Resources for Yevamos daf 72
1. The גמרא says in the name of ר׳ הונא that someone who is מושך ערלתו is allowed to eat תרומה מדאורייתא and it is only a מדרבנן that he can’t eat תרומה. תוספות in ד"ה ומדבריהם asks that the גמרא in שבועות seems clear that someone who is מושך ערלתו gets כרת, so how could we say it’s only a דין דרבנן? He answers that the גמרא there is talking about someone who never had a מילה at all. The ישרש יעקב asks on תוספות that the גמרא in שבועות doesn’t actually say “מושך ערלתו”. It just says “מיפר ברית בבשר” which could easily mean not having a ברית at all, so what was his question? He concludes that תוספות must have had the גירסא that says משוך. If so, how could he say that the גמרא was talking about someone who was never מל at all? Others ask that if we are talking about someone who was never מל what is the חידוש of the גמרא? Obviously someone who never did מילה gets כרת! In order to answer his question, the ישרש יעקב brings a much discussed ט"ז on our סוגיא. The ט"ז in יו"ד סימן רס"ד ס"ק ט is discussing the סוגיא of מושך ערלתו that if someone had a ברית and then later in life his skin droops down and it appears as if he never had a ברית (what our גמרא calls משוך), then he needs a ברית מדרבנן because of מראית עין. The ט"ז is מסופּק if a person was נולד מהול and then later in life the skin droops if he needs a מילה מדאורייתא or just מדרבנן. The issue is do we say that the drooping skin is now considered a real ערלה and it is similar to a case of כיסוי הדם where wind covered the blood and then it later got uncovered where the חיוב מן התורה of כיסוי הדם comes back and you must cover it, or do we say that the only real ערלה is the one a person is born with. The ישרש יעקב says that this is exactly what תוספות meant! In other words, when תוספות in our גמרא said that the גמרא in שבועות that says כרת is talking about a case where the person was never מל, he meant a case where the person wasn’t מל because he was נולד מהול and then was מושך ערלתו. According to תוספות, that is the case where there is a חיוב כרת. Based on this interpretation, תוספות is saying that the first צד of the ט"ז is the correct one.
2. The גמרא suggests that the תנא who holds that an ערל can’t do קידוש אפר פּרה is ר"ע who holds ערל כטמא. It then tries to support this by bringing the משנה in חגיגה that says an ערל וטמא both are פּטור מן הראיה . In the חידושי מרן רי"ז הלוי in הלכות פּרה אדומה עמוד ס"ב, it says that the גר"ח had the following question on our גמרא: the גמרא is trying to prove that an ערל is literally like someone who is טמא. If so, how can the גמרא support this by showing that an ערל doesn’t do ראיה? There are many things that an ערל and טמא have in common like they both don’t eat תרומה and קרבן פּסח. But how does being פּטור מן הראיה prove that an ערל is literally like a טמא that he can’t even touch קדשים? He answers with a major יסוד: there is a difference between why a טמא can’t eat קדשים and why a טמא can’t enter the מקדש. A טמא can’t eat קדשים because the Torah said you (the גברא) are פּסול from eating קדשים. The reason a טמא can’t enter the מקדש is because the טמא is being מטמא the מקדש (the חפצא). Consequently, only if you can be מטמא something else would there be an issue in walking into the בית המקדש. So if an ערל can’t enter the מקדש, it must be that an ערל is actually considered like a טמא.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Mordechai Papoff - English Topics
Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview