Resources for Yevamos daf 17
1a. The גמרא says that we don’t have to be concerned with a קידושין given by someone from the places that the עשרת השבטים were exiled to either because the עשרת השבטים intermarried, didn’t have kids, or because לא זזו משם עד שעשום כעובדי כוכבים גמורים (or a combination of all three). The משנה in סנהדרין דף ק"י ע"ב brings a מחלוקת ר"ע ור"א whether the עשרת השבטים will come back during ימות המשיח or not. According to our גמרא that the עשרת השבטים were made into כעובדי כוכבים גמורים, how could they possibly come back? Moreover, the גמרא in מגילה דף י"ד says that ירמיה brought back the עשרת השבטים! The truth is that the פּסוקים in יחזקאל make clear there will be all the שבטים when משיח comes so how can we explain ר"ע who says they will never come back? The מהר"ל in נצח ישראל פּרק ל"ד answers that according to everyone all the שבטים will be present when משיח comes. The ten tribes were exiled, but some left the places they were exiled to, some were brought back by ירמיה, and from there we have representatives of all twelve tribes today who are Yidden. However, some never left the place they were exiled to and were intermarried, didn’t have kids, and were lost forever. The מחלוקת is whether those who left their place of exile but weren’t brought back by ירמיה will come back. The מהר"ל says we pasken they will come back too.
1b. What is incredibly striking is the לשון הגמרא of עד שעשום כעובדי כוכבים גמורים. How does ב"ד have the right to do that? It is possible what the גמרא means is that they determined almost no one was left who was exiled and still Jewish, and since כל דפּרוש מרובא פּרוש we can assume they are all נכרים. However, the simple reading is that they were somehow kicked out of כלל ישראל. The קרן אורה explains that is was done על פּי נביאים ורוח הקודש. The חתם סופר in או"ח סימן ל"ט in his comment on the מג"א ס"ק ד (who says a מומר is פּסול לכתוב תפילין ) says something shocking: כלל ישראל has a right to kick out all rebellious people out of כלל ישראל. In דברות משה to הערות חולין דף ר"נ, Rav Moshe ז"ל writes that it can’t be that the חתם סופר wrote that since we pasken a מומר יבם needs חליצה. The truth is the מאירי in our סוגיא says some of his Rebbeim learned from our סוגיא that there is no קידושין למומר since he becomes a non-Jew. That sounds like the חתם סופר. Rav Moshe ז"ל in דברות משה in יבמות הערה פּ"ט says the מאירי is תמוה מאד and that perhaps it is a טעות סופר. However, the גרי"ד סלוויצי"ק brings in the name of his grandfather the גר"ח that the רמב"ם in פּירוש המשניות למסכת נדה דף ל"א (discussing נדות בכותי) learned from our גמרא exactly this point, that ב"ד can kick people out of כלל ישראל. Not only that, but they don’t need to get together to do this. Rather, any group of Jews that is no longer considered by anyone to be Jewish (e.g. the descendants of the Marranos), even if there happens to be a real Jew among them, they lost their Jewish status and we aren’t חושש לקידושין. This is based on the פּסוק our גמרא brought ofבה׳ בגדו כי בנים זרים ילדו. This is of course a tremendous חידוש.
2. The גמרא brings a פּסוק for אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו. תוספות in ד"ה אשת asks why we need a פּסוק when it should be obvious that אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו doesn’t need to do יבום because it isn’t דרכי נועם! In other words, once we tell this lady she can get married since there are no living brothers, it would not be דרכי נועם to undo that היתר if her mother in law all of a sudden gets pregnant and has a kid. תוספות answers that we need a פּסוק for the case where the mother in law is pregnant at the time the brother dies. רבי עקיבא איגר asks on our תוספות that even if the mother in law is pregnant, the יבמה doesn’t need to wait since its a 50% chance it’s a girl and a small chance it’s a נפל and together רוב says she can get married now, so she still has a היתר to get married and it’s still an issue of דרכי נועם to undo it later!? The גר"ח על הש"ס here answers that we must say that תוספות held this would be considered like a mistaken היתר where we don’t say דרכי נועם. An example of that is if a man dies with no known siblings but his mother is living in מדינת הים and then we find out later she had had a child years ago. Even if we had already told this lady to get married, it was a היתר בטעות and she would need יבום. Similarly, if a יבמה got married when her mother in law was pregnant and then had a kid, we would call it a היתר בטעות and not פּטור because of דרכי נועם. The רשב"א brings a second answer that we need a פּסוק for אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו for a case where there are other brothers alive and she couldn’t have gotten remarried anyway.
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters