More Discussions for this daf
1. General question on sufficient conditions 2. Use 1 for both Mufneh 3. רשי ד"ה כאן לתרומה
4. תוד"ה חד לגופיה 5. דין מעשר שני שנטמא שמותר לסוכו ברמב"ם
DAF DISCUSSIONS - YEVAMOS 74

Yehuda Gellman asks:

A general question on Chazal with an example from this daf. We find that Chazal regularly interpret a pasuk to be stating a sufficient condition for a din when they could just as easily have taken the pasuk to be stating only a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. On this daf Rava says in the name of Rav Chisda that there is a stirah between two psukim. One says that a woman who has given birth has to wait for the time to end in order to eat kodshim. So she does not need haerev shemesh. And the other says that she needs haerev shemesh. So it is a stirah. But why are they forced to take the pasuk about waiting to the end of her time as stating a sufficient condition for her to eat? We could read it only as a necessary condition, that she can't eat before her time is up. But that does not mean it is sufficient for her time to be up to then eat. In fact that's the way the second pasuk is being read, since they are saying that you ALSO need haerev shemesh as a necessary condition. Nobody is saying that haerev shemesh is being said to be sufficient without the time ending.

Yehuda Gellman , Jerusalem

The Kollel replies:

1) Reb Yehudah, I think that we also need to mention Abaye here, because he asked (74b) the contradiction between the two Pesukim concerning the Yoledes.

2) To answer your question, I suggest that we use the rule "Michlal Lav Atah Shome'a Hen." The verse (Vayikra 12:4) states that the woman who gave birth may not touch Kodesh or come to the Mikdash until her days are completed. Since the Torah says that she may not come until her days are completed, this implies that when her days are completed she may come. We may infer from what the Torah says that she may not do until her days are completed, what she may do when the days are completed.

3) See the Gemara in Shevuos (end of 36a) that tells us that even Rebbi Meir, who does not agree with the rule of "Michlal Lav Atah Shome'a Hen," says this only with regard to monetary issues, but he agrees with this rule in questions of what is prohibited and what is permitted. Since the question of eating Kodshim is not a monetary matter, Rebbi Meir will agree that "Michlal Lav Atah Shome'a Hen."

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom