Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A MAN MAY DO YIBUM WITH MANY WOMEN

(a) If one Yevamah was Kesherah (proper), and the other not - if he does Chalitzah, he does it with the improper one; if he does Yibum, with the proper one.
(b) (Gemara) Question: Can it be, there were only 4 brothers (if so, who survived to do Yibum?!)
(c) Correction: The Mishnah means, 4 *of* the brothers ...
(d) (Mishnah): He may do Yibum to all 4 if he wants ...
(e) Question: Do we really allow him to?

1. (Beraisa): "The elders of his city call to him" - themselves, not their messengers; "And they speak to him" - they give him proper counsel.

i. If the Yavam is young and the Yevamah is old (or vice-versa) they discourage Yibum - 'marry someone your own age, and do not invite quarrels into your home'.

(f) Answer: In a case where he can do Yibum to all 4, we allow him!
(g) Question: If he is able - he can do more than 4!
(h) Answer: Proper counsel is not to exceed 4, so each will have relations with him (one Shabbos) every month.
(i) (Mishnah): A man married to 2 women ...
(j) Question: Why can't he do Yibum to both?
(k) Answer (R. Chiya Bar Aba): "That will not build the house of his brother" - he builds 1 house, not 2.

1. Suggestion: Let him do Chalitzah to both!
2. Rejection:(Mar Zutra Bar Tuvya): "The house of the one whose shoe was removed" - he does Chalitzah to one house, not 2.
3. Suggestion: Let him do Yibum to 1, and Chalitzah to the other!
4. Answer #1: "If he does not want" - if he wanted, he could do Yibum - anyone that cannot do Yibum, does not do Chalitzah.
5. Answer #2: Also, so people should not say, a house is partially built and partially Chalutz.

i. Question: What is wrong if they say that?
ii. Answer: If they would do Yibum first, there would be no problem.
iii. The concern is, they will first do Chalitzah, then Yibum, transgressing "(Since he did not build), he may not build".

(l) Suggestion: We should say, when there is 1 Yevamah, there is a Mitzvah of Yibum; when there are 2 Yevamos, no!

1. Rejection: If so, why did the Torah need to forbid Tzaras Ervah?

i. If Yibum and Chalitzah never apply to 2 Yevamos - this includes the case of Tzaras Ervah!

2. Answer: We need to hear the prohibition of Tzaras Ervah - one would think, it is as if the Ervah did not fall to Yibum, and the Tzarah may do Yibum!

(m) Answer: The verse twice says "Yevamah", teaching that Yibum applies even when there are 2 Yevamos.
(n) (Mishnah): If 1 Yevamah was Kesherah ...
(o) (Rav Yosef): In this Mishnah, Rebbi taught, one should not spill his well water if others need it (he should not do Chalitzah to the Yevamah fit for a Kohen).

(a) (Mishnah - R. Akiva): One who remarries his divorced wife (after she married someone else), or marries his Chalutzah, or marries the relative of his Chalutzah - he must divorce her, and the child is a Mamzer;
(b) Chachamim say, the child is not a Mamzer; they admit, one who marries the relative of his divorcee, the child is a Mamzer.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Does R. Akiva really hold that a Mamzer results from marrying the relative of his Chalutzah?

1. (Reish Lakish): Rebbi taught (in the Mishnah 41A) that the sister of one's Chalutzah is only forbidden mid'Rabanan!

(d) Correction: The Mishnah should say, the relative of his divorcee.

1. This is presumably correct - in the end of the Mishnah, Chachamim admit that this produces a Mamzer.

i. If R. Akiva dealt with this case - it is reasonable to say, Chachamim *admit*.
ii. Question: If R. Akiva did not speak of this case - why does it say, they admit?
iii. Answer: Perhaps they come to teach that Mamzerim result from Chayavei Kerisus!
iv. Rejection: This is already taught in the Mishnah (49A): R. Akiva says, all Chayavei Lavin produce Mamzerim; R. Shimon ha'Timni says, Chayavei Kerisus, and this is the law.
v. Suggestion: Perhaps our Mishnah comes to give R. Shimon ha'Timni's opinion Stam (unauthored, to show that this is the law).
vi. Rejection: If so, let it teach other Chayavei Kerisus - why did it only teach the relative of one's divorcee? Rather, it must be that R. Akiva spoke of this case.
vii. Suggestion: Perhaps R. Akiva did not speak in this case - since he spoke of remarrying one's divorcee, marrying his Chalutzah, and the relative of his Chalutzah, we also taught the relative of his divorcee.
viii.Question: Why should R. Akiva say that marrying the relative of his Chalutzah produces Mamzerim?
ix. Answer (R. Chiya Bar Aba): "The house of the one whose shoe was removed" - the Torah considered it the Yavam's house (i.e. as his wife).

(a) (Rav Yosef): All admit that one who remarries his divorced wife, the child is disqualified from Kehunah.

1. Question: Who admit?
2. Answer: Shimon ha'Timni.

i. Even though R. Shimon ha'Timni says that Chayavei Lavin do not produce Mamzerim, the child is blemished, from a Kal v'Chomer.
ii. A widow that marries a Kohen Gadol - even though this prohibition does not apply to all people, the child is blemished - one who remarries his divorcee, a prohibition which applies to all, all the more so!
iii. Objection #1: One cannot learn from the widow marrying the Kohen Gadol - she herself becomes defiled!
iv. Objection #2: By remarrying one's divorcee, it says, "She is an abomination" - but her children are not!

(b) Objection #3 (Beraisa - R. Akiva): One who remarries his divorced wife, or marries his Chalutzah, or marries the relative of his Chalutzah - engagement does not take effect, she does not need a Get, she is disqualified, her son is disqualified, and we force him to expel her;

1. Chachamim say, engagement takes effect, she needs a Get, she is Kesherah and her son is Kosher.
2. Suggestion: 'Her child is Kosher' - this means, Kosher to Kehunah!
3. Rejection: No, to the congregation.
4. Question: If so, 'She is Kesherah' - to whom? If to the congregation - this is obvious, forbidden relations do not disqualify her to the congregation!

i. Rather, it must be, she is Kesherah to Kehunah - and it must be, the Beraisa also says that her son is Kosher to Kehunah.

5. Objection: There is no need to say this! The Beraisa gives her status regarding Kehunah, and the son's status regarding the congregation!

i. Presumably, this is correct - R. Akiva said that she and her son are disqualified.
ii. Rhetorical question: Who is she disqualified from? It cannot be the congregation - forbidden relations do not disqualify her from the congregation! Rather, it must be, to Kehunah.
iii. Rhetorical question: Who is her son disqualified from? It cannot be Kehunah, but he is Kosher to the congregation - R. Akiva says that the child is a Mamzer! Rather, he is disqualified to the congregation.
iv. Since the cases in the beginning of the Mishnah speak of disqualification to different groups, the same applies to the end of the Mishnah.

(c) Answer (to Objection #2): "She is an abomination" - but her Tzarah is not an abomination; her children *are* abominations.

1. We have yet to answer Objection #1 - we cannot learn from a widow married to a Kohen Gadol, since she herself is defiled.

(d) Retraction: Rather, Rav Yosef learned as follows: All admit that the child of Chayavei Kerisus is blemished.

1. Question: Who admit?
2. Answer: R. Yehoshua - even though he says that Mamzerim do not come from Chayavei Kerisus, he admits that the child is blemished, from a Kal v'Chomer from a widow married to a Kohen Gadol.

i. A widow that marries a Kohen Gadol - even though this prohibition does not apply to all people, the child is blemished - one who remarries his divorcee, a prohibition which applies to all, all the more so!
ii. Suggestion: If you will say, we cannot learn from there, since she herself becomes defiled - but here also, she becomes a Zonah (and is forbidden to a Kohen).

(e) (Rabah Bar Bar Chanah): All admit that a slave or Nochri that has relations with a Bas Yisrael, the child is a Mamzer.

1. Question: Who admits?
2. Answer #1: R. Shimon ha'Timni - even though he says, Mamzerim do not come from Chayavei Lavin, that applies to Chayavei Lavin that can be engaged to others.