Resources for Yevamos 16
1. The גמרא says that the בני צרות ערוה were not considered פּגום to ב"ש. The תוספות in ד"ה בני צרות asks that according to שמואל who holds that קידושין are תופס by aיבמה לשוק, why would we think that the בני צרות were פּגום? As soon as the יבמה becomes מקדושת to someone else, the original זיקה automatically disappears because she is now an ערוה of אשת איש! We know the זיקה disappears because the גמרא says later that if a יבם is מקדש the sister of his יבמה before יבום is done, the יבמה is no longer זקוקה ליבום since she is now אחות אשתו. Here too, the אשת איש should remove the זיקה as well in which case her kids could not be פּגום. He answers that אחות אשתו is different in that there is nothing that can be done to remove the איסור, whereas by אשת איש the man can divorce her and then the איסור would be gone. Therefore, we would not consider the ערות אשת איש to be an ערוה that breaks זיקה. The חתם סופר in אבן העזר סימן ע"ט and many other אחרונים discuss the question of how this is consistent with the תוספות on דף י in ד"ה לעולם. There תוספות says that if a woman gets divorced on condition that she not marry ראובן and then she marries ראובן’s brother and subsequently falls to יבום to ראובן, she is פּטור from יבום וחליצה because she is ערות אשת איש. The question is why she is פּטור if our תוספות said that אשת איש does not פּטור a woman since she can just get divorced completely!? The חתם סופר answers that when the “בעלת התנאי” fell to יבום, both she and her ex-husband had done nothing wrong in making that תנאי, so we cannot force the ex-husband to change his divorce and give a new one. Therefore, she is פּטור מיבום וחליצה since she is an ערות אשת איש. In the case of the יבמה לשוק, she did an עברה be getting married and we have the right to force him to divorce her מן התורה. Therefore, it is as if she is divorced already so the אשת איש cannot פּטור her. The קובץ הערות in סימן ד אות ו has a different answer. He says that a woman who has a שם ערוה at שעת נפילה is completely different than a woman who gets an ערוה after the נפילה ליבום. A woman who is an ערוה at שעת נפילה is exempt from יבום because of “עליה” which we learn from a היקש applies to all עריות. Since it comes from a הקיש, you can’t make חילוקים about בידו לגרשה because אין משיבין על ההקש. However, a woman who gets a שם ערוה later is only פּטור because of אין עשה דוחה ל"ת שיש בו כרת. There we can say that since requiring a divorce would allow the מצות יבום to occur then we must insist on it.
2. The גמרא says that the land of עמון ומואב is חייב in מעשר עני as the חכמים left it for the עניים so they should have food. רש"י explains that even though these cities were conquered by עולי מצרים, since they weren’t conquered by עולי בבל the קדושה is gone and even מדרבנן you are allowed to work the land. Consequently, there will be לקט, שכחה, פּאה and מעשר עני for the poor people. The משנה למלך in הלכות שמיטה ויובל פּרק ד׳ הל׳ כ"ז asks that this רש"י seems to be against an explicit משנה in the פּרק ו׳ of שביעית which says that the land that was conquered by עולי מצרים and not עולי בבל cannot be worked on שביעית! If you can’t work it there won’t be לקט, שכחה, פּאה and מעשר עני! The חזון אי"ש in שביעית סימן ג׳ אות כ"ד answers that the משנה there lists "מכזיב ועד הנהר ועד אמנום" as the places which only עולי מצרים conquered and those places indeed have an איסור עבודה. However, there were other cities that were only conquered by עולי מצרים that חז"ל left for עניים and רש"י is referring to those cities.
3. The גמרא says according to ר׳ יוחנן we say that עבד ועכו"ם הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר. תוספות in ד"ה קסבר asks what לאו דאורייתא is violated by an עכו"ם being מזנה with an unmarried ישראלית in private that would cause ממזרות? It’s just an איסור דרבנן that came from בית דינו של שם!? The ישרש יעקב here points out that the משמעות of תוספות is that if it were בפּרהסיא, then it would be an איסור דאורייתא of קנאין פּוגעין בו. This is against the רמב"ן in פּרק זה בורר who says that that although the גמרא says that we say קנאין פּוגעין בו by a case of a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman who were מזנה בפּרהסיא (like the case of זמרי and כזבי), we don’t say קנאין פּוגעין בו at all by a case of a non-Jewish man and a Jewish woman, which means our case is not דאורייתא. Nonetheless, תוספות is going like the שיטה of the ר"א מרגננזבורג who says that in both cases we קנאין פּוגעים בו if it is in public.
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