Resources for Yevamos daf 97

1.     The גמרא gives several riddles of different people who are the products of various עריות or marriages. There is a fascinating discussion brought in the פּרשת דרכים in the first דרוש about the following issue: is there תפיסת קידושין by a בן נח who is בא על הערוה? (“תפיסת קידושין” is a borrowed term in reference to a בן נח). In other words, if a נכרי is מזנה with his single mother, is she now considered her sons wife or is it just a זנות like it would be for a Jew? He brings one of the ח‌כמי אשכנז who brings a proof based on the following: How was תמר allowed to let יהודה be with her? Wasn’t this her father-in-law? And why didn’t יהודה insist she be burned when he found out who she was? He answers that the גמרא earlier on דף ל"ד said that ער ואונן were only משמש with תמר with a ביאה שלא כדרכה. While a ביאה שלא כדרכה is קונה by a Jew it is not קונה by a נכרי. In fact, it is a חיוב מיתה. If so, since everyone at that time had a status of a בן נח, it turns out that ער ואונן were never really married to תמר since קידושין isn’t תופס by a חיוב מיתה. Therefore, she wasn’t יהודה’s daughter-in-law and she was allowed to marry him. The ערוך לנר disagrees and holds there is no  תפיסת קידושיןby a נכרי with an ערוה. He brings a proof from our גמרא where our גמרא calls someone who is בא על אמו the “בעל” of the mother. You see from here that קידושין is תופס by an ערוה for a בן נח. One could easily disagree and say our גמרא is just using a borrowed term when it says "בעל", but the ערוך לנר says that the גמרא wouldn’t have used that לשון if it wasn’t true. (As to the proof from תמר that the חכם מאשכנז brought, according to the רמב"ן the question doesn’t even start since the רמב"ן on our דף says that there is no concept of  עריות by a נכרי that are created by marriage  other than אשת איש. If so, כלתו is מותר to a בן נח anyway). Interestingly, the אור זרוע by רב צדוק הכהן says it is פּשוט that קידושין isn’t תופס because it can’t be that there is something מותר לישראל and forbidden to a נכרי, and this woman would only be an אשת איש to a נכרי but not to a Jew. The מנחת חינוך in מצוה קצ"א אות ב says it is פּשוט that קידושין is תופס because the only way we know if isn’t תופס is from פּסוקים and those דרשות don’t apply to a נכרי.

2.     As mentioned above the רמב"ן writes that there is no איסורי ערוה by a נכרי where the ערוה is only created through marriage (mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, etc.). One of his proofs is תמר‘s being allowed to be with יהודה. The רשב"א says that there is no proof from יהודה since prior to מתן תורה the דין of יבום could be performed by other family members as well and דין יבום could have been דוחה the איסור כלתו. The קובץ הערות in סימן ט׳ אות ז explains that the רמב"ן and רשב"א are having a fundamental מחלוקת about what is דוחה the ערוה (typically אשת אח) by יבום: is it the מצות יבום or the דין יבום? The רמב"ן holds the מצוה is דוחה the ערוה so קודם מתן תורה where there is no real מצות יבום (meaning it isn’t included in the שבע מצוות) then if כלתו was אסור for a בן נח then יבום could not have been performed. The רשב"א however disagrees and hold the דין יבום is דוחה so תמר ויהודה are not a proof since the דין יבום is דוחה the איסור כלתו. רב אלחנן זצ"ל  brings that the רשב"א’s concept is similar to תוספות in נדה on דף מ"ד ע"ב ד"ה איהו who says that one can be מחלל שבת even for an unborn child. תוספות explains (as רב אלחנן זצ"ל understands him) that even though there is no official מצות פּקוח נפש for an unborn child since it isn’t considered alive until the baby crowns, the דין of פּיקוח נפש is there and that itself is דוחה שבת in that case.

Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters

Rabbi Mordechai Papoff - English Topics

Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview