Resources for Yevamos daf 9
1. The גמרא says that according to רבי עקיבא, חייבי לאוין are considered like עריות and are פּטור from יבום וחליצה. תוספות in ד"ה והרי asks why is it so פּשוט to the גמרא that there is no וחליצה מצוות יבום? Why don’t we say that even though חייבי לאוין have no תפיסת קידושין according to רבי עקיבא, it still is only a לאו and not a חיוב כרת and we should apply the principle of עשה דוחה לא תעשה and say that יבום is allowed! All the ראשונים discuss תוספות’s question. The רשב"א says the גמרא must have just known that רבי עקיבא happened to hold that there is no וחליצה דין יבום by חייבי לאוין. The רמב"ן says that ר"ע learns from the ערוהof אחות אשה that anytime there is no תפיסת קידושין, there is no דין יבום. The ריטב"א says (perhaps explaining the רמב"ן) that since we find by אחות אשה the words לא תקח, we see that the issue is ליקוחין, which means that if there can’t be תפיסת קידושין, there is no דין יבום. The אבני מילואים in סימן י"ח ס"ק א has an interesting answer: he says that according to ר"ע, if we were to say that עשה דוחה ל"ת and you could do the מצות יבום, it would only allow for the ביאה ראשונה to be performed. As soon as that was completed and the מצוה fulfilled, the marriage would come to an immediate and automatic end as the lack of תפיסת קידושין would come back as soon as the עשה דוחה ל"ת wasn’t operating. If so, the whole קנין of the יבם would only be a קנין לזמן, and a קנין לזמן is equivalent to a קנין פּירות which doesn’t work by אישות! Therefore, יבום cannot be done and there is therefore no חליצה as well since כל שאינו עולה ליבום אינו עולה לחליצה. The קובץ הערות in סימן י"א אות ט asks two questions on the אבני מילואים: First, if the אבני מילואים was right, then even if the גמרא would have come out earlier that עשה דוחה ל"ת שיש בו כרת there still wouldn’t have been a מצות יבום since it also would only have been for ביאה ראשונה. The גמרא earlier seemed clear that if עשה would have been דוחה ל"ת שיש בו כרת then there would have been a מצות יבום. Moreover, a קנין לזמן is when from the start of the קנין you are only קונה something for a small amount of time. In the case of יבום, you are קונה forever, it’s just that the איסור comes back later are breaks the קידושין but that isn’t considered קנין לזמן. It is similar to buying land in Israel—we don’t consider that a קנין לזמן even though יובל will eventually come and break the קנין. He does not give an answer.
The חידושי מרן רי"ז הלוי in הלכות יבום וחליצה asks how according to ר"ע are the חייבי לאוין able to be פּוטר their צרה (and it is clear on דף י inתוספות ד"ה לעולם that they are פּוטר their צרה)? A lack of תפיסת קידושין does not make them עריות, and it is only עריות that are פּוטר a צרה!? He answers that since according to ר"ע the חייבי לאוין don’t fall to יבום at all, the original אשת אח comes back which makes her an ערוה to be פּוטר a צרה.
2. לוי asked רבי a question and רבי responded with “כמדומה לי שאין לו מוח בקדקדו”. This seems to have been a very harsh response to his question. The חוות יאיר has a famous תשובה here in סימן קנ"ב where he says that לוי was רבי’s student and that רבי felt that לוי‘s question was asked due to a lack of diligence (כפי מדרגתו) on לוי ‘s part and he wanted to teach him to work harder. This is where the רמב"ם inהלכות תלמוד תורה פּרק ד הל׳ ה learns the הלכה that if a רבי feels that his students are asking questions based on a lack of effort the Rebbe should get angry at them so that they work harder in the future.
Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Mordechai Papoff - English Topics