Resources for Yevamos daf 80
1. The גמרא says that according to רב if a woman has סימני אילונית and then turned 18 she is considered a גדול למפרע from age 12. Therefore, if she ate חלב from age 12 and on she is חייבת. תוספות in ד"ה נעשה says that she חייבת מלקות even though at the time she would have received התראה it was still a ספק if she would really be חייבת since she might have brought שערות the next day in which case she would have been considered a קטנה at the time she violated the איסור. Nonetheless, he says that even those who hold התראת ספק is not a good התראה would hold that this התראה would work since it turns out למפרע that she was definitely a גדולה at the time of the violation. The only time התראת ספק is an issue is if the ספק is never resolved like the case where a person is מסופּק which one of two people is his real father. In that case even if he hits both people his התראה wouldn’t count since the ספק of who the real father is remains unresolved. Many אחרונים ask on this תוספות that there seems to be several גמרות that don’t fit with this יסוד. For example, the גמרא in שבועות דף כ"ח say that if one makes a שבועה that they won’t eat ice cream if they eat a donut and the person then eats ice cream and then the donut, they don’t get מלקות if you hold התראת ספק לאו שמיה התראה since when the person ate the “איסור” (the ice cream) it was still a ספק if that would be אסור because they might not eat the donut. According to תוספות, isn’t that a case where it was איגלאי מילתא למפרע that it was definitely אסור? To answer this question, the קובץ הערות in the very last piece in the ספר (סימן פּ אות ב) says that what תוספות meant is that if the ספק is about something that occurred in the past then everyone would agree that if we find out the answer למפרע it is considered a valid התראה. However, if the ספק is about the future such as where we don’t know if I will eventually eat the donut or not, then there is still the מחלוקת about whether התראת ספק works or not.
2. As mentioned above, the גמרא says that a woman who ate חלב when she was 12 and was then found out to be an אילונית is חייבת according to רב for eating the חלב. תוספות said that she is חייבת מלקות. The שב שמעתתא in שמעתתא א פּרק ג asks that according to theרמב"ם who holds that ספק דאורייתא is לקולא מדאורייתא, why should this lady need to get מלקות? When she ate the חלב she was only a ספק גדולה. It’s true that we found out later that she was a גדולה at the time, but if she had asked theרמב"ם he would have told her she could eat it מדאורייתא so how can she get מלקות דאורייתא? He answers that the רמב"ם will have to say the she isn’t חייב מלקות and רב meant she is חייבת to bring a קרבן חטאת. However, this still leaves us with the same question—the Rabbi would have told her its ok מדאורייתא to eat it so why is she חייבת חטאת? Isn’t she an אונס? He gives a fascinating answer: since the חכמים said that a ספקא דאורייתא is לחומרא מדרבנן, it makes it that she isn’t considered an אונס anymore. We find this notion by a woman who is משמשת during an עונה and becomes a נדה at that exact moment where we say she is חייבת a קרבן even though עונות are only דרבנן. (It should be noted that some actually bring a proof from here that עונות are דאורייתא ). He explains that the only time you are considered an אונס is if we can say about you “מאי “הוי ליה למעבד. However, here where it is אסור מדרבנן we would not say that.
Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Mordechai Papoff - English Topics
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder