Previous daf

1)

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Arba'ah Achin Nesu'in Arba'ah Nashim, u'Meisu ... ' - what he really meant was 'Arba'ah mei'Achin she'Meisu ... '.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk (in the Parshah of Chalitzah) ...

1. ... "ve'Kar'u Lo Ziknei Iyro" - that the Beis-Din themselves must deal with Chalitzah, and not appoint their Sheluchim.
2. ... "ve'Dibru Eilav" - that, if the Yevamah was an inappropriate match for the Yavam (e.g. an old woman for a young man or vice-versa) they would advise him to perform Chlitzah rather than Yibum, so as not to bring strife into his home.

(c) The Tana of our Mishnah speaks about the Yavam performing Yibum with *four* Yevamos. Beis-Din do not advise him to allow the other brothers to take *three* of them, and to just perform Yibum with *one* of them (to avoid bringing strife [and poverty] into his home, by having more wives to sustain than he can afford) - because our Mishnah speaks in a case when the Yavam can afford to sustain four wives.

(d) The Tana talks specifically about *four* Yevamos - because a man (who is a Talmid-Chacham - to whom this particular Mishnah addresses itself) is advised not to have more than four wives, so that (based on the fact that the Onah of a Talmid-Chacham is on Friday night) he should able to perform the Mitzvah of 'Onah' with each wife at least once a month.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Asher Lo Yivneh *es Beis* Achiv" - that a Yavam may perform Yibum with only one of the Yevamos (from one house).
2. ... *"Beis* Chalutz ha'Na'al" - that he needs to perform Chalitzah with only one of them.

(b) We know that if two Yevamos fall to Yibum from one house, that, should the Yavam perform Yibum with one, he is not obligated to perform Chalitzah with the other - because, as we already learned (on Daf 20a.) 'A Yevamah who is not subject to Yibum is not subject to Chalitzah either'.

(c) Neither did the Rabbanan decree that he *should* do so - for fear that he will go ahead and perform Yibum with the second Yevamah *after* performing Chalitzah with the first (which is forbidden because of "Asher Lo Yivneh").

(a) We try to reject the suggestion that when two Yevamos fall from one house, they are both Patur from Yibum, because if they were, then why would we need a Pasuk to exempt a Tzaras Ervah from Yibum. We refute this however - on the grounds that even if two Yevamos *were* both Patur, a Tzaras Ervah would be Chayeves, because, if not for the Pasuk, we would have said that the Ervah remains outside (there is no Zikah with her, but there is with the Tzarah).

(b) We know that they are not both Patur - from the extra word "Yevimto" (which is written twice in the Parshah of Chalitzah).

(c) By obligating the Yavam to perform Chalitzah specifically with the Yevamah who is Pasul - Rebbi taught us not to throw away the superfluous water in our pits, when someone else needs it.

(a) Rebbi Akiva says that someone who is Machzir Gerushaso (who takes back his divorcee after she has been married to somebody else) and who marries the woman with whom he performed Chalitzah or her relative, must give her a Get, and if they have a child, he is a Mamzer - because Rebbi Akiva holds that a child born from Chayvei La'avin is a Mamzer.

(b) According to the Chachamim - a child who is born from Chayvei La'avin is not a Mamzer.

(c) Even the Chachamim agree that the child is a Mamzer - in the case of someone who marries a blood-relative of his divorcee (who, in this regard, is considered to be like his wife).

(a) We think that Rebbi Akiva could not really have included the relation of his Chalutzah in his list - because the relation of his Chalutzah, as far as we know, is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (as we learned above on Daf 40b.) (because min ha'Torah, a Chalutzah is not considered a Gerushah).

(b) Initially, we bring a proof for this from the Chachamin in the Seifa of our Mishnah, where the Tana writes 'u'Modim (Chachamim) be'Nosei K'rovas Gerushaso' - which only seems to make sense if Rebbi Akiva, with whom they are arguing, had first included it is *his* list.

(c) The Chachamim is synonymous with Shimon ha'Teimani.

(d) We know that the Tana of our Mishnah does not quote the Chachamim merely to inform us that ...

