Chazara of Yevamos - Third Perek
Audio Chazara of Yevamos Third Perek - Part 1
Audio Chazara of Yevamos Third Perek - Part 2
יבמות פּרק ג
Daf 26
· משנה: If two brothers are married to two sisters and they die and there are two brothers remaining, they do חליצה to both women and can’t do יבום since they are both אחות זקוקתו. If they did יבום they must get divorced. ר"א says that ב"ש actually doesn’t require them to get divorced. If one of the sisters was an ערוה to one of the brothers then he can do יבום to the other woman. If each one was an ערוה to a different sister, then both could do יבום to the one that wasn’t an ערוה to them.
· The גמרא says that this משנה should be a proof to יש זיקה because it is based on אחות זקוקתו. The גמרא is דוחה that perhaps they just do חליצה because אסור לבטל מצות יבמין which means we are afraid that one will do יבום and the second brother will die and then the other sister will not be able to get יבום or חליצה. The גמרא says if so why not say a case of three brothers where we would certainly have a ביטול מצות יבמין? The גמרא answers that it’s a חידוש that we are even worried about death. We don’t say a case of five because we are not concerned about the death of two.
· If three sisters fell to two brothers, רב says each brother does חליצה to one sister and the other to the second sister and they both do חליצה to the third sister since the third sister was a חליצה פּסולה. The גמרא explains that each women fell at different times so the first two were a חליצה כשרה when they happened.
· The גמרא explains that רב holds אין זיקה which should mean that one could do חליצה to all three women. However he was talking according to those who hold יש זיקה.
Daf 27
· שמואל says that one can do חליצה to all three of them. The גמרא asks on this that we know שמואל requires a חליצה כשרה because he says if two sisters, each with their צרות, falls to יבום, if you do חליצה to the sisters, they don’t פּטור the צרות but if you do חליצה to the צרות it does פּטור the sisters. (The reason is that the צרות are חליצה כשרה compared to the sisters.) The גמרא answers that when שמואל said one can do חליצה to all he meant the first and third and since that is most he called it all. This means he holds that חליצה פּסולה אין צריכה לחזור על כל האחין. Alternatively, he holds you only need a חליצה כשרה to exempt a צרה but not yourself.
· שמואל says that not only do the sisters not exempt the צרות, a woman who received either a גט or מאמר doesn’t exempt the צרות since in the first two cases she cant do יבום, and in the last case חליצה isn’t strong enough without a גט so it isn’t a strong חליצה.The גמרא explains that שמואל, even though he holds יש זיקה, must be going here according to those who hold אין זיקה because otherwise why if you do חליצה to the צרות does it פּטור the sisters when the צרות themselves are a צרת אחות זקוקתו? It must be because there is no such thing as אחות זקוקתוand when we say if you are חולץ the sisters it doesn’t exempt the צרות we really mean only the צרה of the second sister since she is צרת אחות חלוצתו. The גמרא asks that if so then if you first did חליצה to one sister and then do חליצה to the צרה of the second sister it shouldn’t work either to exempt the sister since a person cant marry the צרת אחות חלוצתו. The גמרא answers that שמואל meant if you star being חולץ with a sister then it will not פּטור both צרות but if you start being חולץ the צרות it will exempt the sisters since one is permitted to קרובת צרת חלוצתו.
· רב אשי disagrees and says this works even if you say יש זיקה and the reason the צרות exempt the sisters is because it is זיקה does not create a צרת ערוה at all.
· רב אשי brings a ברייתא that says exactly the words of שמואל which sounds like יש זיקה as רב אשי explained, and in the ברייתא one cant say the other answer for שמואל k of “it means you stated with the sisters” since the ברייתא should have said so (תוספות). רב אבא בר ממל says the ברייתא could be like ב"ש who says צרות are always allowed, and the reason you only do חליצה is that according to ב"ש they were מתקן to only do חליצה for צרות.
· The גמרא asks if two women from one brother fall to יבום and you give a גט to one and then מאמר to the other, who is best to give the חליצה to? The גמרא answers there is no difference and giving it to one will exempt the other. תוספות explains that this works like the מ"ד earlier that Shmuel said that one can do חליצה to the middle one since they are equal. Otherwise both would need חליצה.
· רב הונא אמר רב said that if two sisters from one house fall to one יבם so there is אחות זקוקתו on both, and then one dies, if the second one dies, then everyone agrees the first one is מותר since it is a case of הותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה. However, if the first one dies then רב says the second can do יבום and רב יוחנן says she cant. רב would agree by an ערוה דאורייתא that if at שעת נפילה she is an ערוה then she is like an אשת אח שיש לה בנים, but here it is just דרבנן of אחות זקוקתו.
· The גמרא asks on רב יוחנן from our משנה. If he was right, why wouldn’t our משנה says that one brother does חליצה to the second sister and then the other brother can do יבום? To this רב יוחנן just said he didn’t have an answer and he doesn’t know who wrote our משנה which רש"י says means our משנה isn’t a משנה.
Daf 28
· The גמרא asks why רב יוחנן didn’t respond that our משנה holds אין זיקה and we wont allow יבום because of ביטול מצות יבמין? It answers because רב יוחנן isn’t חושש למיתה. The גמרא then suggest perhaps it’s ר"א who doesn’t hold of הותרה ונאסרה והותרה is מותר and answers if the סיפא says ר"א אומר then he cant be the ת"ק. And it cant be ר׳ יוסי הגלילי who holds אפשר לצמצם and they fell at the same second since there is no stam משנה like that and it cant be a case where we aren’t sure who fell first because then it wouldn’t say אם קדמו וכנסו יוציאו which is why had to say איני יודע מי שנאן.
· The גמרא then tries to ask from the end of the משנה where one is an ערוה and one isn’t and it says one brother can do יבום and the second one is אסור to both. The question is why we don’t say the if the ערוה fell first and brother one did יבום to the non-ערוה to him who fell second, then the first lady should be חזרה והותרה to the other brother? We are דוחה that it is talking about a case where the ערוה fell second.
· ר"א had said ב"ה is מחמיר and ב"ש is מיקיל and say יקיימו but אבא שאול says the reverse and ר"ש says they never argued and both hold יקיימו.
· The גמרא asks why our משנה needs to tell us that if one is an ערוה and one isn’t he can do יבום when we had this משנה on דף כ. The גמרא answers that by our משנה there is a second brother who might think he can do יבום when he sees his brother doing it so you might think we would forbid it here. And the חידוש of the other משנה is that by our משנה we can tell from the fact that each brother did יבום to one and not the other that there was an ערוה but there where there is only one person others might think there is no איסור of אחות זקוקתו so we should אסור it. קמ"ל.
· The גמרא asks a similar question about the case where one sister is only an איסור לאו which we also said in the previous פּרק. The גמרא answers that by us we might have though that it counts like an ערוה to remove אחות זקוקתו, so our משנה tell us it doesn’t.
· The חידוש of the case where each one has one sister be an ערוה to them is that you might have thought that in such a case people wouldn’t realize there is an איסור אחות זקוקתו. And if we just had the second case might say they both show by only doing the non ערוה that that’s the היתר but by a case where only one has that perhaps his brother wouldn’t realize there is an issue.
· The גמרא then says that the זו היא שאמרו comes to exclude if they are both just and איסור לאו which you might have thought would be allowed and the only reason we don’t say it in the רישא is because there there is another brother who would think there is no such thing as אחות זקוקתו. So קמ"ל its all אסור.
· ר׳ חייא had a ברייתא that said on all the fifteen עריות in the משנה we can say our case of האסורה לזה מותרת לזה, etc. However, רב יהודה says this really referred to חמותו and onward since prior to that all involve איסורים with daughters and an actual בתו can only fit with ר׳ חייא in a case of בתו מאנוסתו and since we are only talking about נישואין he didn’t talk about those. אביי disagreed and said we can be talking about בתו מאנוסתו but ר׳ חייא didn’t mean אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמ משנה ו since that can only be possible according to ר"ש (who holds if the kid born found her after she already had יבום to a brother she isn’t an ערוה ) and we aren’t discussing cases that are a מחלוקת. רב ספרא disagreed with that as well and said we are discussing case of מחלוקת and we can have אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו like ר"ש where the following occurred: Reuvain and Shimon married sisters and there is Levi and Yehuda married to נכריות. Reuvain dies, then Yisachar is born, the levi does יבום, then Shimon dies, zevulun is born, and Yehuda does יבום and then Yehuda and Levi die. In that case Yisachar is אסור on Levi’s wife but מותר to Yehudas wife. Zevulun is אסור on Yehuda’s wife but מותר to Levi’s wife. If Gad and Asher had wives and had married Levi and Yehuda’s wife and then they died, then you would have צרות צרותיהן as well since she is צרת yehuda’s wife who was צרת shimon’s wife.
· משנה: If two women fall to a person who are either sisters or אשה ובתה etc then they both get חליצה since they are both זקוקה to the person. However, ר"ש holds they don’t even need חליצה. If one of the sisters is an ערוה then the other one can do יבום according to all. If one is just a לאו then they both do חליצה.
· The גמרא explains that ר"ש hold the פּסוק of לצרור teaches me that when sisters fall together they are an ערוה. The end of the משנה where if one of the sisters is an ערוה then the other can do יבום is a חידוש in ר"ש that we don’t make a גזרה אטו אחיות בעלמא where one isn’t an ערוה.
Daf 29
· The גמרא asks why in the case where one sister is only a לאו where מדאורייתא she falls to יבום does ר"ש agree that חליצה is required? The גמרא answers that it is a גזרה אטו a case where they aren’t sister. We don’t make this גזרה where one is an ערוה to make the ערוה need חליצה because people know about that.
· If one sister is an איסור לאו then the other does חליצה even according to ר"ש due to a גזרה אטו איסור לאו בעלמא.
· משנה:If two brothers marry two sisters and there is a third brother and brother one dies and the third brother does מאמר and then brother two dies, ב"ש says brother three remains with his first wife and the second sister is פּטור. However, ב"ה holds the first sister needs a גט and חליצה and the second sister just needs חליצה. On this we say,“אוי לו על אשתו ואוי לו על אשת אחיו”.
· ר"א explains that ב"ש doesn’t hold that מאמר is a full קנין. Rather, he just holds it’s good enough to be דוחה a צרה completely. However, he stills needs to give his wife חליצה if she wants to remarry in addition to a גט. However, even מאמר only has that power if he could have done יבום. However, in a case of אחות זקוקתו like our first משנה, then מאמר isn’t even fully דוחה.
· The גמרא then asks according to ב"ש, does מאמר accomplish נישואין or אירוסין? The גמרא clarifies that in terms or ירושה, לטמא לה, ולהפר נדריה there is no question that it doesn’t work since it’s definitely only דרבנן and even an ארוסה דאורייתא doesn’t get that. So the question is does it make it a מסירה לחופּה or do we say that once he does מאמר, the יבום דינים end and the regular אירוסין comes and she needs a חופּה? To be clear, תוספות explains that we mean he did מאמר and was בא עליה because as we said, מאמר isn’t better than קידושין and קידושין isn’t חופּה.
· The גמרא brings a proof from the משנה in נדרים that says that if a שומרת יבם falls to two brothers, ר"א says "יפר", ר"ע holds no יבם of a שומרת יבם can be מפיר and ר׳ יהושע holds only when it falls to one brother can he be מפיר. The גמרא asks why according to ר"א can both be מפיר? Even if he holds יש זיקה in this case, they should still only be allowed to be מפיר together since she is זקוקה to both? The גמרא answers it is talking about a case where one did מאמר so that brother can be מפיר, so you see it does נישואין. The גמרא is דוחה that perhaps "מפיר" means בשותפות.
· The גמרא asks that ר"א said מאמר only does a דחיה לצרה but isn’t a קנין, so how can he be מפיר נדרים? The גמרא answers that he meant it isn’t קונה in the sense that she still needs a חליצה but in other ways she is קונה. Another answer is that we are talking about a case where they were פּסקו לה מזונות and at that point we say כל הנודרת על דעת בעלה נודרת.
Daf 30
· משנה: three brothers are married to two sisters and one unrelated woman. A brother married to one of the sisters dies and the second brother married to the unrelated woman does יבום and the he dies. The third brother is פּטור since one lady is אחות אשה and one is her צרה. If the middle brother just did מאמר and not יבום, then the צרה needs חליצה.
· The גמרא explains that had no מאמר been done then the third brother could have done יבום to the נכריתwhich means it must hold אין זיקה because otherwise the sister is her צרה בזיקה.
· משנה: In the same scenario as the previous משנה but the brother married to the unrelated woman died and another brother did יבום and then he died. In that case the third brother is פּטור since one lady is אחות אשה and one is her צרה. If the brother just did מאמר and not יבום, then the צרה needs חליצה.
· The גמרא explains that there is no חידוש in this משנה over the previous one. In fact, the first משנה was the bigger חידוש since there the ערוה is just a צרה but here the ערוה is the main woman falling. The גמרא explains that really our משנה was first and it though the first משנה was מותר but once it decided otherwise it put the bigger חידוש first and just left this one.
· משנה: The same scenario as the previous two משניותexcept a brother married to a sister died and the one married to the unrelated wife did יבום and then the sister married to the other brother died and then the brother that did יבום died. In that case we say הואיל ונאסרה עליו שעה אחת עאסרה עולמית.
· רב יהודה said in the name of רב: any woman that cant do יבום when she falls to יבום is נאסרה like and אשת אח שיש לה בנים even if she becomes מותר later. The גמרא explains that רב’s חידוש more than our משנה is that even if mid נפילה she becomes מותרת, it is still נאסרה. The גמרא then says we have a ברייתא that talks about only two brothers and still says we say נאסרה. The גמרא responds that there she was נדחה from the whole house completely but here it is still a חידוש since she wasn’t נדחה לגמרי.
· משנה: Same scenario as above משניות except one brother married to a sister divorced his wife and then the brother married to the נכרית died and the brother that divorced his wife did יבום and then died. In that case we say "וכולן שמתו או נתגרשו צרותיהן מותרות".
· The גמרא is מדייק that if the brother married to the נכרית had died and then the divorce had occurred she would have been אסור since they were צרות בזיקה. That leaves us with a contradiction from the first משנה on this דף which we were מדייק held אין זיקה. רב אשי who made the דיוק from this משנה says the other משנה is no דיוק and even if he didn’t do מאמר the נכרית would have done חליצה and we just said מאמר to be not like ב"ש who holds it’s a קנין גמור. However, רב נחמן who made the דיוק of אין זיקה says our משנה is no דיוק and the correct דיוק is that if did יבום and then divorced the ערוה then it’s too late and they are forever צרות ערוה. This means he must hold like ר׳ ירמיה that our משנה holds נישאין הראשונים מפּילין.
· משנה: any ערוה that had a ספק קידושין or גירושין the צרה will need חליצה. A ספק קידושין is ספק קרוב לו ספק קרוב לה and ספק גירושין is a גט either handwritten by the husband with no עדים, or one עד, or had עדים but no date. All those ספק גירושין are not really ספקות but really פּסול רק לכתחילה. Therefore, we require חליצה but don’t allow יבום since people could think it’s not really a גט.
· The גמרא asks why the ספק קרוב לו ספק קרוב לה isn’t listed by divorces as well? The גמרא suggest because by a real case of ספק גירושין she had a חזקת היתר לשוק so we shouldn’t אסור her מספק. If so, the גמרא asks why by ספק קידושין do we not allow יבום since she had a חזקת היתר ליבם? The גמרא answers that it’s just a חומרא which people will realize since she gets חליצה. The גמרא says if so why don’t we require חליצה by ספק גירושין and the גמרא says if you say חולצת people would come to do יבום whereas by ספק קידושין if that happens it’s ok since she really has a חזקת היתר ליבם.
Daf 31
· The גמרא asks that we have a משנה that says if a house falls on someone and their wife who was an ערוה to the brother and we don’t know if the ערוה died first in which case the צרה can do יבום or if the husband died first in which case there is no יבום and we say the צרה does חליצה. Why don’t we say there that the צרה has a חזקת היתר and if you say חולצת she may come to do יבום? The גמרא answers we didn’t make a גזרה by uncommon cases. Alternatively, here everyone will realize it is a ספק because of the circumstances.
· The גמרא then asks that we do have the ספק קרוב לו ספק קרוב לה case by גירושין in a משנה and it says in גיטין that in that case she can’t marry a כהן and if she was an ערוה her צרה does חליצה and we aren’t worried about they might come to do יבום? The גמרא answers that case is talking about where there are two sets of witnesses where each one said it was closer to the other one so it is a ספק דאורייתא which eliminates the חזקה. Our משנה is one set of witnesses so there is still a חזקה. The גמרא asks on that that by two sets of witnesses its really a ספק דרבנן and the חזקה does work! We see this by the case of a guy who was sometimes crazy and sometimes normal and two עדים says he sold while lucid and two עדים say he was crazy when he sold and we go with חזקה. Moreover, who said our משנה is talking about two sets of עדים? Therefore אביי and רבא both say that the case of ספק קרוב לו really is going on both marriage and divorce.
· The גמרא asks what is the "זהו ספק קידושין" coming to exclude (according to רבא the one by גירושין is לאו דוקה)? The גמרא answers it is coming to exclude a case where there is no date since they were never מתקן זמן by קידושין.
· The reason we have זמן by גירושין is either to know when the פּירי are owned by the husband and according to others lest he be מחפּה על בת אחותו by claiming a divorce was delivered earlier than it was. So for קידושין if the reason was פּירי it isn’t relevant since an ארוסה doesn’t get פּירי. As far as מחפּה על בת אחותו, one would think it would apply since he could delay the date of the שטר קידושין. However, the גמרא says most are not מקדש בשטר so they didn’t make a תקנה or because if they wrote it then if the woman got it she would erase it and if the man got it he might erase it if it’s his niece and the witnesses need to remember it on their own. By divorce this is not an issue since if they erase it then we assume she was married till the last possible second.
· משנה: Three unrelated women married to three brothers and one dies and the second does מאמר and then dies, the third brother only does חליצה to both women but not יבום since there is a דין דרבנן not allowing יבום when he has a זיקה from two brothers at once. The reason for this is that people might say two women coming from one house need יבום to both. Therefore, in this case where the second brother did מאמר that one woman has זיקה from two brothers on her. The משנה brings a פּסוק but it is really just דרבנן as מאמר is just דרבנן. However, ר"ש says they can do יבום to either one.
· The גמרא asks why we don’t say he should do יבום to the צרה and חליצה to the one with two זיקות? The גמרא answers says if so people will think two women from one house needs one to do יבום and one to do חליצה and if you did חליצה first then there would be an איסור דאורייתא to do יבום to the second of כיון שלא בנה שוב לא יבנה.
Daf 32
· רבא says that in our משנה’s case if he gave a גט to the women he did מאמר to and then died, the next brother could do יבום to the צרה but not to her. The reason he couldn’t do יבום to her is because it would be confused with a case where the brother meant to give a גט to the זיקה itself in which case יבום cant be done. Another version of רבא says we can do יבום eve to the woman who received the מאמר וגט and he isn’t worried about the aforementioned חשש. רש"י points out that we are talking about a case where the brother explicitly said the גט is for the מאמר only. If he didn’t say one way or the other we would assume it was for both מאמר וזיקה and יבום could not be done.
· משנה:If two brothers marry two sisters and one brother dies and then the sister dies, the women is still אסורה ליבם because of הואיל ונאסרה שעה אחת. Even though there is no חידוש in this משנה it was left here as we said in the earlier cases since there were other משנה where she wasn’t נדחה from the house completely and it thought those were מותר and once it decided otherwise just left this משנה.
· The גמרא discusses the case of a person who was בא on a woman who was both an אשת אח and an אחות אשה (meaning the יבום case where she was an ערוה). רבי יוסי says he is חייב for both and רבי שמעון says he is only חייב for one (whichever happened first).
· The גמרא asks on רבי שמעון that if אחות אשה isn’t חל why cant you do יבום? The גמרא answers that since אחות אשה is waiting on the wings to fall if אשת אח goes away, therefore it never goes away.
· The גמרא assumes ר׳ יוסי must not hold of אין איסור חל על איסור. However, we have a ברייתא that says if someone is בא על חמותו שהיא אשת איש, the ת"ק holds he gets the stricter punishment which in this case is שרפה for חמותו. However, ר׳ יוסי says he gets whichever one happened first so it sounds like he holds of אין איסור חל על איסור. The גמרא answers that ר׳ יוסי agrees by an איסור מוסיף where אשת אח came second. However, it doesn’t answer if אשת אח came first as אחות אשה would just be an איסור כולל. Therefore רבא answers that it’s as if he did two עברות but he isn’t חייב two חטאות. The נ"מ is that we bury him among רשעים גמורים.
· The גמרא brings several ברייתות about this. If a זר was שמש בשבת, or a בעל מום was שמש בטומאה, or a זר that ate from a bird that had מליקה done to it, in all those cases רבי חייא said you are חייב twice and בר קפּרא said once. Both swore they were right that רבי said like them. They seem to argue about when the איסור of שבת, טומאה, ומליקה were הותר, was it הותר for כהנים תמימים only or for all. However, the גמרא says that they are really arguing over whether ר׳ יוסי held אין איסור חל על איסור by an איסור כולל or not.
Daf 33
· The גמרא questions that we can have זר שמש בשבת be an איסור כולל because a זר is אסור in all עבודה, and then שבת comes along and makes him אסור to do other things besides עבודה. A בעל מום is אסור in in all עבודה and טומאה adds being אסור in eating besides עבודה. However, זר and מליקה cant happen one after the other, because “זר” by מליקה refers to the היתר לכהנים to eat after מליקה is done, and the איסור of זרות and נבילה come at the same second.
· Therefore, the גמרא changes course and says the מחלוקת רבי חייא ובר קפּרא is about how many רבי יוסי is מחייב in a case of בת אחת. The way we have בת אחת by the first two cases is where he was a child and became an adult on שבת or was a בעל מום and טמא when he became an adult. Alternatively, he chopped off his finger with a טמא knife. As mentioned מליקה וזר are always a case of בת אחת.
· The גמרא then asks that this also can’t be since it would mean that when רבי said what he said to בר קפּרא that your חייב once רבי חייא would just say he meant according to ר"ש. But we have no way of explaining according to בר קפּרא why רבי told him the person was חייב twice. The other possibility has the same question. If we say they are arguing according to ר"ש¸then how would רבי חייא understand how בר קפּרא was told the person is חייב once? However, on this question רבי חייא could say that רבי said you are only חייב once by the first two cases where he meant an איסור כולל but by the last case of זר ומליקה that בר קפּרא thought was the same and it isn’t.
· The גמרא then brings a ברייתא that definitively disproves בר קפּרא.
· The גמרא then tries to figure out what the שבת issue with a זר bringing a קרבן is. If its שחיטה, שחיטה is כשרה בזר. The bringing of the blood is just טלטול בעלמא. If the הקטרה itself, how would that work with ר׳ יוסי who holds הבערה is just a לאו? The גמרא says it’s talking about שחיטת פּרו של כהן גדול according to the one who says it is פּסול by anyone other than a כהן גדול. Another answer is that we aren’t only talking about חיובי חטאות and even if הבערה is just a לאו it still counts.
· משנה: Two people gave קידושין to two women and they were switched, they are חייב on אשת איש, אשת אח, אחות אשה,and נדה if applicable. We then force them to not marry for three months for הבחנה but if they are children they can remarry their original husbands immediately since they can’t typically get pregnant. They are also פּסול לתרומה if they were כהנות.
· The גמרא asks if the women were switched on purpose or not? It says they weren’t because we aren’t talking about evil people and there wouldn’t be any חטאות and רבי חייא says there are 16, and we wouldn’t return the children to their husbands. The גמרא rejects this last point because perhaps פּיתוי קטנה אונס היא. The last דיוק is that the adult women must wait three months but משמע if we knew they weren’t pregnant they could remarry their husbands immediately.
Daf 34
· Our משנה that holds of איסור כולל, מוסיף, ובת אחת is ר"מ because we have a משנה that if a טמא eats חלב of נותר which is הקדש on יוה"כ one is חייב 4 חטאות and an אשם and ר"מ adds that if it was שבת and you walked around outside with them in your mouth you would be חייב on הוצאת שבת as well. (The רבנן just say that שבת is not the same שם איסור.) The הקדש and נותר are an איסור מוסיף since it became אסור בהנאה and אסור למזבח. The יוה"כ and טמא is an איסור כולל since he is now אסור in other foods and other קדשים. The איסור שבת is an איוסר בת אחת with יוה"כ.
· The גמרא asks that if our משנה is like ר"מ, who does he hold like since this is a case of טעה בדבר מצוה. In that מחלוקת, ר"א holds you are חייב so he might hold like him. Or even if he held like ר׳ יהושע who holds you are פּטור that might only be in a case where there is a בהלה like מילה but in case of קידושין he might agree you are חייב. However, the גמרא asks a question on this since we have a משנה that says if someone is eating תרומה and then finds out they are a בן גרושה, ר׳ יהושע still says you are פּטור. The גמרא answers that that is talking about ערב פּסח where you are eating it quickly so it wont become נאסר.
· Another possibility is that our משנה is like ר׳ שמעון and the whole משנה is talking about בת אחת. The גמרא says we can have most of it be בת אחת if the boys made a שליח to give the קידושין to the girl’s שליח. However, the only way to work out נדה would be to say they were all children and she became a נדה and the קידושין was given the day before they became גדולים to be חל when the next day.
· The משנה says we need to separate them for three months because they may have become pregnant. Don’t we say a woman cant become pregnant from her first ביאה? If they did ביאה many times then there would be more than 16 חטאות! The גמרא answers back that even without this if you are חייב on every ביאה then you are חייב on every כח according to ר"א who we said our משנה might be going according to (ר"א says you are חייב many חטאות על כל ביאה וביאה even בהעלם אחת) .Rather we are only discussing the first ביאה.
· The גמרא asks that תמר became pregnant from her first ביאה but answers that she was מיעכה באצבע. That which she was married to ער ואונן didn’t count because they were not בועל here כדרכה. ער did it so as not to ruin her beauty, and אונן did it because it would not be his kid.
· A כלה is not מטמא משום ביאה ראשונה according to ר"י from a דרשה since it is not ראוי להתעבר but the חכמים only exempted a case of שלא כדרכה and העראה. (ר"י agrees to that as well).
· If a woman gets divorced without intention of remarrying for ten years she wont be able to get pregnant again, but if she has in mind to remarry then there is no issue.
· שמואל says that all women who are נבעלת must wait three months prior to getting remarried even if she is a child where she couldn’t have gotten pregnant. The only exception is a גיורת ומשוחררת child. The גמרא clarifies that if the child did מיאון from her original husband then she doesn’t need three months. If she got a גט then she does need three months. If she just had זנות then she needs three months as a גזרה אטו גדולה.
Daf 35
· Our משנה which doesn’t require three months is because the story in our משנה of switching wives isn’t שכיח at all.
· Another version of שמואל says that a child does not need to wait three months since זנות by a child isn’t שכיח nor does a גיורת ומשוחררת even if they are an adult.
· The גיורת ומשוחררת is a מחלוקת תנאים. ר׳ יהודה says they must wait three months and ר׳ יוסי say they don’t need to. Their מחלוקת is whether a woman who is מזנה is מתהפּכת יפה יפה or not. שמואל goes like ר׳ יוסי.
· The משנה says that if she was a כהנת then she is פּסול לתרומה. The גמרא explains that even though a כהנת married to a ישראל who is נאנסה can stay married, she cant eat תרומה even after her husband dies.