Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ENGAGING A WOMAN THAT DID CHALITZAH

1. This is difficult.

(b) Rav Ashi holds as Reish Lakish, and answered the question according to R. Shimon; Ravina holds as R. Yochanan, and answered the question as Chachamim.
(c) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): One who did Chalitzah to a Yevamah, and then engaged her, she needs Chalitzah from the brothers.

1. Question: Which brothers?
2. Answer: Brothers that were born later, as R. Shimon.
3. If one of the existing brothers engaged her, she has no claim on him, as Reish Lakish.

(d) Answer #3 (Ravina): One who did Chalitzah to a Yevamah, and then engaged her, she needs Chalitzah from the brothers.

1. Question: Which brothers?
2. Answer: Brothers that were already born, as R. Yochanan.
3. If a brother born later engaged her, she has no claim on him, as Chachamim.

(e) A man did Yibum, then a brother did Yibum on a Tzarah.

1. Rav Acha and Ravina argued. One said that the second marriage is forbidden with Kares; the other said, it is only Chaivei Asei.
2. The opinion that says there is Kares holds as Reish Lakish; the opinion that it is only an Asei holds as R. Yochanan.

(a) (Rav): The Tzarah of a Sotah is forbidden - she is called impure, as Arayos.
(b) Question (Rav Chisda - Mishnah): R. Shimon says, relations or Chalitzah from a brother exempts her Tzarah.
(c) Answer: Rav spoke of a Sotah D'oraisa (according to Torah law), the Mishnah speaks of a Rabbinic Sotah.

1. Question: The answer is obvious, why did Rav Chisda ask?
2. Answer: He holds, Rabbinic enactments are made similar to Torah law.

(d) Question (Rav Ashi - Mishnah): If she was in seclusion with him long enough to have relations, she is forbidden to her husband and forbidden to eat Trumah; if her husband dies, she does Chalitzah but not Yibum.

(e) Answer: Rav spoke of a Sotah that definitely had relations, the Mishnah speaks of a doubtful case.

1. Question: What is different about a definite Sotah - because she is called impure?

i. Impurity is also written by a doubtful Sotah!
ii. (Beraisa - R. Yosi Ben Kipar): A man divorced his wife and remarried her after she married someone else - he is forbidden to her; if she was engaged to someone else, he is permitted - "After she became impure";
iii. Chachamim say, both are forbidden; "After she became impure" refers to a Sotah that was in seclusion.
iv. 'Seclusion' means that she had relations; a euphemistic language was used.
v. Question: If there were relations, impurity is explicitly written - "She was in seclusion, and became impure"!
vi. Answer: "After she became impure" teaches that there is a Lav.

2. R. Yosi Ben Kipar holds that there is no Lav by a Sotah, even if she had relations.

i. This is because "engagement" and "marriage" are written by her.

(a) Question (Rav Chisda): A man divorced his wife and remarried her after she was married; he died. What is the law of her Tzarah?
(b) Version #1: According to R. Yosi Ben Kipar, there is no question - since impurity is written by one who remarries his wife, the law of her Tzarah is as her law (she may not do Yibum).

1. Even though it says, *she* is an abomination - this only comes to exclude that her children are not abominations, but her Tzarah is also an abomination.
2. The question is according to Chachamim.

i. Even though they say, "impurity" written by remarrying one's divorced wife refers to a Sotah - the simple meaning of the verse is not uprooted.
ii. Or perhaps, once it is uprooted, it is entirely uprooted.

(c) Version #2: According to Chachamim, there is no question - once the verse is uprooted, it is entirely uprooted.

1. The question is according to R. Yosi Ben Kipar.
2. Even though impurity is written by one who remarries his wife, the Torah says, *she* is an abomination - but her Tzarah is not an abomination.
3. Or perhaps, she is an abomination, but her children are not abominations - but her Tzarah is also an abomination.

(d) Answer (Rav Sheshes - Mishnah): If one widow was Kesherah, and the other Pesulah - if he does Chalitzah, he does it with the Pesulah; if he does Yibum, he does it with the Kesherah.

1. Question: What is meant by Kesherah and Pesulah?
2. Suggestion #1: If they mean permitted and forbidden to everyone (Kohanim) - since she is fitting to him, what difference does it make to him?
3. Suggestion #2: Rather, it means permitted and forbidden to him - and the forbidden one is his ex-wife, and the Mishnah says that he may do Yibum with the Tzarah!
4. Rejection: Really, they mean permitted and forbidden to Kohanim.

i. Even though it makes no difference to him - Rav Yosef taught, one should not spill out water which others could use (he should not do Chalitzah to the widow permitted to Kohanim, since this would forbid her to Kohanim).

(e) (Beraisa): One who remarries his ex-wife after she married, she and her Tzarah do Chalitzah.
(f) Question: This cannot be!

1. Suggestion: It must mean, she or her Tzarah do Chalitzah.
2. Rejection: Since the Beraisa must be corrected, in can be corrected thusly: she may only do Chalitzah, her Tzarah may do Chalitzah or Yibum.

(g) Version #1 - Question (R. Yochanan): One who remarries his ex-wife after she married - what is the law of her Tzarah?
(h) R. Ami: Why don't you ask her own law?
(i) R. Yochanan: Her own law is clear from a Kal v'Chomer.

1. She became forbidden to the one she was permitted to (her husband), all the moreso she is forbidden to the one she was forbidden to (her husband's brother).
2. The question is by her Tzarah.

i. Is the Kal v'Chomer strong enough to forbid the Tzarah, or not?

(j) Version #2, according to Rav Nachman.
(k) Question (R. Yochanan): One who remarries his ex-wife after she married - what is her law?
(l) R. Ami: Why don't you ask the law of her Tzarah?
(m) R. Yochanan: Her Tzarah's law is clear - the Kal v'Chomer is not strong enough to forbid the Tzarah.

i. The question is by her; is the Kal v'Chomer strong enough to block the Mitzvah of Yibum, or not?