Chazara of Yevamos First Perek (Part 2)
יבמות פּרק א
Daf 9 (continued)
· לוי asked why the משנה doesn’t list a 16th ערוה which רבי understood to mean אמו אנוסת אביו and said "כמדמומה לי שאין לו מח בקדקדו” since he didn’t list anything in this משנה that was a מחלוקת and ר׳ יהודה doesn’t allow a person to marry אנוסת אביו so it would never come to יבום. As far as אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו, if the child was born before יבום but after the death of the first brother, everyone agrees it is an ערוה.
· There is a משנה in דף כ"ו that says you can’t marry אחות זקוקותו but if one sister number 1 is an ערוה to you then you can marry sister number 2. The same is true for the other brothers: if sister number 2 is an ערוה to them but not sister number 1 they can marry sister number 1. The משנה there calls that האסורה לזה מותרת לזה והאסורה לזה מותרת לזה. ר׳ חייא says that this scenario is true by every ערוה in the משנה. If so, אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו must be going according to ר׳ שמעון since you can only have that if you assume that יבם ולבסוף נולד is not called אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו. That means our משנה does discuss מחלוקתים. We answer that רבי did not agree with ר׳ חייא’s כללים.
Daf 10
· Another possibility is that רבי didn’t write אמו אנוסת אביו because he does hold of ר׳ חייא’s כללים and if you have a situation of אסורה לזה מותרת לזה then you won’t have the other part of רof the משנה which says אחותה כשהיא יבמתה חולצת או מתיבמת. If they are sisters who were both אנוסת אביו, then it means one lady is the mother of the יבם but the other woman would be his aunt so it’s both אסורות.
· A third possibility is that רבי did list מחלוקתים and אנוסת אביו isn’t in the משנה since it is someone that the dead brother can’t marry meaning we go like ר׳ יהודה. רבי was upset since the next משנה should have made this clear since it says אמו ואשת אביו so אמו must beאנוסת אביו.
· Despite all this, לוי added אנוסת אביו to his משנה. This means לוי understood that our משנה does discuss cases of people marrying people they aren’t allowed to marry as the second משנה makes clear that we are holding like ר׳ יהודה. Based on this, ר"ל asked ר"י why the משנה doesn’t list a man who did חליצה to a יבמה and then married her (which is a לאו) and then died? ר"ל asked this since he held that חלוצה has an איסור כרת to the other brothers and the צרה has an איסור כרת to all the brothers. ר"י responded since it cant have צרת צרה since none of the brothers can marry the צרה. Of course according to ר"י the question doesn’t begin since he holds a חלוצה is only חייבי לאווין to all the brothers.
· The גמרא explains that ר"ל holds that only the brother that did חליצה has a לאו but the rest go back to never having a היתר אשת אח so it is an איסור כרת for them all, and the same goes for all the brothers in regards to the צרה. ר"י disagrees and holds that the אשת אח once removed never comes back so it’s only חייבי לאוין. The way that works is that the brother who did יבום was the שליח of all the brothers, and the יבמה was the שליח of all the wives.
· ר"י brings a proof from a ברייתא where the ברייתא says if someone does חליצה and then marries her and dies, she needs חליצה from the other brothers. The סיפא that says if another brother does the קידושין then she doesn’t need anything is going like ר"ע.
Daf 11
· The גמרא then brings two ways to read that ברייתא, one going like ר"י and one going like ר"ל. The half that doesn’t sound like their שיטה is according to ר"ל going like ר׳ שמעוןand talking about brothers born after the חלוץ himself died, and ר"י says it is going like the רבנן.
· If one brother does יבום to one wife and another brother does יבום to the other ר"ל says it is a חיוב כרת but ר"י holds it is an עשה of כיון שלא בנה שוב לא יבנה.
· רב says צרת סוטה is אסורה like an ערוה because it says טומאה by the סוטה (even though she wasn’t מזנה in any way relevant to the brother who is alive). The גמרא asks that we see if a woman’s husband goes away and she hears he’s dead and remarries, she is still eligible for יבום according to ר׳ שמעון and even the חכמים don’t אסור her צרה so you see that even though she is a סוטה ואדי she can still do יבום or at least her צרה can. The גמרא answers that that is a סוטה דרבנן since ב"ד told her to get married and is no comparison to a real סוטה.
· The גמרא then brings a ברייתא that says that if a woman goes בסתר with a man she gets חליצה so you see a סוטה is not an ערוה!? The גמרא answers that this is a סוטה ספק and רב was talking about a סוטה ואדי.
· The גמרא brings a מחלוקת ר׳ יוסי בן כיפּר וחכמים about whether a סוטה gets an איסור לאו to her original husband or not. ר` יוסי says he does not and חכמים say he does from the word ונטמאה which refers to ביאה itself. ר` יוסי says he doesn’t because it is only talking in that פּסוק if there is תפיסת קידושין. Rather that טומאה is referring to מחזיר גרושתו.
· The גמרא then asks if a man is מחזיר גרושתו and then dies, does this exempt her צרה fromיבום ? The גמרא has two צדדים: perhaps like ר׳ יוסי בן כיפּר it says טומאה so it is like any ערוה, but we aren’t sure if the חכמים would say that they hold it’s only taking about סוטה or would they say they agree its also talking about מחזיר גרושתו since אין מקרא יוצא מידי פּשוטו. Alternatively, perhaps even according to ר׳ יוסי בן כיפּר it isn’t an ערוה since there is a מיעוט of תועבה היא which may mean היא תועבה ואין צרתה תועבה.
· The גמרא brings a proof since it says in a ברייתא that if two יבמות fall to you and one is פּסולה and one is כשרה, you should do יבום to the כשרה and חליצה to the פּסולה. Who is else is only פּסולה to you except a מחזיר גרושתו which must means she doesn’t פּטור a צרה. The גמרא rejects this proof since perhaps it refers to someone פּסול to others such as a גרושה and it’s saying don’t ruin something for someone else by doing חליצה to a כשרה. The גמרא brings a proof from another ברייתא and rejects it. The גמרא does not appear to have a clear מסקנא.
· The גמרא then asks that perhaps the מחזיר גרושתו herself is not an ערוה but is אסור מדאורייתא from a קל וחומר: if she was אסור to the original husband, she is certainly אסור to the יבם (who needs a special היתר יבום). It also asks if that ק"ו can be דוחה a צרה. The גמרא has two conflicting לשונות in this regard. While there isn’t a clear, put together it would be saying the ק"ו can אסור her but not the צרה.
Daf 12
· שמואל says that a צרת ממאנת where the יבמה was ממאן to the יבם is אסורה. The גמרא explains that it cant be that the צרה is אסורה to the brothers since even the ממאנת herself is permitted to the brothers since they didn’t do anything to her. Rather, the צרה is אסורה to the יבם as a גזרה משום צרת בתו ממאנת, meaning if the one who did מיאון to the יבם was his daughter, then the צרה is אסורה since it looks like צרת בתו even though it really isn’t since the מיאון undoes the marriage retroactively. For the same reason a woman who does מיאון to someone is permitted to his father but one who does מיאון to her יבם is אסור to his father.
· רב אסי says that a צרת אילונית is אסורה since she is essentially a צרת אשת אח since an אילונית is excluded from יבום from the פּסוק of אשר תלד. The גמרא asks from our משנה that says “וכולן...או שנמצאו אילונית צרותיהן מותרות”. The גמרא answers that if he knew she was an אילונית then it is a real marriage but if not it’s a מקח טעות so she was never married and the צרהis not a צרת אילונית.
· רבא says that the הלכה is that צרת אילונית is מותרת no matter what since she is שלא במקום מצוה. ר׳ יוחנן that even a צרת ממאנת and a צרת מחזיר גרושתו are מותרות.
· Three women can use a מוך: a child, pregnant woman and a nursing woman. A child (between 11-12) can since she might get pregnant and die, a pregnant woman since the kid might be a סנדל, and the nursing woman as the child might die. The חכמים say she can never use a מוך and שומר פּתאים ה׳.
· The גמרא comes out that a child, at least at age 11, can get pregnant and have a kid. That which our משנה says that there is no such thing as a “אילונית or ממאנת who could be a mother in law since they already gave birth” means that one a child gives birth she is no longer considered a halachic child but is no considered an adult as בנים הרי הם כסימנים. Some say having children is even better than סימנים as it counts as ירבה השחור. Others say it is just an indicator that she has סימנים and if we don’t find it we assume they fell off due to the pain of childbirth. This is all not like רבה בר ליואי who said a woman age 11-12 can get pregnant but will die. (that which we said that before 11 a woman can’t even get pregnant may still be true).
Daf 13
· The משנה said that צרות are פּוטר their צרות as well. רב יהודה says we learn this from לצרור which sounds like multiple צרות. רב אשי says we learn it from a סברא: a צרת ערוה is an ערוה, so why shouldn’t she also פּטור her צרה?
· The משנה said that if a man divorced a woman who was an ערוה to theיבם before he died, then the צרה is מותרת. The גמרא is unsure whether this works if he divorced the ערוה only after marrying the צרה. Our משנה is משמע it doesn’t matter, and a ברייתא the גמרא brings sounds like it doesn’t work. רב ירמיה says it’s a מחלוקת תנאים and רבא says it isn’t and there is no משמעות that it won’t work.
· משנה: There are six עריות that cant be legally married to the dead brother, so they aren’t פּוטר the צרה at all: A mother(which means אנוסת אביו), wife of father, sister of father, sister of brother from same father, Father’s brother’s wife, and wife of brother who had children from first brother.
· ב"ש did not hold of the איסור צרות and held they could doיבום . This means ב"ש would require חליצה and אסור her to a כהן, while ב"ה would call יבום done to that צרה to be גילוי עריות and the wife would be אסור לכהונה as a זונה and the child would be a ממזר. Nonetheless, they would marry each others children and would rely on each other for דיני טומאה וטהרה as well since each would let the other know if something of their was אסור or טמא according to their שיטה.
· ב"ש learns from the פּסוק of לא תהיה אשת המת החוצה לאיש זר that the חוצה is the צרה and she can’t be לאיש זר. He learns that קידושין is not תופס by a יבמה לשוק from the words איש זר (which ב"ה does as well). However, ב"ה says החוצה comes to include that even if the יבמה was only an ארוסה to the brother there is יבום , and ב"ש learns that from החוצה which ב"ה is not דורש.
· רבא says the reason for ב"ש is אין איסור חל על איסור so the איסור אחות אשה can’t be חל on the איסור אשת אח. If he married the sister before the dead brother married his wife, then the איסור אשת אח is never חל since there was already אחות אשה in which case יבום doesn’t start as you need the איסור אשת אח to bring the דין יבום on that woman, in which case the צרה is allowed to do יבום.
· The גמרא says that according to ב"ה the צרות don’t even need חליצה מדרבנן, which is against ר׳ יוחנן בן נורי who wanted to require it.
· The גמרא says that the מגילה can be read in big towns on the 14 and 15 only and in small towns it can also be read on the 11-13. ר"ל asked ר"י why this isn’t an issue of לא תתגודדו which teaches us both that one can’t cut oneself over a death and that the Jewish people can’t have different הלכות for different groups (לא תעשו אגודות אגודות)? ר"י asked back how he understood the משנה that says by ערב פּסח that some places do מלאכה and some don’t. ר"ל responds that that is just מנהג and פּורים is איסור and לא תתגודדו doesn’t apply to מנהג. ר"י responds that both are איסור as at night we find ב"ש וב"ה arguing if you can do מלאכה and they use a לשון of איסור. ר"ל says back that by ערב פּסח one could just say the guy had nothing to so there is no issue of לא תתגודדו whereas by מגילה that wont apply. ר"י responds so how did ב"ש follow their שיטה by יבום and ר"ל says back who says they did? They didn’t! ר׳ יוחנן says yes they did!
Daf 14
· The גמרא discusses if and when ב"ש followed their שיטה. If it was prior to the בת קול which said הלכה כב"ה, then if they didn’t follow their שיטה it would be because their were in the minority. If they did follow their שיטה it would be because they were known to be smarter. If it was after the בת קול, then if they didn’t follow their שיטה it’s because of the בת קול, and if they did follow their שיטה it’s because of ר׳ יהושע who holds we don’t follow בת קולs.
· Assuming they went with their שיטה, the reason it wasn’t a violation of לא תתגודדו is according to אביי because it was like two ב"ד’s in two different cities which is not an issue. רבא says ב"ש וב"ה are like two ב"ד s in one city. Rather, even two ב"דs in one city is acceptable. לא תתגודדו only applies to one ב"ד in one city where half say like ב"ש and half say like ב"ה.
· The גמרא then asks from ר"א who went like his שיטה in his city that מכשירי מצוה are like the מצוה itself and they cut wood to make a knife for מילה on Shabbos; ר׳ יוסי הגלילי had chicken and milk together like his שיטה that its מותר. Why was this not לא תתגודדו? The גמרא answers that it was only in his place which we said was fine if all agree in that place. The ה"א of the questions is that since שבת is so חמור it would be heard even in other places and would be considered an issue of לא תתגודדו. So קמ"ל it isn’t.
· We then ask from ר׳ אבהו why in some places moved a candle that went out on שבת and in some places didn’t? (This question is not connected to לא תתגודדו). We answer he held it was מותר but in honor of ר׳ יוחנן, when he was in his place he didn’t move it.
· Another attempted proof that ב"ש didn’t do like their שיטה is that our משנה said ב"ה would take spouses from ב"ש and they weren’t concerned about ממזרים from צרת ערוה. The גמרא answers it’s because ב"ש would let them know if that was the case.
· The גמרא brings a ברייתא that ב"ש וב"ה both agreed a ממזר is only from חייבי כריתות, against ר"ע who says it even comes from חייבי לאווין.
· The גמרא brings a ברייתא that even though they argued on all kinds of issues in regards to אישות like the price for קידושין, גט ישן, צרות, and other places, they married each other’s children as it says האמת והשלום אהבו. However, ר"ש says they were נמנע. This should be a proof they did like their שיטה since otherwise why would they need to be נמנע? The גמרא answers that they wouldn’t go against their שיטה even if they didn’t positively do like their שיטה, so ב"ש just wouldn’t have married a צרת ערוה who obviously didn’t have a חליצה.
Daf 15
· The גמרא brings a ברייתא that says that says ר׳ יוחנן בן נורי said he wanted to institute חליצה for all צרות ערוה but it was נטרפה השעה. רשב"ג said, “what should we do with the צרות ערוה (presumably that already hadיבום and the kids are ממזירים)?”. This should also be a proof that ב"ש did like their שיטה. The גמרא answers that it just means what will ב"ש do with ב"ה’s צרות who don’t have חליצה since it isn’t דרכי נועם to make them get a חליצה once they are married as they will become disgusting to their current husband.
· The גמרא brings a ברייתא about ר׳ טרפון who said he can’t wait to marry a צרת ערוה. The גמרא says it should really say he would marry her off to others (presumably to תלמידי ב"ה).
· Another ברייתא brought says רבן גמליאל’s daughter and her co-wife fell to him forיבום and was מייבם the co-wife. The גמרא says that can’t be because he was תלמידי ב"ה. Rather, his daughter was an אילונית. The גמרא says that another ברייתא says she wasn’t and we answer they either argue about the halacha of an אילונית where the husband knew about it if the marriage is valid, or that the dead husband divorced the daughter prior to death but after marrying the צרה and they argue if she still has a din of a צרה, or there was a תנאי in the ביאה and whether that would break the original marriage or not.
· Another ברייתא brought says that ר"ע took two מעשרs from a fruit between first of שבט and 15th since those are days when ב"ש וב"ה argue if it is a new year or not. The גמרא answers that he just wasn’t sure what ב"ה said.
· The גמרא brings another ברייתא that says that ב"ש broke through the roof so a small child could be under the סוכה since he holds קטן הצריך לעמו חייב בסוכה. The גמרא answers that people would say he just needed more air.
· The גמרא brings another ברייתא that says that ב"ש widened the whole by שוקת יהוא to allow for a hole that would fit his שיטה of עירוב מקוואות which is רוב as opposed to ב"ה who holds it’s כשפופרת הנאד. The גמרא answers people would say he just wants the water to flow through faster.
· The גמרא brings another ברייתא that says that ר׳ אלעזר בר צדוק brought olives toר׳ יוחנן החורני and when he saw they were wet he didn’t want to eat them until ר׳ אלעזר בר צדוק told him that the כלי had a hole so it wasn’t a כלי but it had just been stopped up by sediment and both ב"ש וב"ה hold that is good enough to remove the status of כלי. The ברייתא continues that even though he was from תלמידי ב"ש he acted in accordance with ב"ה which sounds like that is a חידוש and usually ב"ש followed their שיטה. The גמרא does not have a response to this proof.
· The גמרא brings another ברייתא that says they asked ר׳ יהושע what the halacha is with צרת ערוה and he said he it was a מחלוקת ב"ש וב"ה and he was afraid to tell them whom the הלכה followed lest he be killed. However, he said he could tell them that the sons of צרות ערוה who’s mothers remarried without חליצה were כהנים גדולים (which means they were not considered חללים). The proof from here is that if ב"ש didn’t follow their שיטה, why would ר׳ יהושע have been worried? The גמרא does not have a response to this either.
· The reason the child from a צרת ערוה without חליצה would be פּגום is learned from a ק"ו from אלמנה לכהן גדול. If the child from that איסור is considered פּגום and its an איסור that is אינו שוה בכל, then certainly by an איסור יבמה לשוק. This is even relevant to ב"ה for a מחזיר גרושתו. A possible דחיה to the ק"ו is do we say that אלמנה is different in that she herself becomes a חללה from the ביאה as the פּסוק says explicitly that she will become a חללה. However, by ומחזיר גרושתו she doesn’t become a חללה: regarding her ability to marry a כהן, she was a גרושה anyway. Regarding eating תרומה, she doesn’t lose her ability to eat unless she was נבעלת to someone who was born אסור to her. So this would exclude יבמה לשוק ומחזיר גרושתו. (However, if she was נבעלת לחייבי כריתות she would lose her ability to eat תרומה.) To this ר׳ יהושע responded that the דיחויis correct and the ק"ו is not a good ק"ו. Consequently, they are not פּגום according to all.
Daf 16
· The גמרא brings another ברייתא that says in the time of רבי דוסא בן הרכינס they allowed צרות ערוה to doיבום so we see ב"ש did like their שיטה. That is the final conclusion of the question.
· The גמרא quotes a story about how the חכמים thought that רבי דוסא בן הרכינס allowed צרות ערוה to doיבום but it turned out it was his brother, and רבי דוסא בן הרכינס is מעיד three things from חגי הנביא: צרת הבת אסורה, we take מעשר עני during a שמיטה year for fruit that grew in the lands of עמון ומואב, and we accept converts from קרדוין ותרמודים.
· The גמרא explains that the places of עמון ומואב were conquered by עולי מצרים but not by עולי בבלand it was left to leave something for poor people to get מעשר from.
· The גמרא brings two ממראs whether ר׳ יוחנן held we accept converts from תרמוד.
One said yes and one said no. Assuming one can’t, it’s a מחלוקת ר"י וסביא why not. Either because the עבדי שלמה married the women there, or because of the soldiers that were מאנס the בנות ירושלים during the חורבן הבית. In both cases the issue is that we hold עבד ועכו"ם הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר.
· The גמרא also brings that עמון ומואב at the time of the חורבן הבית destroyed the ספרי תורה because it says in the Torah that one can’t marry into עמון ומואב.
· רב אסי says that we need to be חושש לקידושין even from what appear to be נכרים if they come from the places that the עשרת השבטים were known to be from.
Daf 17
· שמואל said that we don’t need to be concerned with their קידושין because regarding the men ישראל הבא על נכריה, the child is a נכרי. As far as the Jewish women, they didn’t have children. Another version says that the חכמים made the people there from עשרת השבטים to be like עכו"ם גמורים.
· רב יהודה said that the Jewish people will one day make a holiday when תרמוד is destroyed as half of it keeps getting destroyed and the other half keeps getting rebuilt and it is a place of dubious lineage. The גמרא also mentions that רב המנונא lived in הרפּניא which was a place whose lineage was similar to תרמוד but since he paid the head tax to another city it was not considered that he lived there.