Resources for Yevamos daf 71
1. The גמרא says that the לימוד from תושב ושכיר can’t be teaching us to include non-Jews who already had a מילה since it is obvious that they are called ערלים as the משנה in נדרים tells us that when people make a נדר about ערלים they mean to include even non-Jews who had a מילה. תוספות in ד"ה והני מולין asks how can we bring a proof as to what the Torah meant to include based on the what people mean when they say ערלים? The way people talk doesn’t define הלכה outside of הלכות נדרים. תוספות answers that it is really base on the end of the משנה which quotes the פּסוק that calls all נכרים "ערלים". The גר"ח in כתבים סימן פּ"ה points out that it is seems from תוספות being a נכרי makes one an ערל and not the actual ערלה. Based on that he wants to answer a question on the רמב"ם . The רמב"ם in הלכות קרבן פּסח פּרק ה׳ הל׳ ה says that a person can’t eat the קרבן פּסח if their male עבדים don’t have ברית מילה and if their female עבדים don’t have טבילה. His words are "הטבילה לשפחות כמילה לעבדים". Many אחרונים are bothered as to what the source of theרמב"ם is that שפחות need טבילה in order for the אדון to eat the קרבן פּסח? He answers it is from our גמרא! Our גמרא makes it clear that it isn’t the actual ערלה that stops the אדון from eating קרבן פּסח since if his עבד was a גבעוני מהול he is still called an ערל. Rather the issue is that his not being a Yid makes him by definition an ערל which in turn stops the אדון from eating קרבן פּסח. If so, it is obvious that this would apply to his שפחות as well and what makes them a Yid is טבילה. He adds that according to this, it comes out that it isn’t the מצות מילה that is holding back the אדון at all. Rather it is the fact that his עבדים are נכרים that is מעכב.
2. The גמרא discusses whether a six day old child can be shmeared with תרומה oil since he didn’t have a ברית מילה yet. The issue is that סיכה is כשתיה, and רש"י says we learn that from a פּסוק in תהילים. The אמרי משה in סימן י"ג brings the question of the משנה למלך who asks that the issue here appears to be ספינן which means one is not allowed to feed something אסור even to a one-day old child. However, the רשב"א says that the איסור of ספינן doesn’t apply to an איסור דרבנן. If so, since סיכה כשתיה is only learned from תהילים it should only be דרבנן in which case one would be allowed to shmear the child in oil regardless of his ערל status. The אמרי משה learns from here that according to רש"י the issue isn’t ספינן. Rather, there is a חיוב to not be מאבד תרומה as it saysמשמרת תרומותי. Therefore, since one is obligated to protect תרומה so that the כהן can use it, if one feeds it to an ערל that would violate that חיוב. The ריטב"א here disagrees with רש"י and says it is learned from "ולא יחללו את קדשי בנ"י אשר ירימו לה׳". According to the ריטב"א the דין of סיכה כשתיה is a דין דאורייתא so the איסור ספינן would apply. The ערוך לנר points out that the ריטב"א’s שיטה would also help for ר"ת as follows: according to ר"ת, anyone who the תורה says that they may not get a ברית מילה such as a person whose brothers were מתו מחמת מילה is not considered an ערל. If so, why didn’t our גמרא ask the question from the case of a person whose brothers died from מילה which is a דין דאורייתא and instead asked from a case of shmearing a child in oil (סיכה כשתיה) which is only דרבנן? According to the ריטב"א it makes sense since they are both דיני דאורייתא.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Mordechai Papoff - English Topics
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview