their children, the Torah therefore wrote “to them,” to indicate that the converts themselves are regarded as the first generation. And if the Torah would have written only “to them,” it might have been presumed that, where a pregnant Egyptian woman converted, she and her child are regarded as one generation (and the three generations would commence with the child), the Torah therefore wrote “who are born,” to teach that any child born after conversion is considered a second-generation Egyptian.

The Gemora continues analyzing the verses: It was necessary to write “for them” by the Egyptian converts, and it was necessary to write “for him” by a mamzer. For if the Torah would have written only “for them,” I would have thought that the restriction (that the ineligibility of any one of the parents causes the ineligibility of the child) might have been assumed to apply only by the Egyptian converts because the child descended from a tainted origin, but it would not apply to a mamzer since he descends from a drop that is genealogically fit. And if the Torah would have written only “for him” by a mamzer, I would have thought that the restriction (that the ineligibility of any one of the parents causes the ineligibility of the child) might have been assumed to apply only by a mamzer because he and all his future descendants are prohibited from entering the congregation, but it would not apply to an Egyptian convert. Both texts were, therefore, required. (78a)

Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: If a second-generation male Egyptian convert marries a first-generation female Egyptian convert, her son is regarded as a third-generation Egyptian convert.

The Gemora infers from here that Rabbi Yochanan maintains that we cast the child after the father.

Rav Yosef asked from the following Mishna: Rabbi Tarfon said: There is a manner in which mamzeirim can be purified. How is this? If a mamzer marries a slavewoman, the child is classified as a slave (and not a mamzer). If the child is freed, he is regarded as a free man, and is permitted to marry into the congregation. It emerges that we cast the child after the mother, and not the father.

The Gemora answers: It is different there (regarding a slavewoman), for the Torah states [Shmos 21:4]: The woman and her children belong to her master. (78a)

Rava asked on Rabbi Yochanan from the following braisa: Rabbi Yehudah said: Minyamin, an Egyptian convert was one of my colleagues among the disciples of Rabbi Akiva, and he once told me: “I am a first-generation Egyptian convert and I married a first-generation Egyptian convert. I shall arrange for my son to marry a second-generation Egyptian convert in order that my grandson shall be eligible to enter the congregation.” If Rabbi Yochanan is correct that we cast the child after the father, let him marry even a first-generation Egyptian convert; the grandson will still be classified as a third-generation convert, and he will be eligible to enter the congregation?

The Gemora answers: Rabbi Yochanan emended thr braisa to read the following: “I shall arrange for my son to marry a first-generation Egyptian convert in order that my grandson shall be eligible to enter the congregation.” (78a)

The Gemora cites a different version of Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling: When Rav Dimi came to Bavel, he said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: If a second-generation male Egyptian convert marries a first-generation female Egyptian convert, her son is regarded as a second-generation Egyptian convert.

The Gemora infers from here that Rabbi Yochanan maintains that we cast the child after the mother. (The Gemora initially thinks that Rabbi Yochanan’s reason is based on the concept that a fetus is like a thigh of the mother.)

Abaye asked Rav Dimi from a different statement that Rabbi Yochanan said: If one designated a pregnant animal as a chatas (sin offering), and she gave birth, his atonement may be made, if he desires, with the animal itself, and, if he prefers, his atonement may be made with her offspring. This halacha would be understandable if you would say that Rabbi Yochanan holds that a fetus is not like the thigh of its mother; and therefore, it is as if he designated two chataos as a security for one another (in case one should be lost, the other would take its place). And Rabbi Oshaya said: One who designated two chataos as a security for one another, he atones for his sin with either of them, while the other goes to the pasture (until it develops a blemish, when it is redeemed). But if you would say that a fetus is like a thigh of the mother, then one who designated a pregnant animal as a chatas, the offspring should be regarded as an offspring of a chatas, and the halacha is that the offspring of a chatas is consigned to death. (This proves that Rabbi Yochanan maintains that a fetus is not like the thigh of its mother, and is in contrast to our initiall understanding of Rav Dimi’s ruling in the name of Rabbi Yochanan.

Rav Dimi was silent.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: Perhaps it is different in the case of the two Egyptian converts, for it is written “sons who are born to them.” The Torah made them dependent on birth (we cast them after the mother, even though a fetus is not like the thigh of the mother).

Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Clever man! I saw your head between the pillars of the Beis Medrash when Rabbi Yochanan taught this ruling (you heard this explanation from Rabbi Yochanan himself). (78a)

The Gemora states: The only reason Rabbi Yochanan cast the children of the Egyptian converts after the mother is because the Torah wrote “sons who are born to them.” Elsewhere, we would cast the children after the father. Accordingly, how we can explain the following ruling? Rava said: If a pregnant idolater converted, her son would not require immersion. If a fetus is not like the thigh of the mother, but rather, the child would be regarded as a separate entity, shouldn’t the child require immersion?

Perhaps you might answer that the child does not require another immersion on account of Rav Yitzchak’s ruling. Rav Yitzchak said: If there is a barrier that covers most of one’s body and one is particular about it, this would invalidate one’s immersion in a mikvah. If, however, the barrier covers most of one’s body, but he is not particular about the barrier, the immersion in the mikvah is valid. (The fetus is covered by his mother’s body, but he is not particular about this; the immersion should be valid.) This explanation would not be sufficient because Rav Kahana said: The immersion is only valid if the barrier covered most of his body, but if it covered his entire body, the immersion will be invalid.

The Gemora answers: A fetus is different because that is the normal way that it grows (and is therefore not regarded as barrier). (78a – 78b)

When Ravina came to Bavel, he said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Concerning other nations, we follow the male; and if they convert, we follow the one who is more tainted.

The Gemora explains the first ruling: Concerning other nations, we follow the male. It was taught in a braisa: How do we know that if a male from any nation (other than the seven nations of Canaan) cohabited with a Canaanite woman and had a child; one is permitted to purchase that child as a slave (and he is not obligated to kill him; there is a requirement to kill anyone from the nations of Canaan)?

The braisa answers: It is written [Vayikra 25:44]: And also from among the children of the residents who live with you, from among them you may purchase slaves. One might have thought that even if a Canaanite male cohabited with a woman from any of the other nations and had a child; one would be permitted to purchase that child as a slave. It is therefore written [ibid.]: ….whom they begot in your land. The Torah teaches us that one may purchase slaves only from those who were born in your land to Canaanite mothers from non-Canaanite fathers, but not from among those children who were born abroad to non-Canaanite mothers from Canaanite fathers, and who later returned to reside in your land with their fathers. (Women, generally remain in the lands of their birth, and that is why, when the Torah states “born in your land,” it is referring to the children of Canaanite mothers. These verses establish that in respect to other nations, we follow the father’s status.)

The Gemora now explains the second ruling: And if they convert, we follow the one who is more tainted. What is this case? If he is referring to a male Egyptian convert who married a female Ammonite convert (and we cast the child after the one who is more tainted, namely, the Egyptian, and hence, the child will be ineligible to marry into the congregation regardless of its gender); I will ask the following: The mother is not regarded as tainted at all, since she is permitted to marry into the congregation.

Rather, he must be referring to a case where a male Ammonite convert married a female Egyptian convert. If the child is a male, we cast him after his Ammonite father (and he and his sons will be ineligible to marry into the congregation). If the child is a female, we cast her after her Egyptian mother (and she would be ineligible to marry into the congregation). (78b)

The Mishna states: Mamzeirim and Nesinim are prohibited from marrying into the congregation, and their prohibition is eternal for males and for females. (78b)

Rish Lakish said: A mamzeres is permitted to marry into the congregation after ten generations. The Gemora cites the Scriptural source for this.

The Gemora asks: Rish Lakish is contradiction our Mishna, which ruled that the prohibition regarding mamzeirim is eternal for males and for females. The Gemora answers: This is actually dependent on a Tannaic dispute regarding laws that are derived through a gezeirah shavah. (78b)

They asked Rabbi Eliezer: What is the halacha regarding a mamzeres after ten generations?

He said to them: If you would give me a third-generation mamzer, I will render him pure. (This scenario is not possible, because Heaven does not allow third-generation mamzeirim to be in existence, in order that the ordinary Jews will not unknowingly marry them.)

Rav Huna said: Mamzeirim do not survive.

The Gemora asks: But we learned in our Mishna that the prohibition regarding mamzeirim is eternal? It would seem that they do survive, and they have future generations.

Rabbi Zeira answers: Rav Yehudah explained to me the following: A known mamzer survives (since there is no danger of intermarriage with them or their descendants). An unknown mamzer does not survive. A mamzer that is known, but unknown (it is not common knowledge) will survive until three generations, but not longer (by that time, everyone will have forgotten). (78b)

[END]

Read more!

YIBUM WITH RUS - Yevamos 77 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora relates the episode with Shaul, Doeg and Avner. Doeg the Edomite said to Shaul: “Instead of enquiring whether he is fit to be king or not, enquire rather whether he is permitted to enter the congregation or not.” What is the reason that he shouldn’t be permitted to enter into the congregation? It is because he descends from Rus, the Moabite. Avner said to him: “We learned in a braisa: An Ammonite is prohibited, but not a female Ammonite; A Moabite is prohibited, but not a female Moabite.”

The Maharsha asks: How could Doeg have thought that Boaz, the Head of the Sanhedrin, the Judge of all of Israel for many years would conduct himself improperly and publicly marry a woman who was forbidden to him? Furthermore, why did Ploni Almoni say to Boaz: “I cannot marry Rus because I am concerned that my children will be tainted”? He should have said that he can’t marry her because he is forbidden to marry an Ammonite woman (according to him)?

The Maharsha answers: The Gemora above (20b) explained the reason why a brother may not perform a yibum with his brother’s wife in a case when she is forbidden to him by a negative prohibition. The Gemora asks: Shouldn’t the positive commandment of yibum override the prohibition? The Gemora answers: He may not perform a yibum in this case because only the first act of cohabitation is permitted (that is the mitzvah of yibum), but not the second act. We are concerned that he might cohabitate with her a second time, which would be forbidden.

The Maharsha says that perhaps this Rabbinic ordinance was not yet in effect in the times of Boaz, and it was permitted to perform a yibum on a women who was forbidden to the brother by a negative prohibition.

The Ramban in Breishis (38:8) states: In the times of our Patriarchs, they would perform the mitzvah of yibum even with other relatives; not only a brother’s wife.

Ploni Almoni (Rus’ closest relative) could have performed a mitzvah of yibum with Rus even though she was a Moabite women, because the positive commandment of yibum would override the prohibition against marrying a Moabite woman. He refused to marry her because the children that would descend from this union would be tainted; they would not be allowed to marry into the congregation because the children would be Moabite’s, just like their mother. He was concerned even about his own children that he fathered beforehand. People might not understand the distinction, and they would claim that all his children are forbidden to marry into the congregation.

Boaz, on the other hand, did not have these concerns. The Gemora in Bava Basra (91a) records that all of his children died already.

This is what Doeg thought. He knew that Boaz would not publicly violate the Torah by marrying Rus illegally. This is why Doeg claimed that Dovid is prohibited from marrying into the congregation. Dovid descends from Rus, and she is a Moabite that has the prohibition of not marrying into the congregation. Boaz was justified to perform yibum with her, but the children will still remain disqualified from entering the congregation.

There are many questions on this explanation. The Kli Chemdah and Yashreish Yaakov ask: The entire premise of the Maharsha is flawed. The Ramban’s explanation of yibum is only prior to the Giving of the Torah. After the Torah was given, yibum can only be performed on a brother’s wife; not with any other relatives.

The Alshich asks: How could there have been a mitzvah of yibum with Rus altogether? Her marriage with Machlon had no validity; she was an idolater.

Furthermore, Tosfos rules that only the initial part of cohabitation would be Biblically permitted with a woman who is forbidden by a negative precept. One is prohibited from completing cohabitation. How was Boaz able to complete cohabitation with Rus, and father a child with her?

The Yashreish Yaakov concludes by saying that the words of the Maharsha were only to be taken as a drush.

Read more!

MODESTY OF THE WOMEN FROM MOAB - Yevamos 77 - Daf Yomi

Avner replied to Doeg: “It is different regarding the prohibition against Ammonites and Moabites because the Scriptural text is explicitly stated regarding them [Devarim 23:5]: Because they did not greet you with bread and with water. It is customary for a man to greet travelers with bread and water, but it is not customary for a woman to greet them (the women were, therefore, excluded from the prohibition).”

The Gemora asks: Why are the female Ammonites and Moabites permitted if they should have brought out bread and water to the women?

The Gemora answers: In Bavel, they cited the following verse [Tehillim 45:14]: The very honor of a princess is within. In Eretz Yisroel, they cited the following verse [Breishis 18:9]: And they said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” He said: “Behold, she is in the tent.”

The Maharshal asks: Were the women from Ammon and Moab modest? It is written regarding them that they were promiscuous women? What is the justification for them not going out and greeting the Jews?

He explains that it was the modesty of the Jewish women that prevented the women from Ammon and Moab to greet them. The Jewish women remained in their tents, something they had learned from their Matriarch, Sarah.

It is interesting to note that the Chasam Sofer answers that the women from Moab were modest indeed. It was in fact customary even for them to remain inside. It was only after Bilaam’s failure to curse the Jewish people that Balak convinced them to go out and seduce the Jewish men.

Read more!

FOOD FOR THOUGHT - Yevamos 77 - Daf Yomi

*** How could Boaz be trusted to rule that a Moabite is prohibited, but not a female Moabite? Didn’t we learn that a Torah scholar that teaches a new halacha at the time of the incident is not believed?

*** The Torah prohibits seeking peace with Ammon and Moav. Does this prohibition apply only to the males, or also to the females?

*** How was Yisra allowed to bring a sword into the Beis Medrash? The halacha is that one may not bring a sword into a Synagogue because one who prays will merit long life, and a sword shortens one’s life.

Read more!

DIVINE RETRIBUTION - Yevamos 77 - Daf Yomi

The Gemara in Sanhedrin (106b) describes Doeg’s downfall:

Rabbi Ami said: Doeg did not die until he forgot his learning, as it is stated: He shall die bereft of wisdom, led into error by his great folly. Rav Ashi said: Doeg was afflicted by tzaraas before he died, as it is stated: You cut down (hitzmatah) all who stray from You. The verb hitzmatah alludes to tzaraas, as follows: It is written there, in connection with the Yovel year: litzmisus, which Targum Onkelos renders as lachalutin; and we learned in a Mishnah: There is no difference between a confined metzora and a confirmed (muchlat) metzora except the regulations concerning letting the hair grow and rending the garments. The term muchlat, which is used in this Mishnah in connection with tzaraas, has the same root as lachalutin, which is the Targum for litzmisus. It follows that hitzmatah, which has the same root as litzmisus, also alludes to tzaraas. Thus, scripture implies that Doeg was afflicted with tzaraas.

One may wonder why it was necessary for Doeg to be afflicted with tzaraas before he died. Was it not sufficient for him to die young?

My brother, Reb Binyomin, in his sefer on Sanhedrin explains: Let us understand the punishment of tzaraas. One who slanders someone is liable the punishment of tzaraas, as we see from numerous incidents in the Torah with Moshe disparaging the Jewish People, Miriam talking ill about her brother Moshe, and other instances. The affliction of tzaraas is meant to demonstrate to the sinner that he is an outcast, and the sinner must mend his or hers ways before being allowed normal social interaction. Doeg had slandered Dovid and thus earned the punishment of tzaraas. Although Doeg’s punishment is only inferred from the exposition of the Gemara, the Gemara is teaching us that no one can escape Divine Retribution. Reb Moshe Feinstein, in the Sefer Derash Moshe, explains that this is the reason why the plague of Barad, fire and hail, only affected the flax and the barley in Egypt, while the wheat and the spelt were not struck, as Hashem only punished the Egyptians commensurate with their evil deeds. If we would recognize that Hashem rewards our good deeds five hundred fold , then we would make every attempt to study Torah whenever possible, and perform as many mitzvos as possible.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 77 - Highlights

The Mishna had stated: An Ammonite convert and a Moabite convert are prohibited, and their prohibition is an eternal prohibition. However, their females are permitted immediately.

The Gemora states that the source for this ruling is actually A dispute among the Tannaim, as was taught in the following braisa: An Ammonite is prohibited, but not a female Ammonite; A Moabite is prohibited, but not a female Moabite; these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon said: It is written regarding the prohibition against Ammonites and Moabites [Devarim 23:5]: Because they did not greet you with bread and with water. It is customary for a man to greet travelers with bread and water, but it is not customary for a woman to greet them (the women were, therefore, excluded from the prohibition). (77a)

Rava expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written [Tehillim 116:16]: You have released my yoke straps? Dovid said before the Holy One, Blessed is He: “Master of the Universe, the two yoke straps that were fastened upon me – you released them.” This is referring to Rus the Moabite and Naamah the Ammonite (the wife of Shlomo and mother of Rechovam, Dovid's grandson). (77a)

Ula said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The daughter of a male Ammonite convert is qualified to marry a Kohen.

Rava bar Ula said to Ula: According to which opinion is this ruling going according to? If it is following Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion, he maintains that the daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male chalal (thus disqualifying her from the Kehunah). If it is following Rabbi Yosi’s opinion, he maintains that the daughter of two converts is qualified for the Kehunah (so why did Rabbi Yochanan need to issue this exact ruling?).

Rava bar Ula answers: Perhaps Rabbi Yochanan is referring to a case where a male Ammonite convert married the daughter of a Yisroel illegally. Rabbi Yochanan rules that although he committed a transgression with this cohabitation, his daughter is qualified to marry a Kohen.

Ula said to Rava his son: Yes (that is correct)! For when Ravin came to Bavel he said: If an Ammonite convert or a second-generation Egyptian convert married a Jewish woman illegally and they had a daughter, Rabbi Yochanan said: She is qualified to marry a Kohen. Rish Lakish said: She is disqualified from marrying a Kohen.

The Gemora explains their respective opinions: Rish Lakish said that she is disqualified from marrying a Kohen because he derives this halacha from the daughter of a kohen Gadol who marries a widow (just as the daughter conceived through that sinful union is disqualified for the Kehunah, so too, the daughter of this sinful union is disqualified for the Kehunah).

Rabbi Yochanan said that she is qualified for the Kehunah based on the following discussion: Rabbi Zakkai taught the following braisa in front of Rabbi Yochanan: It is written regarding a Kohen Gadol [Vayikra 21:14]: Only a virgin of his nation shall he take as a wife. This includes a convert by her heritage (a woman who was born from parents who were both converts from the same nation, even from Ammon); she is permitted to marry a Kohen.

Rabbi Yochanan said to Rabbi Zakkai: I learned the following braisa: By the fact that the Torah does not state “his nation,” but rather, it states “from his nation,” this teaches us that a virgin that comes from two nations, is permitted to marry a Kohen, and you say that only a convert who was born from parents who were both converts from the same nation is permitted, and no other?

The Gemora analyzes their discussion: What is the meaning of “a virgin that comes from two nations”? If you will say that it is referring to the daughter of a male Ammonite who married a female Ammonite, and the reason this case is called “two nations,” is because they have two different halachos; the male Ammonite is prohibited, and the female Ammonite is permitted; this is the same case as the convert by her heritage (which is precisely the ruling of the braisa that Rabbi Zakkai cited, what would Rabbi Yochanan be asking?). Rather, the case must be referring to an Ammonite convert who married a Jewish woman illegally and they had a daughter; she is permitted to marry a Kohen. (77a – 77b)

The Gemora cites another version of Rabbi Yochanan’s response: Rabbi Yochanan said to Rabbi Zakkai: I learned the following braisa: By the fact that the Torah does not state “his nation,” but rather, it states “from his nation,” this teaches us that a virgin that comes from two nations, including a nation that has in it two nations, is permitted to marry a Kohen, and you say that only a convert who was born from parents who were both converts from the same nation is permitted, and no other? (According to this version, he explicitly was referring to a case where an Ammonite man married a Jewish woman illegally; the daughter from such a union is permitted to the Kehunah.)

The Gemora analyzes this version: According to this version (that the verse is specifically referring to Ammon, who has in two nations, but no other nation), how does Rabbi Yochanan know that the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert who married a Jewish woman illegally is permitted to the Kehunah?

The Gemora asks: It cannot be derived from the similar halacha regarding the daughter of an Ammonite man who married a Jewish woman illegally, because we are more lenient with Ammon; the female Ammonites are permitted to marry into the congregation.

The Gemora answers: The daughter of a second-generation Egyptian male convert who married a second-generation female convert will prove your question incorrect. (She is permitted to marry a Kohen because she is a third-generation Egyptian convert; although there is an element of stringency regarding Egyptian converts, namely, that their females are prohibited. It should follow that the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert who married a Jewish woman illegally should be permitted to marry a Kohen, because she is a third-generation Egyptian.)

The Gemora asks: How can you use that case as a proof? The cohabitation was not in sin when a second-generation Egyptian male convert married a second-generation female convert; perhaps that is why the daughter is permitted to marry a Kohen?

The Gemora answers: The case regarding the daughter of an Ammonite man who married a Jewish woman illegally will prove your question incorrect. (She is permitted to marry a Kohen even though the cohabitation was in sin.) The argument repeats itself, and in conclusion, we can learn from the common characteristic of the two cases. (The daughter of an Ammonite man who married a Jewish woman illegally, and the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian male convert who married a second-generation female convert are unlike the rest of the community, and permitted to marry a Kohen; so too, the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert who married a Jewish woman illegally is unlike the rest of the community, and therefore permitted to marry a Kohen.) (77b)

[END]

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 76 - Highlights

The Mishna had stated: What is a kerus shafchah? Any man whose member was cut off; however, if a hairsbreadth of the corona remained, he is permitted to marry into the congregation.

The Gemora states: Ravina was sitting and he inquired: Must the hairsbreadth which is remaining extend over the entire circumference of the corona or only over a majority of the corona?

Rava Tosfaah said to Ravina: It would be sufficient if it extended over the majority of the corona, provided that it is along the upper side of the corona. (75b)

Rav Huna ruled: If his member is cut (diagonally) like a reed pen, he is not disqualified; if it is cut like a gutter (deep and wide through the center), he is disqualified. The rationale is: In the latter case, the air penetrates (cooling the area, thus preventing the semen from becoming potent), whereas in the former case, it does not.

R. Chisda, however, ruled: If his member is cut like a gutter, he is not disqualified; if it is cut like a reed pen he is disqualified. The rationale is: In the former case, friction may be produced (since the outer walls of the member remain intact, and the sperm is ejaculated into the womb); whereas in the latter case, it cannot.

Rava said: It is reasonable to adopt the view of Rav Huna, for in the latter case, the air penetrates, whereas in the former case, it does not. And in regard to friction, it is similar to the spigot of a barrel (the contact produced by the back part of the member is sufficient for the generation of the heat required for fertilization).

Ravina said to Mereimar: Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: The halacha is that whether it is cut like a reed pen, or like a gutter, he is qualified to marry into the congregation. However, he inquired whether such a cut must be below the corona (it did not cut through the corona) or may even be above it?

It is obvious that the cut may even be above it; for were it to be below the corona, he would be qualified even if the entire member was severed (since we learned that if a hairsbreadth of the corona remained, he is permitted to marry into the congregation). Ravina, however, only desired to test Mereimar.

There was an incident that occurred in the city of Mechasya, and Mar bar Rav Ashi arranged for the corona to be cut into the shape of a reed pen, and then permitted the man to marry into the congregation.

There was an incident in Pumbedisa that a man had his semen duct blocked, and the discharge of the semen made its way through the urinal duct. Rav Bibi the son of Abaye intended to permit the man fit to marry into the congregation. Rav Pappi said: Because you are because you are descendants of short-lived people (Rav Bibi was a descendant of the house of Eli the Kohen Gadol, who were condemned to die young), you say false statements. When the semen passes through its proper duct, it fertilizes, but when not passing through its proper duct, it does not fertilize. (75b – 76a)

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: If his member had a small perforation which was closed up, he is disqualified if the wound would rip opened when semen is emitted, but if it would not rip open, he would be fit to marry into the congregation.

Rava analyzed this ruling: Where was this perforation? If the perforation is below the corona, he should remain fit even if it were completely severed? Rather, he is referring to a case where the perforation occurred in the corona itself.

The Gemora supports Rava’s conclusion: Rav Mari bar Mar said in the name of Mar Ukvah, who said in the name of Shmuel: If his member had a small perforation in the corona itself which was closed up, he is disqualified if the wound would rip opened when semen is emitted, but if it would not rip open, he would be fit to marry into the congregation.

Rava the son of Rabbah sent to Rav Yosef: Will the master instruct us how to ascertain whether the wound will rip opened when semen is emitted? Rav Yosef said to him: We bring warm barley bread and place it upon the man's anus. This will cause him to discharge semen, and the effect can be observed. Abaye asked: Is everybody like our Patriarch Yaakov, concerning whom it is written [Breishis 49:3]: Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might, and my initial vigor. From here we derive that Yaakov never before experienced the emission of semen. (Why then should the elaborate test described be necessary in ordinary cases?)

Rather, Abaye said: We dangle colored clothing of a woman before him (exciting his passions and thus causing a seminal discharge).

Rava asked him: Is everyone like Barzilai the Gileadite (known for his indulgence in carnal gratification – Dovid had invited Barzilai to move to Yerushalayim with him. Barzilai refused, saying that he was old and therefore was not able to taste food and drink. The Gemara states that he lied, because the maidservant of Rebbe, who was ninety-two years old, would taste the food that was cooking to see if it required more seasoning. Barzilai was eighty years old and claimed that he could not taste, and this woman was ninety-two years old and was still able to taste food. Furthermore, Barzilai said that he was old, and this led to his weakened condition, when in reality, Barzilai was steeped in immorality, and excess immorality leads one to become old suddenly.)? The Gemora concludes that it is obvious that the original answer is to be maintained. (76a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: One whose member is punctured is disqualified from marrying into the congregation because his semen drips (and is not ejaculated, therefore it will not fertilize). If the puncture closed up, he is fit to marry into the congregation because he can father a child. This is a disqualification that returns to its original state of qualification.

The Gemora asks: What is the expression of “this is a disqualification” coming to exclude?

The Gemora answers: It excludes the case where a seal of scar tissue was formed on the lungs in consequence of a wound; since such cannot be regarded as a proper effective tissue seal. (It may easily burst. The lungs are, therefore, regarded as wounded, and the animal from which they were taken is unfit for consumption; it is deemed to be a tereifah.) (76a)

The braisa had stated: If the puncture closed up, he is fit to marry into the congregation because he can father a child.

Rav Idi bar Avin sent to Abaye: What can we do to seal the puncture? He replied: We bring a grain of barley and scratch the spot (near the perforation) so that it bleeds (thus producing connective tissue). Fats are rubbed in, and a big ant, procured for the purpose, is allowed to bite in, causing its head to remain in the cavity, thus assisting in the closing up and healing of the wound. It must be a grain of barley, for an iron instrument would cause inflammation. This procedure, furthermore, applies only to a small perforation; the scar tissue will peel off a large one. (76a)

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said: One who urinates from two places is disqualified from marrying into the congregation.

Rava said that the halacha does not follow the opinion of the son or the father. The Gemora explains: The halacha is not in accordance with the son; this is referring to Rabbah’s ruling regarding one who urinates from two places. The halacha is not in accordance with the father; this is referring to the following ruling issued by Rav Huna: Women who practice lewdness with one another are disqualified from the Kehunah. And even according to Rabbi Elozar who rules that an unmarried man who cohabits with an unmarried woman without intending for marriage has rendered her a zonah, this applies only when she has relations with a man. However, when women have relations with each other, this is regarded merely as lewdness. (76a)

The Mishna states: A petzua daka and a kerus shofchah are permitted to marry a convert and a freed slavewoman. They are only prohibited from marrying into the congregation, as it is written [Devarim 30:2]: One who has wounded or crushed testicles or whose member is severed may not enter the Congregation of Hashem. (76a)

They inquired of Rav Sheishes: Is a Kohen, who is a petzua daka permitted to marry a convert or a freed slavewoman? Do we say that he remains with his sanctity and would therefore be prohibited from marrying them, or do we say that he does not remain with his sanctity and would therefore be permitted to marry them?

Rav Sheishes said to them: It was taught in a braisa: A petzua daka is permitted to marry a Nesinah (a descendant of the Gibeonites who deceived Joshua and when their identity was discovered, they were made into hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and the altar; a Jew is prohibited from intermarrying with them). If you will say that a petzua daka retains his sanctity, why don’t we apply here the verse [Devarim 7:3]: You shall not intermarry with them (anyone from the seven Canaanite nations who inhabited Eretz Yisroel before Yehoshua captured it)? This proves that a petzua daka does not retain his sanctity.

Rava objects to the proof: The prohibition against marrying them is not dependent upon one’s sanctity; the prohibition is because of the concern that they will have a son that will worship idols. This prohibition applies only while they are idolaters, but after they convert, they are permitted to marry a Jew. There was a Rabbinic ordinance against marrying the Nesinim even after they converted. The decree was issued only in regards to Jews who could have children; however, concerning a petzua daka, he would be permitted to marry a Nesinah.

The Gemora asks: If so, a mamzer, who can father children, should be prohibited from marrying a Nesinah; yet, we have learned in a Mishna that mamzeirim and nesinim are permitted to marry one another.

Rather, Rava said: The decree was issued only in regards to Jews that are eligible to marry into the congregation, but not to Jews who are disqualified to marry into the congregation (such as a mamzer or petzua daka).

Rava subsequently retracted from his position. He said: That which I previously said (that the prohibition of “You shall not intermarry with them” is only applicable to a non-converted Canaanite, but not to those that converted) is incorrect, for while they are still idolaters, a marriage with them has no validity. The prohibition against intermarriage must be after they converted. (It emerges that if a petzua daka is permitted to marry a Nesinah, it is indicative that he does not retain his sanctity.) (76a)

Rav Yosef asks on Rava from a following verse [Melachim I, 3:1]: And Shlomo made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh, king of Egypt. (It would seem that a Jew can marry an idolater; this is contrary to Rava’s viewpoint.)

The Gemora answers: Shlomo converted her prior to marrying her.

The Gemora asks: Didn’t we learn in a braisa that no converts were accepted in the days of Dovid, nor in the days of Shlomo?

The Gemora answers: The reason that converts weren’t accepted in those days was because they sought conversion to partake in Israel’s prosperity; Pharaoh’s daughter did not need this, and therefore she could be accepted as a convert.

The Gemora persists: How could Shlomo have married her, she was a first-generation Egyptian?

Rav Pappa answers: Shlomo did not actually marry her. He cites verses which indicate that Shlomo clung to them with love, but not with marriage.

The Gemora asks: But the verse explicitly says that he did indeed marry her?

The Gemora answers: On account of his excessive love for her, Scripture regards him as if he had married her. (76a – 76b)

The Mishna states: An Ammonite convert and a Moabite convert are prohibited, and their prohibition is an eternal prohibition. However, their females are permitted immediately. An Egyptian convert and an Edomite convert are prohibited only for three generations, both males and females. Rabbi Shimon permits the females immediately. Rabbi Shimon said: This can be derived by means of a kal vachomer: If in the case where the males are prohibited eternally (an Ammonite convert and a Moabite convert), the females are permitted immediately, in the case where the males are prohibited only for three generations, shouldn’t it stand to reason that the females should be permitted immediately! They said to him: If it is a halacha (a tradition from your teachers), we shall accept, but if you derived it through the kal vachomer, there is a refutation. He said to them: It is not so (there is no refutation), but regardless, I am stating a halacha! (76b)

The Gemora asks: How do we know that a female Ammonite convert and a female Moabite convert are permitted to enter into the congregation?

Rabbi Yochanan said: Scripture states [Shmuel I, 17:55]: And when Shaul saw Dovid go forth against the Philistine, he said to Avner, the captain of the army: “Whose son is this youth, Avner?” And Avner said: “By your life, O King, I do not know.”

The Gemora asks: But did Shaul really not know Dovid? Surely it is written [ibid. 16:21]: And he (Shaul) loved him (Dovid) greatly; and he became his armorbearer!

Perhaps, he was inquiring concerning Dovid’s father. But did he not know his father? Surely it is written [ibid. 17:12]:And the man was an old man in the days of Shaul, and he came with men; and Rav or, other say that Rabbi Abba stated that this referred to the father of David, Yishai, who came in with an army and went out with an army (he was obviously well known since he was chief over six hundred thousand men)!

Rather, this is this that Shaul meant: Go investigate whether Dovid descends from Peretz or from Zerach (the sons of Yehudah). If he descends from Peretz, he will be a king, for a king breaks for himself a way and no one can hinder him. If, however, he descends from Zerach, he would only be an important man.

What did Shaul see in Dovid which compelled him to give instructions that an enquiry be made concerning him?

The Gemora answers: It is because it is written [Shmuel I, 17:38]: And Saul clad David with his apparel. This alludes that Shaul’s clothes fit Dovid perfectly, and about Shaul it is written [ibid. 9:2]: From his shoulders and upward he was taller than any of the people.

Doeg the Edomite then said to Shaul: “Instead of enquiring whether he is fit to be king or not, enquire rather whether he is permitted to enter the congregation or not.” What is the reason that he shouldn’t be permitted to enter into the congregation? It is because he descends from Rus, the Moabite. Avner said to him: “We learned in a braisa: An Ammonite is prohibited, but not a female Ammonite; A Moabite is prohibited, but not a female Moabite.”

Does asked him: “If so, should we say concerning a mamzer that only a mamzer is prohibited, but not a mamzeres?”

Avner responded: “It is written mamzer, which implies any blemish of strangeness.”

Doeg persisted: “If so, should we say concerning an Egyptian that only an Egyptian male is prohibited, but not a female Egyptian?”

Avner replied: “It is different regarding the prohibition against Ammonites and Moabites because the Scriptural text is explicitly stated regarding them [Devarim 23:5]: Because they did not greet you with bread and with water. It is customary for a man to greet travelers with bread and water, but it is not customary for a woman to greet them (the women were, therefore, excluded from the prohibition).”

Doeg asked him: “The men should have greeted the men and the women should have greeted the women?”

Avner remained silent. Thereupon, the King said [Shmuel I, 17:56]: “You inquire whose son this youth is.”

The Gemora analyzes this verse: Elsewhere he calls him a lad, and here he calls him a youth. Why did he change?

It is this that Shaul implied to Avner: “This halacha has become hidden from you; go and ask in the Beis Medrash.”

On enquiry, they told him: “An Ammonite is prohibited, but not a female Ammonite; A Moabite is prohibited, but not a female Moabite.”

Doeg asked them all the questions that he had asked Avner, and they too were silent. Doeg wished to announce that Dovid was prohibited from marrying into the congregation. Immediately, he was interrupted.

Rava relates: Yeser, who was married to Avigayil the daughter of Nachash, girded his sword like an Ishmaelite and said, “Whoever does not accept this halacha, shall be stabbed with this sword. I received a tradition from Shmuel of Ramah: An Ammonite is prohibited, but not a female Ammonite; A Moabite is prohibited, but not a female Moabite.”

The Gemora asks: Why were his words accepted? Didn’t Rabbi Abba say in the name of Rav that if a Torah scholar teaches a new halacha that was unknown to all, if it was reported before an actual incident, he is listened to; but if it was not reported until after the incident, he is not listened to.

The Gemora answers: Here it is different because Shmuel and his Beis Din were still alive.

The Gemora asks: Why are the female Ammonites and Moabites permitted if they should have brought out bread and water to the women?

The Gemora answers: In Bavel, they cited the following verse [Tehillim 45:14]: The very honor of a princess is within. In Eretz Yisroel, they cited the following verse [Breishis 18:9]: And they said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” He said: “Behold, she is in the tent.” (76b – 77a)

[END]

Read more!

The Mishkan, An Edifice of Kindness - Yevamos 77 - Daf Yomi

The Gemara in Sanhedrin (93b) presents a Scriptural exposition of Bar Kappara that relates, among other things, to Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah:

Rabbi Tanchum said: Bar Kappara expounded in Tzipori: What is the meaning g of that which is written: [Rus] said: These six barleys did he give me? Now, what is meant by six barleys? If you say it means literally “six barleys”, i.e. six kernels of barley-but was it the practice of the wealthy Boaz to give a present as trifling as six barleycorns? Certainly not! And if you say, rather, that it means he gave her six se’ahs of barley, which is a sizeable gift-but is nit the practice of a woman to carry a burden as heavy as six se’ahs of grain? How did Boaz expect Rus to carry that much barley back to her home? Rather, it indeed means that he gave her six barleycorns-not as an ordinary gift but for a symbolic purpose. For he was indicating to her that six sons [i.e. descendants] were destined to descend from her who would each be blessed with six blessings. And these six descendants were: Dovid, and the Moshiach, Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah.

The Gemara shows how the six blessings of these six descendants are indicated in Scripture:

The six blessings are indicated in that which is written: And one of the retainers spoke up and said: “Behold I have seen a son of Yishai, the Bethlehemite, one who knows how to play [the harp], and one mighty in courage, and a warrior, and understanding in [all] matters, and a man of appealing looks; and Hashem is with him (etc.). Thus, Dovid is described here as being blessed with six qualities. And Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: All the praises of Dovid mentioned in this verse were said by Doeg only with an evil tongue. Rav explains what Doeg meant to intimate with each of his praises: Dovid is one who knows how to play-he is one who knows how to ask incisive Torah inquiries. Mighty-he is one who knows how to answer difficult Torah questions. A warrior-he is one who knows how to engage in the give and take of Torah debate. A man of appealing looks- he is one who displays the appealing face of his opinions in halachah, i.e. his arguments are convincing. And understanding in [all] matters-he is one who understands one matter from his knowledge of another, i.e. he possesses keen deductive abilities. And Hashem is with him-this means that the halachah accords with his opinion in every instance. In response to each successive praise of Dovid, Shaul said to them: My son Yonasan is also like him in that regard. Once, however, [Doeg] said to him and Hashem is with him, i.e. the halachah always accords with his opinion- a quality that he [Shaul], too, did not have-Shaul became disheartened and jealous of Dovid. And how do we know that Shaul did not posses this quality but Dovid did? For concerning Shaul it is written: Wherever he would turn, he would condemn, whereas concerning Dovid it is written: Wherever he would turn, he would succeed.

The Gemara proves its earlier assertion that “one of the retainers” was Doeg:

From where is it known to us that it was Doeg who praised Dovid to Shaul? It is written here in the verse cited above: And “one” of the retainers spoke up, indicating “the outstanding one” among the retainers, and it is written there in another verse: And there [in Nov] was a man-one of Shaul’s servants-on that day, detained before Hashem, and his name was Doeg the Edomite; the chief of Shaul’s shepherds.

The Gemara now shows how the six blessings of the second descendant of Ruth are indicated in Scripture:

The six blessings of the Moshiach are indicated in that which is written: And the spirit of Hashem shall rest upon him-a spirit of wisdom and insight, a spirit of counsel and strength, a spirit of understanding and fear of Hashem.

My brother, Reb Binyomin,in his sefer on Sanhedrin explains: The Gemara presents a very subtle but profound lesson. Rus had gone to Boaz at her mother-in-law Naomi’s behest. Boaz gave Rus this present so that she not return empty-handed to her mother-in-law. From this apparently trivial episode, the Gemara derives that Rus merited having Moshiach descend from her. This theme is reflected in the building of the Mishkan. It is said: Moshe said to the Children of Israel, “See, Hashem has proclaimed by name, Betzalel son of Uri son of Chur, of the tribe of Yehudah. He filled him with G-dly spirit, with wisdom, insight, and knowledge, and with every craft. The Medrash elaborates on the praise that was bestowed upon Betzalel and remarks, “And all this praise, from where does it come? From the tribe of Yehudah. And from where did Betzalel merit to attain all this wisdom? In the merit of Miriam, as is said, [And it was because the midwives feared Hashem that] He made them houses. What were these houses? The house of priesthood and the house of kingship. Yocheved took priesthood and kingship. Aharon was the High Priest, and Moshe was the king, as it is said, He became king over Yeshurun… Miriam received wisdom, because from her descendants was Betzalel, and Dovid, who was a king, descended from her, as is said, [When Azuvah died, Calev married Efras ] who bore him Chur. It is said, Dovid was the son of a certain Ephrathite… this means that Dovid was a descendant of Miriam who was called Efras.

What did Miriam do to merit these great rewards? She performed acts of kindness for her people, by defying Pharaoh’s orders and allowing the Jewish male newborns to live. This “small” feat earned her the highest honor in Jewish history, to be the forerunner of the messianic destiny. Betzalel was blessed with wisdom due to Miriam’s selfless acts on behalf of her people. Boaz demonstrated to Rus that because she forsook her father and mother and the land of her birth, and went to a people whom she had not known yesterday or earlier, she would merit six descendants who would be blessed with six blessings. The most significant of these descendants is Moshiach, whose wisdom will light up the world.

Bearing this thesis in mind, we can explain a statement in the Medrash regarding the episode of Eliezer seeking a wife for Yitzchak. The Medrash writes, “Rabbi Acha said, the speech of servants in the Patriarchs house is more cherished than the Torah of their (the patriarchs) descendants (the Jewish People). The portion recording the incident of Eliezer finding a wife for Yitzchak is repeated in the Torah, and a teeming creature (sheretz) which is considered a fundamental of Torah, the law that states that its blood renders impurity like its skin is only derived from a verse.

I always wondered why the Medrash did not reference the Parshiyos of Vayakhel and Pekudei, which are essentially a repetition of Parshiyos Terumah and Tetzaveh. Now it is clear why it does not have to be mentioned. The Mishkan was built through the kindness that Miriam showed to her people. The Gemara states that Betzalel knew the letters by which heaven and earth were created. It is said, for I said, “Forever will [Your] kindness be built, which the Gemara interprets to read: Hashem created a world based on kindness. Betzalel was merely mirroring the world that Hashem created. This was a world of kindness. May we merit the reward mentioned in the Medrash. It is said, May Hashem reward your deed, and may your payment be full from Hashem, the G-d of Israel, under Whose wings you have come to seek refuge. Rabbi Chasa said: under Whose wings you have come to seek refuge. Rabbi Abun said: We know that there are wings of the land, wings of the sun, wings of the Chayos, wings of the Keruvim, and wings of the Seraphim. See how great are the strength of the righteous, and the strength of charity, and the strength of those who perform acts of kindness. They do not take refuge under the morning shade, nor under the wings of the land, nor under the wings of the sun, nor under the wings of the Chayos, the Keruvim, or the wings of the Seraphim. Rather, they take refuge in the shadow of the One who created the world, as is said, How precious is Your kindness, O G-d! Mankind takes refuge in the shelter of Your wings.

[END]

Read more!

REASONS FOR PROHIBITING A PETZUA DAKA TO MARRY INTO THE CONGREGATION - Yevamos 75 - Daf Yomi

A petzua daka (one whose testicles are wounded or crushed) cannot marry into the Congregation of Hashem.

What is the reasoning behind this prohibition?

The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim writes that it is because his cohabitation is meaningless since he cannot father a child. Furthermore, his wife will be seduced by other men; she will be a stumbling block for others.

The Raavad in Issurei Bi’ah (15:2) writes that it is because she will commit adultery, and thus produce mamzeirim.

The Chasam Sofer (E”H I, 17,19) asks: If so, why is a petzua daka on account of Heaven (thunder, hail or from birth) eligible to marry into the congregation, he also cannot father a child?

Shoel U’meishiv proves from this question that a petzua daka on account of Heaven can indeed father a child.

The Chinuch (559) offers a different reason: He says that it is to prevent people from destroying their organs of reproduction. It was common practice for the kings to cause their male servants to become sterile, and they would then be appointed as the guards for the women. Some people would do this to themselves in order to become a servant of the king. The Torah prohibited a petzua daka from marrying into the congregation; this served as a deterrent for these people. It is now understandable why there is a distinction between a petzua daka by human intervention, or one that came about because of Heaven.

Read more!

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]

Read more!

PRINTER’S MISTAKE IN RASHI - Yevamos 74 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora had stated that the mitzvah of terumah and bikkurim apply during all years of the Shemitah cycle, whereas maaser sheini is separated only in the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the cycle.

It would seem from the language of Rashi that terumah and bikkurim operate only during the six years of the Shemitah cycle, but not during Shemitah itself. The Meiri explicitly states like this. The Commentators explain the reasoning for this: During Shemitah, the produce from the fields is regarded as ownerless; how can there be an obligation to bring your first fruits to the Beis Hamikdosh. Furthermore, you would not be able to recite the verses that you are thankful for the land which was given to me. The Avnei Neizer (Y”D 445) writes that perhaps it can be recited. Since presently, these fruits are his, he can say that the land is his as well.

Rashi, in his commentary to Chumash (23:19) writes: The choicest of the first fruits of your soil Even in the seventh year, the offering of bikkurim is obligatory. The Mizrachi, Maharal and Sifsei Chachamim all state that this must be a printers mistake.

I noticed the following discussion in the Meorot HaDaf Hayomi weekly newsletter.

The Torah commands us to take the first fruit of the seven species, and bring them to the Beis HaMikdash during the period between Shavuos and Sukkos: “And you will take of the first fruits of the earth, that you will bring from the land that Hashem your G-d has given you. You will put them in a basket and bring them to the place Hashem your G-d has chosen to rest His Name upon” (Devarim 26:2). May we merit that the Beis HaMikdash soon be rebuilt, enabling us to fulfill this mitzva this very year.

Your land: The commandment of bikkurim involves bringing the first fruit that grow from our own land - “From the land that Hashem your G-d has given you.” We need not bring bikkurim from ownerless trees. Th¬e Or HaChaim takes this one step further. On Shmitta year, we are commanded to disown our fields and their produce, allowing people and animals to enter freely and help themselves to the fruit. As such, he rules that there is no mitzva of bikkurim on Shmitta, since the produce of the land is not ours for that year.

Rashi’s opinion: ¬The Minchas Chinuch (91:2) cites the Or HaChaim, and notes that not only do the Rambam and Sefer HaChinuch imply that one must bring bikkurim on Shmitta, Rashi in his commentary to the Chumash rules explicitly so. On the words, “th¬e first fruit of the land” (Shemos 23:19), Rashi writes that even on the seventh year we must bring bikkurim. Although the Minchas Chinuch did not find a previous source, Rashi must have based himself on some ruling of the Sages (the Chazon Ish explains how Rashi learned this from the Mechilta).

However, the classic commentaries on Rashi insist that this version of Rashi must be a misprint. How could Rashi reconcile this, with the possuk that requires us to say when bringing bikkurim, “I have brought the first fruit of the land You have given me, Hashem” (Devarim 26:10)? If the land is not ours, how can we say this possuk? Furthermore, in our sugya Rashi seems to imply that we do not bring bikkurim on Shmitta (Rashi 74a, s.v. V’nohagin).

Despite these questions, the Tashbatz (II, 247) writes that there is no misprint in Rashi’s commentary to Chumash. According to him, Rashi indeed holds that we must bring bikkurim on Shmittta.

Fruit that matured before Shmitta: ¬The Chazon Ish (Orla 11, s.k. 18) explains that Rashi refers to fruit that had blossomed (chanata) in the sixth year, and were harvested in the seventh. Th¬ese fruit do not have the sanctity of Shmitta. They belong to the field’s owner, who is obligated to offer from them bikkurim. One might have thought that the mitzva of bikkurim is entirely suspended during Shmitta, even for those fruit that blossomed previously. ¬The Torah tells us that we bring the bikkurim in the season when we rejoice over the harvest (from Shavuos to Sukkos). In Shmitta there is no general harvest. Rashi comes to teach us that nonetheless, we still must bring bikkurim from the fruit that blossomed in the previous year (see also commentary on Minchas Chinuch, Machon Yerushalayim publication, note 3).

Read more!

IS A CHALALAH AN ORDINARY BAS YISROEL? - Yevamos 74 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora asks: Terumah is also not eaten by all the offspring of Aaron because a chalalah (a female offspring of a Kohen and a woman who is forbidden to him because he is a Kohen) is not permitted in terumah.

The Gemora answers: A chalalah is not classified as an offspring of Aaron.

It emerges from the Gemora that a chalalah may not eat terumah because she is not considered a Kohenes.

The Keren Orah inquires: Can a chalalah that marries a Kohen eat terumah? Can we say that just as a daughter of a Yisroel, who marries a Kohen may eat terumah, so too, the chalalah, who is married to a Kohen can also eat terumah?

Tosfos (57a) states: A chalalah who marries a Kohen is forbidden from eating terumah even if he married her in a permissible manner.

The Steipler Gaon says that a chalalah is regarded as being on an inferior level than an ordinary daughter of a Yisroel. A chalalah is considered a non-Kohenes forever. A daughter of a Yisroel, who marries a Kohen can be classified as a Kohenes, whereas a chalalah is removed from that status forever.

Furthermore, he states that a chalalah has an inherent disqualification from Kehunah besides being classified as a non-Kohenes.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 74 - Highlights

The Gemora returns to the original inquiry (Can an uncircumcised person eat maaser sheini (one brings one tenth of his produce to Yerushalayim to be eaten there)?): The Gemora attempts to bring a proof from the following braisa: One who had been circumcised, but shreds which render the circumcision invalid remained, is not permitted to eat terumah, nor the Pesach offering, nor any consecrated offerings, nor maaser. What does the braisa mean when it mentioned maaser? Is it not referring to maaser sheini? (This would prove that an uncircumcised person may not eat maaser sheini.)

The Gemora deflects the proof: Perhaps the braisa is referring to the maaser taken from animals; an uncircumcised person will be prohibited from eating it because it is a consecrated offering, but he will be permitted to eat from maaser sheini.

The Gemora asks: How can the braisa be referring to animal tithe? This would have precisely the same halacha as other consecrated offering, and that was already mentioned in the braisa.

The Gemora counters: According to your reasoning, why did the braisa specifically mention the Pesach offering? Shouldn’t the Pesach be included in all consecrated offerings?

The Gemora replies: It is understandable why the braisa mentioned Pesach and other consecrated offerings. If the braisa would have just mentioned Pesach, I might have thought that Pesach is the only offering where an uncircumcised person may not partake of because the Torah explicitly writes the prohibition there; the braisa was compelled to mention that the prohibition is applicable to other offerings as well. If the braisa would have just mentioned consecrated offerings, I might have thought that this is referring to the Pesach offering; it was therefore necessary for the braisa to state consecrated offerings and the Pesach. However, the Gemora concludes its question: There is no need to state animal tithe. (Obviously, the braisa is referring to maaser sheini, and this would prove that an uncircumcised person may not eat maaser sheini.)

The Gemora deflects the proof: Perhaps the braisa is referring to maaser rishon (which is given to a Levi), and the braisa is reflecting the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that maaser rishon is forbidden to a non-Levi. (74a)

The Gemora attempts to bring a proof from the following braisa: An onein (one whose close relative passed away and has not been buried yet) is prohibited from eating maaser sheini, but he is permitted to eat terumah and to perform the services of the parah adumah (red heifer). A tevul yom (one who has immersed in a mikvah but still has tumah on him until nightfall) is prohibited from eating terumah, but is permitted to perform the services of the parah adumah and to eat maaser. 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) is prohibited from performing the services of the parah adumah, but he is permitted to eat terumah and maaser.

The Gemora concludes its proof: If an uncircumcised person may eat maaser sheini, the braisa should state that an uncircumcised person is prohibited from eating terumah, but is permitted to perform the services of the parah adumah and to eat maaser.

The Gemora answers: The Tanna of this braisa is from the academy of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that an uncircumcised person is like a tamei, as it was taught in a braisa: Rabbi Akiva stated: Since it was stated [Vayikra 22:4]: A man, a man from the offspring of Aaron who is a metzora, or a zav shall not eat of the holies. The extra words, “A man, a man” teaches us that the uncircumcised also is included in the prohibition against eating terumah.

The Gemora asks: Who is the Tanna that disagrees with Rabbi Akiva?

The Gemora answers: It is the Tanna Kamma of Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian, for it was taught in a braisa: If an onein or mechusar kippurim burn the parah adumah, it is valid. (Just as he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva regarding a mechusar kippurim, he would disagree with him regarding an uncircumcised person.) Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian said: If an onein burned the parah adumah, it will be valid; however, if it was performed by one who is a mechusar kippurim, it is invalid. (74a)

Rabbi Yitzchak also holds that an uncircumcised person may not eat maaser sheini. He derives this halacha from a gezeirah shavah (one of the thirteen principles of Biblical hermeneutics; it links two similar words from dissimilar verses in the Torah) from Pesach. Just as an uncircumcised person, cannot partake in the Pesach offering, so too, he cannot eat maaser sheini. (74a)

The Mishna had stated: All those that are tamei may not eat terumah.

The Gemora asks: How do we know this halacha?

The Gemora answers: Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is written [Vayikra 22:4]: 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. Which food is equally applicable to all the offspring of Aaron (including men and women)? This must be referring to terumah, and the verse states that if one is tamei, he may not eat the terumah.

The Gemora asks: Perhaps the Torah is referring to the breast and thigh from a shelamim (which is given to a Kohen, and it may be eaten by all his family members)?

The Gemora answers: The breast and thigh from a shelamim are not eaten by all the offspring of Aaron because a Kohenes who married a Yisroel, and becomes widowed or divorced, will not be permitted to eat from the shelamim. (She returns to her father’s house only in respect to terumah.)

The Gemora asks: Terumah is also not eaten by all the offspring of Aaron because a chalalah (a female offspring of a Kohen and a woman who is forbidden to him because he is a Kohen) is not permitted in terumah.

The Gemora answers: A chalalah is not classified as an offspring of Aaron. (74a – 74b)

The Gemora states that one who is tamei is permitted to eat terumah after immersing himself in the mikvah, and waiting for nightfall. He is not required to wait until he brings his atonement offering (the next day).

The Gemora cites a Mishna which teaches this halacha. The Mishna states: If a metzora immersed himself on the seventh day of his waiting period, he is permitted to eat maaser sheini. After nightfall, he is permitted to eat terumah. After he brings his atonement offering, he is permitted to eat kodoshim.

The Gemora cites the Scriptural sources for these halachos. (74b)

[END]

Read more!