Previous daf

1)

(a) One brings a Chatas - for a La'av which, if performed deliberately, would earn Kareis.

(b) The Sanhedrin (also referred to as the Tzibur) bring a Par He'elam Davar for most Chayvei Kareis performed be Shogeg.

(c) For most sins ...

1. ... a Yachid - brings a she-lamb or a she-goat.
2. ... the Nasi (the king) - a he-goat.
3. ... the Kohen (Gadol) Mashi'ach and the Sanhedrin - a bull.

(d) For the sin of Avodas Kochavim, a Yachid, Nasi and Kohen (Gadol) Mashi'ach bring a he-goat - the Sanhedrin bring a bull for an Olah and a goat for a Chatas.

(a) Rebbi learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Nod'ah ha'Chatas Asher Chat'u *Alehah*", "Alehah" (by Achos Ishto) - that just as the latter speaks in a case for which one is Chayav Kareis be'Meizid (and whose Shogeg is Chayav Chatas - see Tosfos DH 'Mah'), so too, the former case, which comes to be Mechayev Chatas, speaks in a case where one is Chayav Kareis be'Meizid.

(b) The Pasuk "ve'Nod'ah ha'Chatas Asher Chat'u Alehah" speaks by the Sanhedrin (Tzibur). We learn Kohen Mashi'ach from "le'Ashmas ha'Am" (which compares the Kohen Mashi'ach to the Tzibur) - and Yachid and Nasi from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Mitzvos" (which is written by both of them) from "Mitzvos" (by Tzibur).

(c) We learn Tzibur by Avodas Kochavim from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "me'Einei", "me'Einei" (from Par He'elam Davar of other Aveiros) - and Yachid, Nasi and Kohen Mashi'ach from "ve'Im Nefesh Achas Techeta ... ", because the 'Vav' connects the latter Parshah to the former one (of Tzibur), and "Nefesh Achas" incorporates all three.

(a) These D'rashos are confined to Rebbi, who does *not* need "Alehah" to preclude Achos Ishto from Yibum. The Rabbanan, who *do*, learn Z'dono Kareis ve'Shigegaso Chatas like Rebbi Yehoshua, who quoted to his son, the Pasuk "Torah Achas Yihyeh Lachem la'Oseh bi'Sh'gagah ... ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh be'Yad Ramah" - which compares the rest of the Torah (vis-a-vis the bringing of a Chatas) to the sin of Avodah-Zarah (the context of the latter Pasuk) which is Chayav Kareis (see Tosfos DH 'Mah').

(b) This covers Yachid, Kohen Mashi'ach and Nasi both as regards Avodas Kochavim and as regards other Aveiros. From ...

1. ... "ve'Im Nefesh" - we learn Tzibur by Avodas-Kochavim ...
2. ... and from "me'Einei" me'Einei" - Tzibur by other Mitzvos.

(c) Rebbi learns from the Hekesh "Torah Achas Yihyeh Lachem la'Oseh bi'Sh'gagah ... ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh be'Yad Ramah" - that if all the residents of a town serve Avodah-Zarah be'Shogeg, they have the Din of Yechidim, each of whom must bring a she-goat.

(a) Rebbi needs to make the previous D'rashah in order to avoid learning Shogeg from Meizid, which differentiates between individuals who serve Avodah-Zarah and an entire town. The difference between a them regarding ...

1. ... the punishment - is that the former are sentenced to Sekilah, the latter, to Sereifah.
2. ... their property - is that what belongs to the former is spared, whereas what belongs to the latter is destroyed.

(b) An entire town who serve Avodah-Zarah bring a she-goat - and it is only the whole of (or the majority of) Yisrael that constitutes a Tzibur, who bring a Par le'Olah and a Sa'ir le'Chatas.

(c) But how could we even think that, if not for "Torah Achas ... ", an entire town bring a Korban that is different than a Yachid, asks Rebbi Chilkiyah from Hagrunyah - seeing as each possible Korban is brought by someone else: a bull is brought by a Tzibur in the case of other sins, a she-lamb or a she-goat, by a Yachid in the case of other sins, a he-goat, by a Nasi in the case of other sins, and a bull for an Olah and a goat for a Chatas, by the Tzibur in the case of Avodas-Kochavim.

(d) *One* answer is for them to bring a lamb for an Olah and a bull for a Chatas (the opposite of a Tzibur) - the other, explains what we are saying to mean that, if not for "Torah Achas ... ", the residents of the city that served Avodas-Kochavim would need to bring a Korban, but would not be able to (because there is no Korban for them to bring).

(a) When Levi asked Rebbi why the Tana lists only *fifteen* Arayos in our Mishnah, and not *sixteen* - he had in mind to ask why the Tana precludes his mother who was not married to his father, but who was raped by him.

(b) Rebbi did not like Levi's query however - because according to Rebbi Yehudah, she could not possibly fall to Yibum, because in his opinion, a man is forbidden to marry a woman whom his father raped (as we learned above (on 4a.), and the Tana in Yevamos does not include any case that involves a Machlokes.

(c) As we learned in our Mishnah, the Yavam performs neither Yibum nor Chalitzah in the fifteen cases listed there. The Chachamim of Rebbi Akiva say that one must perform Chalitzah with an Isur Mitzvah (Sheni'os la'Arayos - which will be discussed there) and an Isur Kedushah (Chayvei La'avin, such as a Mamzeres or a Nesinah), but not Yibum.

(a) According to Rebbi Akiva in Perek ha'Choletz, one performs neither Yibum nor Chalitzah with either of them. When Rebbi says that the Tana in Yevamos never deals with cases that involve Machlokes - he means in the first Perek only.

(b) Nevertheless, the Tana later in this Perek quote the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel concerning whether the Tzaros are permitted to the other brothers or not - because of the principle 'Beis Shamai be'Makom Beis Hillel, La'av Mishnah Hi'.

(c) The Tana nevertheless mention Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo, with which Rebbi Shimon disagrees, and requires Chalitzah - because the dispute is confined to a case where the brother was born after the second brother had already performed Yibum (in which case the Yevamah was never actually forbidden to him), but in a case where she was actually a Yevamah when he was born, Rebbi Shimon agrees that he is Patur from Chalitzah (and that is the case referred to in our Mishnah).

(d) Rebbi Oshaya, who maintains that Rebbi Shimon argues with the Chachamim even in *that* case - is proved wrong.

7)

(a) The Mishnah in Perek Arba'ah Achin says that if two out of four brothers who were married to two sisters both died, the two remaining brothers are Patur from Yibum and Chalitzah - because each one is Achos Zekukaso, which Chazal forbade because of its similarity to Achos Ishto be'Chayehah.

(b) If one of the sisters is an Ervah to one of the brothers (e.g. his mother-in-law or daughter-in-law) ...

1. ... - *he* may perform either Yibum or Chalitzah with her sister (because she is not Achos Zekukaso) ...
2. ... - whereas his brother may perform neither.

(c) When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa say 'be'Chulan Ani Korei Bahen ha'Asurah la'Zeh Muteres la'Zeh' - they mean that what we just said (that in the case of the two sisters, the one that is forbidden to the one brother, is permitted to the other) cuts right through our Mishnah, and applies to all fifteen cases.

(a) 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh Muteres la'Zeh' by Bito is only possible by Bito me'Anusaso, but not by Bito me'Ishto - because if Reuven married and had a daughter, there is no way that Shimon his brother could possibly marry her during his life-time.

(b) The case would therefore be - if Reuven raped a woman from whom a daughter was born, and Shimon then raped the same woman and he too, had a daughter from her. Then Levi and Yehudah (Reuven and Shimon's brothers) married the daughters and died, Reuven's daughter is permitted to Shimon and Shimon's, to Reuven.

(c) And when Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa say 'va'Achosah she'Hi Yevimtah Choletzes O Misyabemes - they mean that, although the two women are sisters, they are not forbidden even from performing Yibum, because of Achos Zekukuso.

(a) Rav Yehudah disagrees with Rav. He confines 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh Muteres la'Zeh' to the cases in our Mishnah from Chamoso and onwards, but not to ...

1. ... Bito - because, as we just explained, it applies only to Bito me'Anusaso, and the Tana is not dealing with cases of Anus.
2. ... to the next five cases (that evolve from Bito) in the Mishnah - because they are all branches of Bito (even though, in reality, the statement *will* in fact, apply to them).

(b) Abaye disagrees with Rav Yehudah (and applies it to the first six cases, too) - because, seeing as it is applicable to Bito, what difference does it make whether it is Bito me'Ishto or Bito me'Anusaso?

(c) Abaye agrees however, that we cannot apply Rav and Rebbi Chiya's rule to Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo - because it is only according to Rebbi Shimon that it is possible for the Eishes Achiv of one brother who was born after the death of his brother to be permitted to another brother who was born later, but not according to the Rabbanan.

(d) Rav Safra applies it also to Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo (like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and Rebbi Chiya, who say 'be'Chulan ... '), when there are six brothers. Based on the Siman 'Meis, Nolad ve'Yibeim, Meis Nolad ve'Yibeim', the case is when Reuven and Shimon married two sisters. Reuven died and before Shimon, Levi or Yehudah made a move, Yisachar, a new brother, was born. Reuven's Yevamah is forbidden to Yisachar when he grows up, even according to Rebbi Shimon. Levi then performed Yibum, following which Shimon died and his wife became a Yevamah. When Zevulun (a new brother) is subsequently born, Shimon's wife is forbidden to him, but permitted to Yisachar. Finally, Yehudah performs Yibum with Shimon's wife, after which both he and Levi die. It has already been established that the Yevamah of Levi (originally Reuven's wife) who is forbidden to Yisachar, is permitted to Zevulun; whereas the Yevamah of Yehudah, who is forbidden to Zevulun, is permitted to Yisachar.