Resources for Yevamos daf 49
מראה מקומות
1. The משנה says that according to ר"ע, a ממזר is created from any לאו which is a לאו דשאר. There is a three-way מחלוקת ראשונים as to how to understand this as follows: The משנה earlier on דף מ"ד ע"א said that according to ר"ע a ממזר is created from מחזיר גרושתו which is presumably is not a לאו דשאר since the husband at this point is no longer related to his ex-wife. That would be against our משנה that says it must be a לאו דשאר. Moreover, our גמרא says a חידוש that “everyone” agrees that there is no ממזר from a סוטה. “Everyone” is a reference to ר"ע as a סוטה is only a לאו. However, סוטה is also not a לאו דשאר since the husband and wife do not need to be related for the לאו to apply as it applies even after they divorce. Therefore, רש"י in ד"ה והבא is forced to say that there is a מחלוקת between our משנה and the משנה earlier on דף מ"ד as to what ר"ע holds. Our משנה holds that ר"ע only said ממזירים comes from a לאו דשאר and the other משנה held that there was a ממזר from all לאוין. However, תוספות in הכל מודים disagrees and says that both משניות agree that only לאווין דשאר cause ממזרות according to ר"ע. The לאו of סוטה and מחזיר גרושתו are also considered a לאו דשאר since the reason they are אסור to you now is only because of a שארות that once existed, even though you are no longer related to them. Interestingly, theרמב"ם in his פּירוש המשניות says the exact opposite. He says that both משניות agree that you don’t need a לאו דשאר. Our משנה that says, "כל שאר בשר שהוא בלא יבא" means any שאר בשר as well as anything that is בלא יבא creates a ממזר. The קרן אורה points out that the רמב"ם ’s פּשט is nice in that our משנה is adding something and not just a repeat of a previous משנה, but it seems explicitly against our גמרא because one of the first lines of the גמרא is "ולר׳ סימאי דמרבה שאר חייבי לאווין" which sounds like our משנה did not include all חייבי לאווין. The קרן אורה explains that the רמב"ם does fit with the ירושלמי’s way of explaining our גמרא. (The גר"א says in several places that the רמב"ם goes with the ירושלמי in most places).
The קרן אורה also makes a fascinating הערה: why is it only a requirement to have a לאו דשאר according to ר"ע? Why don’t שמעון התמני and ר׳ יהושע also require it to be a חייבי כריתות דשאר or חייבי מיתות ב"ד דשאר since they all learn it from אשת אב or שומרת יבם שלא אביו which is a שאר? He actually brings a תוספתא in our פּרק that says exactly that and says there is no ממזר from נדות because it is not a לאו דשאר! However, it is not the משמעות of our משנה and would not fit with אשת איש (which is mentioned in our משנה) as the איסור of אשת איש is certainly not a לאו דשאר.
2. The גמרא says that everyone agrees by a סוטה that the child is not a ממזר since קידושין is תופס. The גירסא we have in our גמרא does not bring any proof from a פּסוק so רש"י in ד"ה דהא תפסי is forced to say that the גמרא knows this because the marriage between the husband and סוטה does not instantaneously combust after she becomes a סוטה, so it must mean that קידושין is תופס. However, תוספות in ד"ה סוטה asks that if that were true then נדה wouldn’t need a פּסוק either since we know that when a woman becomes a נדה her marriage obviously remains intact. Therefore he says that the correct גירסא in our גמרא does bring a פּסוק. It would seem to that רש"י and תוספות argue whether if in a case where you would be מקדש a woman and the קידושין would not be תופס does that necessarily mean that if you were already married to her that it would break the קידושין where רש"י seems to say yes it would and תוספות says it would not. The ענוג יו"ט in חלק אבן העזר סימן קמ"ב in the הג"ה as well as רע"א here ask from פּצוע דכא where we know that ר"ע agrees that it does not break the קידושין if a person became a פּצוע דכא after he got married even though it is חייבי לאווין. The עונג יו"ט answers that changes in the man don’t break existing קידושין since the main thing being bound by קידושין is the woman. Therefore, a change in her can break the קידושין whereas the man is not the חפצא of קידושין so changes in him don’t break קידושין.
Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Mordechai Papoff - English Topics
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya
Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview
Rabbi Yishai Rasowsky - Tosfos Synopsis