The MDY set edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Daf Ayin Aleph Yevamot, has been dedicated and sponsored by our dear friend Mr. Isaac Jamal and his wife in honor of his family, wishing them success and prosperity in all their endeavors. May he merit to raise his children in the ways of the Torah, may they bring him much nachat, and may he be blessed with health and happiness, favor and kindness in the eyes of Hashem and mankind, and may he and his entire family be blessed in all aspects. Daf Ayin Aleph is also being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther. May the spirit of Hashem find rest for him in the Garden of Eden. We begin today's daf on Ayin Amud Bet, two lines from the bottom.
We concluded our last discussion with a sugya that focused on a verse concerning the korban pesach. The verse states, “U'maltah oto az yochal bo,” indicating that one who brings the korban pesach must first circumcise his slaves before he is permitted to eat from the offering. This implies that the circumcision of his male slaves is a prerequisite for eating the korban pesach. The Gemara then asks whether this requirement also applies to terumah. The Gemara derives from the same verse that the requirement is specific to the korban pesach and does not extend to terumah, meaning that even if a person has uncircumcised slaves, it does not prevent a kohen from consuming terumah.
The Gemara continues, “Hashta de'amart bo l'drasha hu de'ata,” indicating that since we can derive a lesson from the word “bo,” we can now question the verse, “Kol ben nechar lo yochal bo.” What does it mean that a “ben nechar” cannot eat from the korban pesach? Rashi explains that this refers to someone whose actions have estranged him from his father in Heaven, a Jew who has strayed from the path of Borei Olam, known as a mumar. The verse thus states that a mumar is prohibited from eating the korban pesach. The Gemara then asks what this exclusion intends to convey.
It explains that while a ben nechar is excluded from the korban pesach, he is not excluded from eating ma'aser sheni. The Gemara elaborates that if it had only stated “ben nechar,” one might have thought that a ben nechar is disqualified due to his estrangement, while an arel might still be permitted since he is not estranged in heart. Therefore, both terms are necessary to clarify their respective exclusions. The Gemara then raises another verse, “Kol arel lo yochal bo,” which states that any non-circumcised person cannot eat from the korban pesach. This does not exclude terumah either, as we have established that terumah is also prohibited in its own right.
The Gemara concludes that while an arel cannot eat from the korban pesach, he is still permitted to eat matzah and maror on Pesach. The teaching here is that the Torah specifies that he cannot partake in the korban pesach, but he may consume the other elements of the Pesach meal. The Gemara then states, “V'itztarich l'michtav arel v'itztarich l'michtav kol ben nechar,” indicating that both terms are needed; otherwise, one might mistakenly conclude that one excludes the other.
The discussion continues with the Gemara examining the implications of the term “mimmennu,” which appears in the verse, “Al tochelu mimmennu na.” The Gemara seeks to understand what this term is meant to exclude. It notes that there are multiple instances of the word “mimmennu” in the text, and the Gemara will explore these exclusions in future discussions.
As we delve deeper, Rabbi Akiva states that the term “ish ish” includes the arel as well. The Gemara questions whether the extra wording of “ish ish” is meant to include the onen, one who is in a state of mourning, as well. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Chanina clarifies that the verse “Vechol zar lo yochal” specifically addresses a non-kohen but not one in mourning, thus ruling out the onen from being included.
The Gemara then discusses the differences between the arel and the onen, emphasizing that the arel is disqualified due to the lack of circumcision, while the onen is not disqualified in the same manner. The Gemara goes on to explore the implications of terumah for both cases and establishes that the distinctions are significant for practical halachic rulings.
As the discussion unfolds, the Gemara raises further questions about the nature of terumah and its relationship with arelim and onanim. The Gemara ultimately concludes that the distinctions made between these categories are essential for understanding the halachic parameters surrounding each case. This careful analysis reveals the depth of the Torah and the meticulous nature of halachic discourse.