Yevamos - Daf 10
- The reason why Rebbe did not list אמו אנוסת אביו in our Mishnah
Rav Adda Karchina said in the name of Rava, in front of Rav Kahana, that Rebbe does hold of Rebbe Chiya’s rule, and provided a different explanation of Rebbe’s response to Levi as to why the Mishnah does not include the case of אמו אנוסת אביו – his mother, who was violated by his father. Rebbe explained that it would not fit into one of Rebbe Chiya’s rules in the following case: Yaakov violates two sisters, and each one bears him a son, and then these two sisters marry Yaakov’s two other sons who then die childless. While Rebbe Chiya’s rule that ואחותה שהיא יבמתה חולצת או מתייבמת – Her sister, who is her fellow yevamah can do chalitzah or yibum applies here, the rule of האסורה לזה מותרת לזה, - the sister that is prohibited to this yavam is permitted to the other yavam, and vice versa, does not, since each yevamah is assur as the mother of a different yavam, and is the sister of his other yevamah. And if the case was when Yaakov violated two women who were not related to each other, who then bore sons, and they married Yaakov’s two other sons who then died childless, the case would fulfill the rule האסורה לזה מותרת לזה – the sister that is assur to this yavam is mutar to the other yavam but would not fulfill the rule of אחותה שהיא יבמתה – her sister who is her fellow yevamah.
- Our Mishnah is Rabbi Yehuda who holds אנוסת אביו is assur
Rav Ashi says that Rebbe does not hold of Rebbe Chiya’s rule, and that his harsh response to Levi was that Levi should have inferred that the Tanna of our Mishnah is Rebbe Yehudah, who holds that אנוסת אביו is assur and therefore, there can never be a case of אנוסת אביו falling to יבום from either brother. For the Mishnah later says: שש עריות חמורות מאלו – Six arayos are more chamur than the fifteen מפני שנשואות לאחרים – because they must be married to others and can never marry a man’s paternal brother. The Gemara proves that since two of these arayos are אמו ואשת אביו – his mother, and his father’s wife, it must be that אמו – his mother, is referring to a woman that was violated by his father, and the Mishnah is stating clearly that she is forbidden to all of the paternal brothers, which is the opinion of Rebbe Yehudah.
- Doing chalitzah to the yevamah and then marrying her
The Gemara discusses the halachah in the case of החולץ ליבמתו וחזר וקדשה - one brother who does chalitzah and then returns and does kiddushin with her, and then dies childless, so that she then falls back to the brothers whom she had previously fallen for yibum or chalitzah. Reish Lakish holds that the first brother is not chayav kares for taking his chalutzah, but the other brothers would be chayav, and all of them would be chayav kares for taking her tzarah. Rebbe Yochanon says neither he nor the brothers would be chayav kares for taking her or any of her tzaros . Reish Lakish’s reason is that the passuk states regarding one who did chalitzah: - "אשר לא יבנה" – כיון שלא בנה שוב לא יבנה who shall not build his brother’s house, (The future tense implies that once he did not build), he shall never again build. This is a lav against taking the chalutzah, but it does not carry the penalty of kares. Even though his brother’s wife was originally prohibited as an issur kares, she is only prohibited as a lav. According to Reish Lakish, only he who did chalitzah and “did not build” is now subject to the lav, but the other brothers who did not do chalitzah remain with the original issur kares. Rebbe Yochanan holds that the brother who did chalitzah acted as the shaliach for all the brothers, and the chalutzah acted as the shaliach for all of her tzaros. Therefore, no issur kares remains for any of the brothers with her or any of the tzaros.
