ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 33
YEVAMOS 33 & 34 - sponsored by Hagaon Rav Yosef Pearlman of London, a living
demonstration of love for and adoration of the Torah.
(a) We try to establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Chiya and bar Kapara in
all three cases by Isur Kolel, according to Rebbi Yossi. The Isur Kolel in
1. ... Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos - is the fact that initially, the Zar is
permitted to perform Melachah, but Shabbos brings with it an Isur Melachah.
(b) bar Kapara establishes the Beraisa where Rebbi Yossi says that he is
Chayav both for Achos Ishah and for Eishes Ach - when he married his wife
before his brother married her sister, making Eishes Ach an Isur Mosif
(because she becomes forbidden to all the brothers, too.
2. ... Ba'al-Mum she'Shimeish be'Tum'ah - is the fact that a Ba'al-Mum is
initially permitted to eat Kodshim, but Tum'ah prohibits him to eat Kodshim.
(c) The Beraisa where Rebbi Yossi says that he is Chayav two, and which we
established when his brother married his wife's sister before he married his
wife (making Achos Ishah an Isur Kolel - since he is now to all her
sisters) - was learned according to Rebbi Chiya but not according to bar
(d) It is not possible to establish an Isur Kolel by Zar she'Achal Melikah
however, only an Isur Bas Achas - because the Isur for a Zar to eat a bird
of Kodshim, only comes into effect from the moment the Melikah is performed
(when the Kohanim are permitted to eat it). Before that, there is an Isur
Me'ilah (which pertains to Kohanim no less than to Zarim).
(a) Isur Bas Achas applies by 'Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos' - when he grew
two hairs on Shabbos, thereby becoming liable for both at the same time.
(b) There are two ways to apply Isur Bas Achas by 'Ba'al -Mum she'Shimeish
be'Tum'ah'. One is identical to that of 'Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos' - the
other, when he cuts himself with a Tamei knife.
(c) Rebbi Chiya explains that Rebbi said that Isur bas Achas is Chayav two
according to Rebbi Yossi, and *one*, according to *Rebbi Shimon* - and bar
Kapara erred in thinking that he said *one* according to *Rebbi Yossi*.
(d) It is bar Kapara's view of Rebbi Chiya that puts us in a spot and forces
us to retract from the current interpretation of the Machlokes - because if
Rebbi said that bas Achas is Chayav only *one* according to Rebbi Yossi (as
he maintains), then in which regard (or according to whom) did Rebbi Chiya
hear from Rebbi *two*? It certainly cannot be according to Rebbi Shimon, who
is more lenient than Rebbi Yossi?
(a) So we establish their Machlokes, not according to Rebbi Yossi, but
according to Rebbi Shimon. They both agree that, according to Rebbi Yossi -
one is Chayav two, both by Isur Kolel and by Isur bas Achas.
(b) Rebbi Chiya found it necessary to swear - in order to take Rebbi Shimon
out of his Chazakah (that although, by Isur Kolel he is lenient, and holds
that one is Chayav only one, by Isur bas Achas, he subscribes to the strict
opinion, that one is Chayav two).
(c) The problem with bar Kapara is - why *he* found it necessary to swear,
seeing as, in his opinion, Rebbi Shimon rules leniently by bas Achas, just
like he does by Isur Kolel, swearing was unnecessary?
(a) According to bar Kapara, Rebbi said that Isur bas Achas is Chayav one
according to Rebbi Shimon, and two, according to Rebbi Yossi - and Rebbi
Chiya erred inasmuch as he thought that when Rebbi said two, it was
according to Rebbi Shimon.
(b) Whereas according to Rebbi Chiya, Rebbi said that one is Chayav one
according to Rebbi Shimon, with regard to Isur Kolel by Zar she'Shimeish
be'Shabbos and Ba'al-Mum she'Shimeish be'Tum'ah. bar Kapara's mistake was -
to include Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah (which applies by Isur Kolel, but not by
Isur Kolel) on his own volition. Later, he forgot that it was *he* who had
added it, and thought that Rebbi had said all three. So he inferred
(wrongly) that in the opinion of Rebbi, Rebbi Shimon holds that one is
Chayav only *one* even by bas Achas.
(c) According to Rebbi Chiya - Isur bas Achas is more stringent than Isur
Kolel, seeing as even Rebbi Shimon agrees that one is Chayav two.
(a) We prove bar Kapara wrong from a Beraisa, which lists the cases where,
according to Rebbi, one is Chayav two - Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos and
Ba'al-Mum she'Shimeish be'Tum'ah, omitting Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah.
Omitting it, implies that even Rebbi Shimon will agree that there, one is
Chayav two, because only Isur bas Achas applies to it - like Rebbi Chiya.
(b) We know that the Tana omits Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah because of Rebbi
Shimon and not because of Rebbi Yossi - because, according to Rebbi Yossi,
if one is Chayav two for the other two cases, which are Isur Kolel, then how
much more so for Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah, where Isur bas Achas applies.
(a) 'Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos ... ' cannot be referring to a Zar who
1. ... Shechitah on Shabbos - because Shechitah Kesheirah be'Zar.
Consequently, if a Kohen may Shecht Korbanos on Shabbos, so may a Zar.
(b) Rav Achah bar Ya'akov establishes Rebbi by the Shechitah of the Kohen
Gadol on Yom Kipur - according to those who hold that this is Kasher only
through the Kohen Gadol (like most of the other Avodos on Yom Kipur).
2. ... Kabalah or Holachah - because they do not comprise a Melachah, only
Tiltul (moving the blood - which is only an Isur de'Rabbanan).
3. ... Haktarah - because, according to Rebbi Yossi, making a fire on
Shabbos is only a La'av which does not carry with it a penalty of Kareis.
(c) Rebbi speaks about a Zar, despite the fact that (according to this
opinion) even a Kohen is Pasul - because 'Zar' simply means anyone who is
not qualified to perform the Avodah in question (in this case, anyone other
than the Kohen Gadol).
(a) According to Rav Ashi, Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos is referring to a Zar
who made Haktarah on Shabbos. The fact that Rebbi Yossi holds that there is
no Chatas is no problem, he says - because the Tana did not mention Chata'os
or even La'avin; he just said that there are two Isurim.
(b) He explains - that, according to Rebbi Yossi, the two Isurim warrant his
burial in the Beis ha'Kevaros of complete Resha'im (Nisrafim ve'Niskalim),
as we learned above (on 32b.).
(a) If two people switched their wives on the way to the Chupah, they are
Chayav because of Eishes Ish. If the two women are also ...
1. ... sisters - they are Chayav for Achos Ishto, too (and Chayav two
(b) If the two men are also brothers, they are Chayav for Eishes Ach too,
and have to bring four Chata'os.
2. ... Nidos - they are also Chayav for Nidah (and Chayav, three).
(c) Before taking their wives back, they must first wait three months - to
prevent a mix-up, should she be pregnant, and, when the baby is born they
will not know whether it is a ninth month baby from the first man or a
seventh month baby from the second one (creating many complications
regarding Kibud Av and possible incest later in life).
(d) They do not need to wait if they were Ketanos (as will be explained in
(a) It is unusual for Tana'im to speak about blatant Resha'im. In addition,
we know from a Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya that the Tana of our Mishnah
must be speaking about a switch that took place by mistake, and not on
purpose - because the Tana there says - that, all in all, sixteen Chata'os
are brought, and Chata'os are only brought when the sin was performed
(b) Rav Yehudah reconciles the Lashon of our Mishnah 've'Hichlifu' (implying
deliberately) with what we just said, by amending it to 've'Huchlefu'.
(c) We refute the proof for this from the Seifa of the Mishnah, which
precludes a Ketanah from this Din (permitting her to return to her husband
immediately), and a wife who commits adultery is normally forbidden to
return to her husband - by restricting the distinction between seduction and
rape to a Gedolah (who has full Da'as), but, as far as a Ketanah is
concerned, her seduction is considered rape.
(d) We nevertheless prove it from the Seifa 'Mafrishin Osan Sheloshah
Chodashim, Shema Me'ubaros Hein', from which we infer - that if we would
know with certainty that they were not pregnant, they would be permitted to
return to their husbands immediately (and from the fact that, after three
months, they are permitted anyway), which would not be the case, had they