QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a Kohen who is an Arel (uncircumcised) may not eat Terumah. RASHI writes that the Mishnah refers to a Kohen whose brothers died from Milah, and thus he cannot be circumcised due to the danger that it poses to his life.

Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand. The Gemara earlier (66a) discusses the principle that only a man who is able to eat Terumah himself is able to grant his wife the ability to eat Terumah. The Gemara there questions this principle from the case of a Kohen who is an Arel and from the case of a Kohen who is Tamei. Neither Kohen may eat Terumah himself, and yet he still entitles his wife to eat Terumah. The Gemara answers that in the cases of an Arel and a Tamei, "their mouths hurt them" ("Pumaihu Ka'iv Lehu"), which means that their inability to eat Terumah is only temporary and, as Rashi there explains, "they anticipate correcting their problem in the future and becoming permitted to eat Terumah." That is why their wives and servants may eat Terumah.

However, according to Rashi here who explains that the Arel's brothers died from Milah and thus he cannot do Milah to himself, he certainly is not able to do Milah and never expects to correct his problem. On the contrary, he is forbidden to correct his problem because of the danger that it poses to his life. Since his problem will never be corrected, he should not entitle his wife to eat Terumah. (RASHBA and Rishonim)

(a) The RASHBA answers that even though his brothers died from Milah, it is still possible for him to perform Milah. At a later time, perhaps the symptoms of his debility will pass and he will appear healthier than his brothers did at the time of their Milah, at which time he will be able to perform Milah (as the Rambam writes in Hilchos Milah 1:17).

(b) Another question may be asked on Rashi's explanation (that "Arel" refers to one who did not have Milah because his brothers died from Milah). The Gemara later (70b) states that one of the unique characteristics of an Arel is that the factor which prevents him from eating Terumah is "b'Yado l'Takno," it is in his ability to correct his situation (in contrast to an Onen, who does not have the ability to rectify his state of Aninus). According to Rashi, why does the Gemara say that an Arel has the ability to correct his situation? Even if, as the Rashba writes, he will be able to perform Milah after signs of health appear, the Milah still is not "b'Yado l'Takno," for at the present moment he is unable to change his status!

The YASHRESH YAKOV and the NEHOR SHRAGA answer that the Arel is considered "b'Yado l'Taken" because if, b'Di'eved, someone would cut off his Orlah, he would become permitted to eat Terumah. In contrast, an Onen has no way to change his status. (See also Insights to Pesachim 62:1.)

Based on this explanation, a different interpretation for the Gemara's words, "their mouths hurt them" (66a), may be suggested. Perhaps the Gemara means that an Arel's wife is considered fit to eat Terumah not because he anticipates becoming fit in the near future, but because if, b'Di'eved, someone cuts off his Orlah, he will be able to eat Terumah. (In contrast, a woman who is a Chalalah has no way of becoming fit to eat Terumah.)

Why, though, does Rashi there (66a) not explain the Gemara's answer in this way? Rashi there writes that the Arel and Tamei anticipate being able to rectify their problem, and that is why they are considered fit to eat Terumah. Apparently, Rashi is bothered by the wording of the Gemara there. The Gemara does not say that they may eat Terumah because the problem is "b'Yado l'Taken," but because "their mouths hurt them." Rashi understands that the Gemara does not say "b'Yado l'Taken" because that principle does not apply to a person who is Tamei, who must wait seven days before he can begin the Taharah process. Why may the wife and servants of a Tamei Kohen eat Terumah if his Taharah is not "b'Yado"? It must be that they may eat Terumah because he is "Omed l'Taken" -- he anticipates becoming Tahor. In contrast, in the case of an Arel, the reason of "Omed l'Taken" is unnecessary; it is "b'Yado l'Taken" at the present moment, because he could cut off his Orlah and make himself fit to eat Terumah.

This may be the reason why Rashi here (DH Nesheihem) does not mention that the Arel is "Omed l'Taken," but only that he is "Mechusar Takanah" -- lacking a correction, and that deficiency is what prevents the Arel from eating Terumah.

(Others suggest another explanation, based on the words of Rashi to 64b, DH Isura. Rashi maintains that if the Kohen whose brothers died from Milah is not expected to become healthy and fit for Milah, if he nevertheless circumcises himself without waiting to become fit, the Milah is not valid.)

(c) RABEINU TAM (cited by TOSFOS to Chagigah 4b and Zevachim 22b) disagrees with Rashi and explains that the Arel mentioned in the Mishnah refers to a Kohen who refuses to perform Milah, with no Halachic basis for exemption.

If, however, the Arel is one who deliberately refuses to fulfill the Mitzvah of Milah, why does the Torah specify in one verse (Shemos 12:43) that a Mumar (apostate) may not partake of the Korban Pesach, and in another verse (Shemos 12:48) that an Arel may not partake of the Korban Pesach? According to Rabeinu Tam, the Arel is a Mumar.

Rabeinu Tam explains that if a man refuses to perform Milah out of fear for his life, although that fear is unfounded he is not considered a Mumar.

According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation, the Arel certainly is "b'Yado l'Taken" and "Omed l'Taken."

QUESTIONS: The Mishnah states that a Petzu'a Daka and a Kerus Shafchah are permitted to eat Terumah but their wives are not. RASHI (DH Nesheihem) explains that the reason why their wives may not eat Terumah is that they become Chalalos by having relations with their husbands, since a woman is prohibited to live with a Petzu'a Daka and a Kerus Shafchah (Devarim 23:2). Rashi gives this explanation earlier as well (57a, DH Ha Nami and DH Ho'il).

(a) However, the Gemara in Kidushin (77b) derives from a verse that a woman becomes a Chalalah only when she has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited by one of the Isurim of Kehunah (such as an Almanah with a Kohen Gadol). For this reason, a man who transgresses the Isur of "Achoso" does not render her a Chalalah. Rashi himself writes in many places (see 53b, DH Pesalah; 61b, DH v'she'Niv'alah) that a prohibited relationship renders a woman a Zonah but not a Chalalah. Why, then, does Rashi write that a woman who lives with a Petzu'a Daka is prohibited from eating Terumah because she becomes a Chalalah? (RASHBA and RITVA; see also RASHASH.)

(b) The words of Rashi in Sanhedrin (69a, DH Ba Aleha) are even more enigmatic. Rashi writes that when a woman lives with a Nochri, Nesin, or Mamzer, she becomes a Chalalah. Why does he write that she becomes a Chalalah through having relations with any of the Chayavei Lavin, when the Gemara in Kidushin states that a woman becomes a Chalalah only by having relations with Isurei Kehunah? (YASHRESH YAKOV, 57a)

Rashi here in Yevamos (69a) alludes to this as well when he writes that when a man who is not permitted to marry an ordinary Jewess rapes a woman, "she becomes a Chalalah." Why does she become a Chalalah if she did not have relations with an Isur Kehunah?

(a) The Rishonim who disagree with Rashi (such as the RASHBA, RITVA and others) explain that there are two possible reasons for why a Petzu'a Daka disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah. The first reason is that he renders her a Zonah (and not a Chalalah), as the RAMBAM writes (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 18:3 and Perush ha'Mishnayos). The second reason is the verse, "Ki Siheyeh l'Ish Zar" (Vayikra 22:12), which is the Gemara's source for disqualifying a woman who has relations with an Isur Lav (68b; see Insights there).

However, the Gemara (69a) states that one who is "Machzir Gerushaso" and has relations with his ex-wife does not disqualify her from eating Terumah, because he was not "Zar Etzlah me'Ikara" -- he was not forbidden to her from birth. (RASHI (15b, DH Hi Atzmah) writes that for this reason, a Yevamah who transgresses and marries another man without performing Yibum or Chalitzah does not become prohibited to a Kohen.) It is clear that she also does not become disqualified because of Zonah, but she is permitted to eat Terumah. How, then, can a man who became a Petzu'a Daka after he was married disqualify his wife from eating Terumah? He is not "Zar Etzlah me'Ikara"! (TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER on the Mishnah)

The Rishonim ask this question and offer a number of approaches.

1. In truth, a Petzu'a Daka does not disqualify his wife from eating Terumah, even though the Mishnah says that he does. The Rishonim prove this from the Beraisa earlier (68a) that lists all of the prohibited relationships that disqualify a woman from eating Terumah and from marrying a Kohen, but omits Petzu'a Daka. The RASHBA (in one approach) asserts that the Mishnah here must be expressing the minority view of Rebbi Elazar (61b) who rules that even when an unmarried man has relations with an unmarried woman, she acquires the status of a Zonah. Alternatively, the Mishnah expresses the minority view of Rebbi Masya ben Charash who rules that when a man has relations with his wife when she is a Safek Sotah, she becomes a Zonah even though he is not "Zar Etzlah me'Ikara." Accordingly, the opinion of the Mishnah is not the opinion which the Halachah follows. (The same must be said about the Gemara on 56b which discusses a Petzu'a Daka who disqualifies his wife from eating Terumah.)

2. Others answer that perhaps the opinion of the Mishnah indeed is the Halachah, and the requirement that the man be "Zar Etzlah me'Ikara" is meant only to exclude a person who is not forbidden to join the Jewish people. When the man is forbidden only to this woman and not to everyone else (he is "Zar Etzlah," prohibited to her alone), he must be prohibited to her "me'Ikara."

Why does the Beraisa earlier (68a) omit Petzu'a Daka from its list of relationships that disqualify a woman from eating Terumah? The RASHBA suggests that the Beraisa disagrees with the reasoning of the Mishnah and maintains that a Petzu'a Daka or a Kerus Shafchah does not disqualify his wife from eating Terumah, because he indeed must be "Zar Etzlah me'Ikara" in order to disqualify her. Alternatively, the Beraisa simply omits the case of Petzu'a Daka along with the case of Kerus Shafchah, even though in both cases she is disqualified from eating Terumah (that is, the Beraisa was "Tana v'Shayar"). The RITVA adds that the Beraisa maintains that it is unnecessary to mention all of the cases, since it mentions "Nesin and Mamzer" which include all of the other "Pesulei Kahal b'Lav."

Rashi apparently is bothered by the question of the Rishonim that a Petzu'a Daka is not "Zar Etzlah me'Ikara," and therefore he writes only that a Petzu'a Daka renders the woman a Chalalah but not a Zonah. Why, though, does a Petzu'a Daka render her a Chalalah and not a Zonah? What is Rashi's source for this?

The Gemara (15b and 44b) suggests that the child from a forbidden relationship of "Machzir Gerushaso" should be disqualified from Kehunah based on a Kal v'Chomer from the case of a child born to an Almanah married to a Kohen Gadol. The Gemara rejects the Kal v'Chomer only because the prohibition of an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol is more severe than the prohibition of "Machzir Gerushaso" in that the Almanah herself becomes disqualified by living with the Kohen Gadol, while a woman who remarries her former husband does not become disqualified.

TOSFOS (15b, DH Mah, and Nidah 69b) asks why the same Kal v'Chomer is not used to disqualify the woman herself in the case of "Machzir Gerushaso." If an Almanah who marries a Kohen Gadol becomes a Chalalah, certainly a woman who marries the "Machzir Gerushaso" should become a Chalalah! Tosfos answers by citing the Gemara in Kidushin (77b) that says that only Pesulei Kehunah render a woman a Chalalah.

Tosfos asks, however, that the woman in the case of "Machzir Gerushaso" still should be Pesulah to Kehunah based on a "Mah ha'Tzad": an Almanah's status of Chalalah is due to her transgression of a prohibition of Pesulei Kehunah (an Almanah married to a Kohen Gadol). Having relations which involve a transgression of an Isur Lav also renders a woman Pesulah to Kehunah (Yevamos 68b). Based on these two laws, it may be derived that any woman who has prohibited relations becomes Pesulah to Kehunah, even one who transgresses the prohibition of "Machzir Gerushaso." Although her status of Pesulah cannot be derived from the law of an Isur Lav alone -- since a man prohibited to her due to an Isur Lav is "Zar Etzlah me'Ikara" while "Machzir Gerushaso" is not, her status of Pesulah can be derived from an Almanah who marries a Kohen Gadol, who is Pesulah even though he is not "Zar Etzlah me'Ikara." On the other hand, her status cannot be derived from the case of Almanah alone, because the case of Almanah is a case of Pesulei Kehunah, and therefore the case of Isur Lav (in which her status of Pesulah is learned from the verse "Ki Siheyeh l'Ish Zar") is necessary. From the combination of the law of an Almanah married to a Kohen Gadol and the law of a woman who has relations with an Isur Lav, the status of a woman who marries her "Machzir Gerushaso" should be derived, and she should be Pesulah to Kehunah and to Terumah.

Perhaps Rashi maintains that having relations with a Petzu'a Daka indeed disqualifies a woman from Terumah based on this "Mah ha'Tzad." Why, though, does this "Mah ha'Tzad" not disqualify a woman who has relations with her "Machzir Gerushaso" as well? Perhaps there is another common denominator between an Almanah and an Isur Lav (who is a "Zar me'Ikara"): both cases involve relations with men who are prohibited not only to her but to a broader group of people. Hence, Rashi writes that a woman who has relations with a Petzu'a Daka is a Chalalah because the Pesul of a woman who has relations with a Petzu'a Daka is derived from the "Mah ha'Tzad" which incorporates the case of an Almanah married to a Kohen Gadol, a case of a Pesul l'Kehunah.

(b) Rashi earlier (69b) uses the term "Nis'chalelah" ("she becomes a Chalalah") apparently because it denotes the complete loss of her permissibility to Kehunah, even with regard to eating Terumah (as Rashi writes on 68b, DH Giluy Milsa). This may be the intention of Rashi in Sanhedrin (69a) as well; he does not mean that relations with every form of Isur Lav renders the woman a Chalalah.