Resources for Yevamos daf 14
1. The גמרא discusses לא תתגודדו. There are two opinions in the ראשונים as to what the reason for לא תתגודדו is. רש"י on the previous עמוד in ד"ה לא תעשו says that the reason for לא תתגודדו is that when there are different פּסקי דין it looks like there are two תורות. The רמב"ם in הלכות ע"ז פּרק י"ב הל׳ י"ד disagrees and says that the reason for לא תתגודדו is that it will cause fights. Theרמב"ם adds that the איסור even applies when two בתי דין in one city disagree about a מנהג. There is an incredible שו"ת משיב דבר in סימן י"ז who discusses our סוגיא and this רמב"ם in great depth. He points out that the simple reading of the מסקנא of our גמרא is that לא תתגודדו does not apply to a מנהג, and that we pasken like רבא that it only applies to one בית דין in one city where that one ב"ד has differing opinions. So why would the רמב"ם say it applies to מנהג and why would he say that it applies to two בתי דין in one city? That’s like אביי who we don’t pasken like except in case of “יע"ל קג"ם” (which this is not)!? Furthermore, it seems clear the issue of לא תתגודדו is not מחלוקת since ר"ל asked from the different days you read the מגילה and everyone knows different cities have different times so why would it cause fights? And why would ר"ל suggest that מנהג is not a problem when it certainly causes fights!? To answer all this the נצי"ב ז"ל suggests that the רמב"ם learned רבא very differently. The רמב"ם felt that if in one ב"ד some pasken like ב"ש and some pasken like ב"ה then they aren’t functioning as one ב"ד but rather as two! Moreover, why would it not look like two תורות when two בתי דין in the same city say different things? Therefore, he understands that רבא meant that the ב"ד agrees on the הלכה and is functioning like one ב"ד. It’s just that some want to make a מנהג לחומרא and some don’t. In that case there would be fights. The same would be true if there were two בתי דין in one city agreeing on הלכה but disagreeing on whether to be נוהג לחומרא. However, if they only argue in הלכה there won’t be fights as they just have different פּסקים. According to this, רבא disagrees with everything said before in the גמרא. אביי and ר"ל hold the issue was two תורות. However, רבא disagrees and holds the issue is only מחלוקת.
2. The גמרא discusses whether ב"ש acted according to their שיטה or not. It comes out from the גמרא that according to everyone, a person is not allowed to follow their שיטה if it goes against the רוב. If you hold that ב"ש did like their שיטה, it’s only because they were מחדדי טפי, but otherwise they would not have the right to go against the majority. The קובץ הערות in סימן ט"ז asks that if this is true how could ר"י הגלילי have eaten chicken and milk when the רוב disagreed with him? Our גמרא only addresses לא תתגודדו but doesn’t address the issue of אחרי רבים להטות. רב אלחנן ז"ל answers that in a typical מחלוקת one does not need to follow the רוב since רוב is only when there is a ספק, and in a מחלוקת both sides are sure of their opinion. However, the מחלוקת ב"ש וב"ה was a מחלוקת של כל חכמי ישראל which has a דין of the סנהדרין הגדולה where לא תסור would apply. In that case the minority must follow the majority like in the סנהדרין. However, the מחלוקת ב"ש וב"ה isn’t exactly like the סנהדרין הגדולה since by theסנהדרין the concept of מחדדי טפי is irrelevant; you just follow the majority. However, that is because there is a finite number of 71. When there is no defined number, then you can still use מחדדי טפי.
3. The גמרא says that ב"ש and ב"ה married each other’s children to teach you that חיבה וריעות נוהגין זה בזה. The question is that even without "חיבה וריעות", isn’t there an obligation to tell each other because of לפני עור? The ריטב"א says there is. However, he explains that if, for example, ב"ש had offered a woman that was an ערוה according to ב"ה to someone from ב"ה, then ב"ש would have had a חיוב to let them know as you can’t offer something to someone that they hold is אסור. However, if ב"ה would ask to marry a lady from ב"ש which unbeknownst to ב"ה was an ערוה for them, then ב"ש would not be obligated to tell ב"ה that it’s אסור according to their שיטה. The חידוש here is that they were נוהג אהבה וריעות and would let each other know in every case if there was any issue with any lady. This is also paskened by the רמ"א in יו"ד סימן קי"ט סעיף ז. However, the פּרי חדש inסימן תצ"ו כללי איסור ויתר אות כ"ג disagrees and says that there is no לפני עור to feed someone something that you know they think it’s אסור if you are sure it’s מותר.
Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Mordechai Papoff - English Topics