Resources for Yevamos daf 92
1. The משנה says that if a woman is told by ב"ד based on two witnesses that her husband died and she marries someone else and then it turns out he was alive, she doesn’t need a קרבן since she was just following ב"ד. If however she married someone she wasn’t allowed to marry then she is חייבת בקרבן since ב"ד never gave her permission to marry באיסור. The רשב"א brings the ירושלמי in הלכה ב that this is similar to a case where ב"ד paskens that people can eat חלב ודם. The רשב"א’s גירסא is הורו לאכול חלב ואכלו דם which means it understands the reason she brings a קרבן if she was הלכה וקלקלה is because its as if they allowed one thing and she did a totally different thing which their היתר did not apply to. The קרבן עדה in the ירושלמי had the גירסא that ב"ד paskened you could eat חלב and she ate חלב ודם. That is similar in concept to the רשב"א. However, the גירסא we have is they paskened you could eat חלב ודם and she ate חלב ודם. How do you understand that? If she did what they said why is she חייבת? The אור שמח in הלכות שגגות פּרק ה הל׳ ה explain this ירושלמי based on an important יסוד in the beginning of הוריות that says that even if ב"ד paskens you can eat חלב, if someone thinks they are eating שומן and accidentally eats חלב, they are still חייב a קרבן. The reason is that they are not eating the חלב based on ב"ד’s היתר since they didn’t even know it was חלב. Similarly, the lady who was קלקלה was clearly not getting remarried because of ב"ד’s היתר but rather because she didn’t care about who she was halachically allowed to marry in which case she is חייבת בקרבן since it wasn’t based on ב"ד’s פּסק.
2. The גמרא says that if a the lady was told by ב"ד she could get married and then הלכה וקלקלה, then she may need to bring a קרבן depending on what עברה she did. According to ר׳ יוחנן (who we presumably pasken like), If she married a כהן when she was a גרושה then she brings a קרבן, but if she was just מזנה then she doesn’t bring a קרבן because she can say “you made me a פּנויה” which sounds like it wasn’t a real איסור. The ערוך לנר asks an interesting question: theרמב"ם in הלכות אישות פּרק א׳ הל׳ ד says that a פּנויה who is מזנה is עובר the לאו of לא תהיה קדשה. If so, why would כהן לגרושה be worse that פּנוי לפּניוה? They are both just a לאו? He also asks that the רמב"ם when he brings this הלכה in הלכות שגגות פּרק ה׳ הל׳ ה say that if she was told by ב"ד she could get remarried and then married and then finds out her husband is alive, she brings one קרבן, but if she marries or is מזנה with several men she brings one קרבן per man. Why would he only mention marriage by one man and mention זנות by several men? This is especially difficult if consider that the גמרא specifically said זנות does not require a קרבן! It is true that we pasken that in any event you bring a קרבן since we don’t pasken like our משנה but the choice of לשון of the רמב"ם is unusual as well as his change from the לשון הברייתא. He has a beautiful answer. The ערוך לנר suggests that the רמב"ם doesn’t mean that every lady who is מזנה once is in violation of לא תהיה קדשה. Rather, as the כסף משנה there explains, the רמב"ם only means if she is מפקיר עצמה לזנות she is in violation of the לאו. Therefore, the רמב"ם only mentions זנות when it comes to several men, as in that case she was clearly מפקיר עצמה לזנות which means she is in violation of the לאו of לא תהיה קדשה. If so, she is the same as a גרושה לכהן where according to everyone she brings a קרבן since לא היתירוה אלא לינשא.
Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Mordechai Papoff - English Topics
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview