POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Yevamos 66
1) IS A WOMAN COMMANDED TO HAVE CHILDREN?
(a) Question: Is a woman really not commanded?
2) A FORBIDDEN MARRIAGE TO A KOHEN
1. (Rav Acha Bar Rav Ketina): There was a case of a
half-freed female slave, and they forced her owner
to free the rest of her (so she could marry and have
(b) Answer: She is not commanded - the half-slave was freed
because people were freely having relations with her.
(a) (Mishnah): A widow married to a Kohen Gadol, or a
divorcee or Chalutzah married to a regular Kohen - if she
brought into the marriage Milug slaves and Tzon Barzel
slaves - Milug slaves do not eat Terumah, Tzon Barzel
slaves eat Terumah.
3) CAN A WOMAN DEMAND THE SAME SLAVES SHE BROUGHT IN?
(b) Milug slaves are such that if they die, she loses; if
they increase, it is her gain; even though the husband
must feed them, they do not eat Terumah;
(c) Tzon Barzel slaves are such that if they die, he loses;
if they increase, it is his gain; since he has
responsibility for them, they eat Terumah.
(d) A Bas Yisrael that married a Kohen and brought in slaves
- both types eat Terumah;
(e) A Bas Kohen that married a Yisrael and brought in slaves
- neither type eat Terumah.
(f) (Gemara) Question: Why don't Milug slaves eat Terumah -
they should be considered the acquisition of his
1. (Beraisa): "A Kohen that will acquire a soul, the
purchase of his money - he will eat (Terumah)" -
this teaches, if he marries a woman and buys slaves,
they eat Terumah.
(g) Answer #1: Anyone that can eat, causes others to eat;
anyone that cannot eat, does not cause others to eat.
2. Question: How do we know that if his wife or slaves
bought slaves, that these slaves eat?
3. Answer: "A Kohen that will acquire a soul, the
purchase of (that soul's) money - will eat".
1. Question: Is this really true? An uncircumcised or
Tamei Kohen - they cannot eat, but they cause others
(h) Answer #2 (Ravina): An acquisition that can eat, causes
others to eat; an acquisition that cannot eat, does not
cause others to eat.
2. Answer: Their mouths hurt them (they are standing to
eat, once they fix themselves.)
3. Question: A Mamzer cannot eat, and he causes others
(i) Answer #3 (Rava): mid'Oraisa, they may eat; Chachamim
decreed that they may not eat, in order that she should
think, 'I cannot eat, my slaves cannot eat - I am as a
harlot!', and he will come to divorce her.
(j) Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): It is a decree, lest they come to
eat after her husband dies.
(k) Question: !f so, the slaves of a Bas Yisrael married to a
Kohen should not eat, lest they come to eat after her
(l) Answer: The case is, the widow married to the Kohen Gadol
is a Kohenes - she will come to make a mistake.
1. Originally, her slaves ate Terumah of her father's
house. When she married, they ate Terumah of her
husband. Now that she returns to her initial status,
they should continue to eat.
(m) Question: This explains why slaves of a Kohenes may not
eat. Why may slaves of a Bas Yisrael (married to a Kohen
she is forbidden to) not eat?
i. She does not know that she became a Chalalah,
and is no longer a Kohenes.
(n) Answer: Chachamim did not distinguish among widows (and
forbade the slaves of all of them).
(a) Question: A woman entered Tzon Barzel slaves into the
marriage. At the time of divorce, she wants to take them
back; her husband wants to keep them and pay her their
value. Who wins?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): She wins.
(c) Answer #2 (R. Ami): He wins.
1. (Rav Yehudah): She wins, because of the praise of
her father's house (they should return with her).
(d) Question: Whenever he has responsibility for them, they
2. (R. Ami): He wins - since we learned, if they die,
he loses; if they increase, it is his gain; since he
has responsibility for them, they eat Terumah.
3. Objection (Rav Safra): The Mishnah does not say they
are his - it just says, since he has responsibility
for them, they eat - really they are hers!
1. (Mishnah): A Yisrael that rented a cow from a Kohen
may feed it Karshinei Terumah; a Kohen that rented a
cow from a Yisrael, even though he must feed it,
may not feed it Karshinei Terumah!
(e) Counter-question: Do you think this is a good
1. Granted, a renter is responsible for theft and loss
- but is he responsible for accidents, weakening, or
a decrease in their value (as the husband is)?!
(f) The case resembles the end of the Mishnah.
1. (Mishnah): A Yisrael that appraised a cow (and
accepted to return the appraised value) from a Kohen
may not feed it Karshinei Terumah; a Kohen that
appraised a cow from a Yisrael, may not feed it
(g) (Rabah and Rav Yosef): A Beraisa supports Rav Yehudah,
another Beraisa supports R. Ami.
1. Support for R. Ami - (Beraisa): Tzon Barzel slaves
go free if the husband knocks out a tooth or eye,
but not if she does.
(h) (Rava, citing Rav Nachman): The law is as Rav Yehudah.
2. Support for Rav Yehudah - (Beraisa): A wife that
enters Tzon Barzel to her husband - he may not sell
it; even if he brought in property, he may not sell
i. If either sold it, to buy food - a case arose,
and R. Shimon Ben Gamliel ruled that the
husband may retrieve the property from the
(i) Question (Rava): But a Beraisa supports R. Ami!
(j) Answer (Rav Nachman): Even so, the reason of Rav Yehudah
(praise of her father's house) is better.
(k) A woman brought a silk cloak into the marriage; it was
written in the Kesuvah. When he died, the orphans spread
it on the corpse.
1. Rava: It gets the status of shrouds (and may not be
taken from the deceased).
2. Question (Nanai): But Rava said, the law is as Rav
Yehudah (she has the right to reclaim it)!
3. Answer (Rav Kahana): Rav Yehudah admits, it is not
hers until she collects it - until then, it belongs
to her husband.
i. Rava ruled according to his law - making
something Hekdesh (which includes making it
forbidden to derive benefit from, such as
shrouds), the prohibition of Chametz, and
freeing a slave uproot liens.