QUESTION: The Gemara discusses whether an Arel is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheni. It attempts to bring proof from a Beraisa which lists the laws unique to Terumah, Ma'aser, and Parah. In its list of laws unique to Terumah and which do not apply to Ma'aser (which an Arel is permitted to eat) or to Parah (for which an Arel is permitted to perform Haza'ah), the Beraisa omits the law that an Arel is prohibited from eating Terumah. It must be that an Arel is also prohibited from eating Ma'aser, and thus this law is not unique to Terumah.

The Gemara refutes this proof and says that the Beraisa follows the view of Rebbi Akiva. RASHI explains that according to Rebbi Akiva, an Arel is prohibited from performing Haza'ah with the Mei Chatas of the Parah, and thus the Isur which prohibits an Arel from eating Terumah is not unique to Terumah, for he is also prohibited from performing Haza'ah as well. (He indeed may be permitted to eat Ma'aser; see, however, ARUCH LA'NER.)

The Gemara then inquires (according to the Girsa of our texts, and according to Rashi's understanding) which Tana argues with Rebbi Akiva and says that an Arel is permitted to perform Haza'ah. The Gemara answers that it is the Tana who states that a person who is Mechusar Kipurim is permitted to burn the Parah Adumah. Just as that Tana permits a Mechusar Kipurim to burn the Parah Adumah, he also permits an Arel to take part in the Avodah of the Parah Adumah (Rashi, DH Hachi Garsinan).

The Gemara here seems to contradict the Gemara earlier (72b), which cites a dispute between Rav Yosef and Rava with regard to the view of Rebbi Akiva. According to Rav Yosef, Rebbi Akiva maintains that an Arel is compared to a Tamei (and thus he may not even touch Terumah). Accordingly, he may not perform the Haza'ah of the Mei Chatas. Rava refutes Rav Yosef's opinion by pointing out that no Mishnah states that an Arel may not touch Terumah; had Rebbi Akiva been of that opinion, his opinion would have been mentioned in a Mishnah. It must be that the reason why the Tana of the Beraisa there does not permit an Arel to perform Haza'ah is the Chumra (severity) of the laws of Parah Adumah (as Rashi there explains).

The Gemara here says that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah because an Arel is like a Tamei. This, however, is only Rav Yosef's interpretation of Rebbi Akiva's opinion, which the Gemara earlier rejects. Does the Gemara now return to the logic of Rav Yosef? Moreover, why does the Gemara here not use the logic of Rava earlier, who says that an Arel may not perform Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah? Had the Gemara used Rava's reasoning, it could have concluded that the Beraisa here is even in accordance with the view of the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Akiva.

ANSWER: The Gemara here may be understood in one of two ways. These two ways depend on how the Gemara earlier (72b) is understood.

When Rava (72b) rejects Rav Yosef's view and suggests that an Arel may not do Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah, does he mean that even according to the Rabanan the Arel may not perform Haza'ah, or that only according to Rebbi Akiva an Arel may not perform Haza'ah, but the Rabanan permit an Arel to perform Haza'ah? (TOSFOS there (DH Hasam) asks a similar question about the exemption of an Arel from the Mitzvah of "Re'iyah ba'Azarah.")

(Even if the Rabanan agree that an Arel may not perform Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah (as Rava explains), this is only the view of the second Beraisa (72b) which maintains that an Arel may not perform Haza'ah. The first Beraisa there -- which argues and permits an Arel to perform Haza'ah -- apparently follows another version of the opinion of the Rabanan.)

(a) The first way in which the Gemara here may be understood is that the Gemara here follows the opinion of Rav Yosef who says that Rebbi Akiva compares an Arel to a Tamei. Why does the Gemara not suggest that the reason why an Arel may not perform Haza'ah is the Chumra of Parah, as Rava states? Perhaps the Gemara prefers to avoid choosing sides in the Machlokes between Rava and Rav Yosef, and therefore it attempts to explain the Beraisa even according to Rav Yosef, who maintains that it is only Rebbi Akiva who prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah. By saying that the Beraisa expresses the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, the Gemara shows that the Beraisa may be consistent even with the view of Rav Yosef. According to Rava, the Beraisa may even express the opinion of the Rabanan.

This appears to be the understanding of TOSFOS (DH Hachi Garis). However, as Tosfos and the Rishonim point out, according to this understanding the continuation of the Gemara is unclear. The Gemara asks who it is that argues with Rebbi Akiva and says that an Arel may perform Haza'ah. What is the Gemara's question? The Gemara has already taught (70a) that Rebbi Eliezer is the Tana who argues with Rebbi Akiva and does not accept the view that an Arel is comparable to a Tamei.

Another difficulty with this explanation is that the Gemara answers its question by citing a Tana in a Beraisa which teaches that a Mechusar Kipurim may perform Haza'ah. The Gemara assumes that the same allowance applies to an Arel. Why does the Gemara make this assumption? In what way can an Arel be compared to a Mechusar Kipurim? They seem entirely unrelated! An Arel has the status of a person who is an Av ha'Tum'ah (whose form of Tum'ah is severe) and not just a Mechusar Kipurim (whose Tum'ah is not severe).

Moreover, according to this explanation, why does the Gemara discuss this question here? It should have discussed it earlier (on 72b), when it first mentions that Rebbi Akiva compares an Arel to a Tamei and says that an Arel may not perform Haza'ah.

(b) Rashi apparently has a different understanding of the Sugya. When Rava (72b) says that an Arel may not perform Haza'ah because of the Chumra of Parah (and not because an Arel is compared to a Tamei), he does not mean that both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan agree with that ruling. Rather, Rava means that only Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah for this reason (the Chumra of Parah). Rava agrees with Rav Yosef that Rebbi Akiva is more stringent than the Rabanan with regard to an Arel. Rava, however, heard Rav Yosef say that an Arel, according to Rebbi Akiva, is so similar to a Tamei that he is not permitted to touch Terumah (Rashi to 72b, DH Ish Ish). Rava disagrees with that point and says that Rebbi Akiva does not maintain that an Arel is like a Tamei. Rather, Rebbi Akiva merely is stringent with regard to an Arel in certain cases, such as Parah Adumah, the same way the law is stringent with a Tamei, because of the general Chumra of the Parah Adumah. For this reason, Rebbi Akiva does not permit an Arel to perform Haza'ah. It is because of the Chumra of Parah and not because of the Tum'ah of the Arel.

According to this understanding, when the Gemara here says that the Beraisa -- which prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah -- is the view of Rebbi Akiva who compares an Arel with a Tamei, it is consistent with the conclusion of Rava (on 72b) that Rebbi Akiva does not give an Arel the status of a Tamei completely, and yet he still prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah. (This explains why Rashi here does not write that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from touching Ma'aser Sheni. The Gemara here does not refer to Rav Yosef's opinion that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel from touching Kodshim, but rather to Rava's opinion that Rebbi Akiva prohibits an Arel only from performing the Haza'ah of the Parah Adumah. See also ARUCH LA'NER.)

This approach also explains the continuation of the Gemara. The Gemara asks who is the Tana that argues with Rebbi Akiva. The Gemara does not suggest that it is Rebbi Eliezer because it understands that the reason why Rebbi Akiva is stringent with regard to an Arel is because of the Chumra of Parah. Rebbi Eliezer argues with Rebbi Akiva only with regard to comparing an Arel to a Tamei; perhaps Rebbi Eliezer agrees that the Chumra of Parah prohibits the Arel from performing Haza'ah.

This approach answers the question: why does the Gemara associate an Arel with a Mechusar Kipurim when they are completely unrelated? If the Chumra of Parah is the reason why an Arel is prohibited from performing Haza'ah, that reason also applies to a Mechusar Kipurim (at least mid'Rabanan) because he also retains a certain degree of Tum'ah with regard to Kodshim. However, once the Gemara shows that there is a Tana who is lenient l'Chatchilah in the case of a Mechusar Kipurim despite the Chumra of Parah, it may be assumed that this Tana is also lenient in the case of an Arel and maintains that the Chumra of Parah does not prevent him from performing Haza'ah.

The reason why the Gemara does not discuss the identity of this Tana earlier (72b) is as follows. When Rava states that the reason why the Beraisa prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah is the Chumra of Parah, the Gemara assumes that according to both the Rabanan and Rebbi Akiva the Chumra of Parah prohibits the Arel from performing Haza'ah. The dispute between the Beraisos there is whether or not the Chumra of Parah indeed prohibits the Arel from performing Haza'ah, according to both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan. The dispute between the Beraisos, therefore, is unrelated to the dispute between the Rabanan and Rebbi Akiva.

From the Gemara here, however, it is evident that even Rava seeks to establish that the Beraisa, which is stringent with regard to an Arel, expresses only the view of Rebbi Akiva. The Gemara now asks why Rava seeks to limit the Beraisa to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. Apparently, Rava wants to establish that the earlier Beraisa, which permits an Arel to perform Haza'ah, expresses the opinion of the Rabanan (the majority opinion), while the later Beraisa, which prohibits an Arel from performing Haza'ah, expresses the opinion of Rebbi Akiva (a minority opinion). Rava must know of some other Tana who permits an Arel to perform Haza'ah, and since Rava agrees with the ruling of that Tana he prefers to establish the Beraisa which permits an Arel to perform Haza'ah to be in accordance with the majority opinion, that of the Rabanan. The Gemara therefore inquires who is the Tana with whom Rava seems to side and who is lenient with regard to Parah.

The Gemara finds a Tana in a Beraisa who permits a Mechusar Kipurim to perform the Avodah of the Parah, and the Halachah follows that opinion. Rava also rules in accordance with that Tana, and thus he prefers to establish the Beraisa which permits an Arel to perform Haza'ah to be in accordance with the view of the Rabanan, the majority opinion, while the Beraisa which prohibits an Arel to perform Haza'ah expresses only the view of Rebbi Akiva. (M. Kornfeld)