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 73
1) AN AREL MAY NOT EAT MA'ASER
(a) "And the Tahor will sprinkle on the Tamei" - implying, he
is considered Tahor for sprinkling, but is otherwise
1. This teaches, a Tevul Yom may engage in the red
(b) Question: May an Arel eat Ma'aser (Sheni)?
1. Just as we learn from Ma'aser to Pesach that an Onen
may not eat - we learn from Pesach to Ma'aser that
an Arel may not eat!
(c) Answer (Rav Sheshes - Mishnah): Terumah and Bikurim
(first fruits) - one is liable to die for them, one must
pay an additional fifth for them, they are forbidden to a
non-Kohen, they are the property of the Kohen, they
become Batel (nullified) if mixed with 100 times as much
Chulin (regular food), one must wash for them, and must
wait until dark to eat them (if he was a Tevul Yom);
2. Or, perhaps we can learn (Pesach, which is)
stringent from (Ma'aser, which is) lenient, but not
lenient from stringent.
(d) These apply to Terumah and Bikurim, but not to Ma'aser.
1. If an Arel was permitted to eat Ma'aser - the
Mishnah should also say, an Arel is forbidden to eat
Terumah and Bikurim, but is permitted to eat
(e) Rejection: This is no proof - we can say, the Tana
omitted this case.
(f) Question: If so - what else did he omit?
(g) Answer #1: He omitted a case in the end of the Mishnah.
1. (Mishnah): Ma'aser and Bikurim must be brought to
Yerushalayim , require confession, are forbidden to
an Onen; R. Shimon permits to an Onen;
2. They require Bi'ur (eradication); R. Shimon exempts.
i. The Mishnah omits saying that they may not be
burned if they are Tamei, and one is lashed for
eating them if they are Tamei, which do not
apply to Terumah!
(h) (Mishnah): Ma'aser and Bikurim are forbidden to an Onen;
R. Shimon permits.
2) WE MAY BURN TAMEI TERUMAH
(i) Question: From where do Chachamim learn (that Bikurim are
(j) Answer: "You may not eat ... Ma'aser ... and the Terumah
of your hands".
1. It was taught - "Terumah of your hands" is Bikurim;
and the verse equates them to Ma'aser.
(k) (Mishnah): They require Bi'ur; R. Shimon exempts.
i. Just as Ma'aser is forbidden to an Onen, also
2. R. Shimon: The Torah called them Terumah; just as
Terumah is permitted to an Onen, also Bikurim.
1. Chachamim equate Bikurim to Ma'aser, R. Shimon does
(l) Question: We said, they may not be burned if they are
Tamei, and one is lashed for eating them if they are
Tamei - from where do we know this?
(m) Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon): "I did not consume
(Ma'aser) in Tumah" - whether I was Tamei and they were
Tahor, or vice-versa;
1. Question (R. Shimon): I do not know where the Torah
warned not to eat them (we only see that the Torah
tells him to say that he did not do so)!
i. Question: The Torah explicitly warns a Tamei
person not to eat them - "He will not eat from
2. Answer (R. Shimon): "You may not eat in your gates,
Ma'aser..."; another verse says, "In your gates you
will eat (sacrifices which became unfit and were
redeemed), a Tahor person with a Tamei person.
ii. Answer: R. Shimon asks, where did the Torah
warn not to eat them when they are Tamei.
i. (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): The Tahor and Tamei
may eat in the same plate (even though this
makes the food Tamei).
3. That (sacrifices which became unfit and were
redeemed) may be eaten when they are Tamei, but not
(a) (Above Beraisa): These do not apply to Terumah.
(b) (R. Avahu): This is learned from "I did not eradicate it
in Tumah" - you may not burn (Ma'aser) in Tumah, but you
may burn Terumah oil which is Tamei.
(c) Question: Why don't we say, you may not burn (Ma'aser) in
Tumah, but you may burn Kodesh oil which is Tamei?
(d) Answer: A Kal v'Chomer teaches that this is not so.
1. Ma'aser is lenient, and it may not be burned in
Tumah - Kodesh which is stringent, all the more so!
(e) Objection: If so, the same applies to Terumah!
(f) Answer: "It" teaches that we may burn Tamei Terumah.
(g) Question: Why not say that "It" teaches about Kodesh?
(h) Answer: Kodesh has these stringencies:
1. It can become Pigul (abomination, if a sacrifice was
offered with intent to eat it outside the allotted
(i) Question: Rather, we should not learn that Tamei Terumah
may be burned, since it has these stringencies:
2. It becomes Nosar if not eaten in the allotted time.
3. It is brought inside the Temple.
4. One transgresses Me'ilah for improper benefit of
5. A Tamei person who eats it is liable to Kares,
6. It is forbidden to an Onen.
1. A Tamei person who eats it is liable to death (at
the hands of Heaven).
(j) Answer #1: There are more stringencies to Kodesh.
2. A non-Kohen that mistakenly eats it must add a fifth
when paying for what he ate.
3. There is no redemption for it.
4. It is forbidden to a non-Kohen.
(k) Answer #2 Kares is more severe than death.
(l) (Above Beraisa): One who eats them when they are Tamei is
lashed; this does not apply to Terumah.
1. He is not lashed - but it is forbidden.
(m) Question: From where do we learn this?
(n) Answer: "In your gates you will eat *it*" -this (an unfit
sacrifice which was redeemed, and became Tamei) and not
something else (Tamei Terumah).
1. A Lav derived from an Ase is considered an Ase.
(o) Answer #2 (to question 1:f - Rav Ashi): We can also
deduce from the beginning (of the Mishnah): that the Tana
omitted some cases.