1. ... 'Yesh Mamzer mei'Chayvei K'risus' - because this already appears specifically in the Mishnah later on 49a.).
2. ... the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon ha'Teimani - because then, why did the Tana single out specifically Machzir Gerushaso? Consequently, he must mention it because Rebbi Akiva mentioned it first.

(a) We finally refute our initial proof ([that according to Rebbi Akiva, K'rovas Chalutzaso is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and he really means K'rovas Gerushaso] because if Rebbi Akiva did not mention K'rovas Gerushaso, why would the Rabbanan mention it?). In fact, the Rabbanan might mention K'rovas Gerushaso simply because they argue with Rebbi Akiva in the other three cases, the Tana saw fit to add that they agree with him by K'rovas Gerushaso.

(b) That being the case, Rebbi Akiva actually considers the child of a Chalutz and Chalutzah a Mamzer - which he learns from the Pasuk "*Beis* Chalutz ha'Na'al", from which we learn that a Chalutzah is considered a relative, like a Gerushah (to forbid a Kohen to marry her), *mi'd'Oraysa*).

(c) According to the initial quotation of Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi, everyone agrees that if a man is Machzir Gerushaso, she is Pasul li'Kehunah like a Chalal. When he says 'everyone' - he means even Shimon ha'Teimani, according to whom the child is not a Mamzer. Nevertheless, he is saying, he is Pasul li'Kehunah.

(d) He learns this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol - where the Isur does not apply to everyone, yet the child that is born to them is a Chalal (disqualified from the Din of a Kohen or from marrying a Kohen), how much more so Machzir Gerushaso, whose Isur does apply to everyone.

7)

(a) We just learned that Rebbi Shimon ha'Teimani learns from Almanah that, although a child born from Chayvei La'avin is not a Mamzer, he is Pasul li'Kehunah. But surely, Almanah le'Kohen Gadol is different - seeing as she herself *becomes Pasul* (as we learn in Kidushin), whereas a woman who is a Chayvei La'avin, does *not*.

(b) A Machzir Gerushaso cannot render his wife Pasul li'Kehunah - because she is Pasul already.

(c) If she is the daughter of a Kohen - she does not become Pasul to eat Terumah (as we shall see in Almanah le'Kohen Gadol).

(d) We infer from the Pasuk in "Hi To'eivah" (by Machzir Gerushaso) - "*Hi* To'eivah" 've'Ein Banehah To'eivin' (which clashes with Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi).

(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Akiva, listing the Dinim of Chayvei La'avin, writes that the woman is Pesulah li'Kehunah - because she is a Zonah.

(b) The Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Akiva say that Kidushin is effective on Chayvei La'avin and she requires a Get from him, and that she is Kasher and so is her child. If, as we initially contend, 'Kasher' means Kasher li'Kehunah - then the latter point is a disproof to Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi.

(c) We answer that the 'Kasher' means *Kasher le'Kahal* (but not li'Kehunah). We are not perturbed by the fact that in the statement immediately preceding it ('that *she* is Kasher), it can only mean *Kasher li'Kehunah* (since it is obvious that she is Kasher le'Kahal) - because it is perfectly feasible to say that one phrase means 'le'li'Kehunah' and the other one, 'le'Kahal'.

(d) And the proof for this lies in the Reisha, where Rebbi Akiva says 'Hi Pesulah u'V'ladah Pesulah' - even though 'Hi Pesulah' can only mean li'Kehunah (since committing an immoral act cannot possibly render a woman Pasul le'Kahal), whereas 'V'ladah Pesulah' must mean Pesulah le'Kahal (too - seeing as according to Rebbi Akiva, the child is a Mamzer).

(a) We just refuted the first of the three Kashyos against Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi. We refute the second Kashya (from the inference from "To'eivah Hi") - by Darshening "Hi To'eivah" 've'Ein Tzarasah To'eivah' (instead of 've'in Banehah To'eivin').

(b) We have no answer for the first Kashya however ('Mah le'Almanah, she'Kein Hi Atzmah Mischaleles' - which we now interpret to mean that it is only because the mother is Pasul that the daughter becomes Pesulah too), and Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi is disproved.

(a) So we amend Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi. His statement now pertains to Rebbi Yehoshua - who says that it is only the children of Chayvei Misos Beis-Din (but not from Chayvei K'riysos) who are Mamzeirim.

(b) The new text of Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi's statement reads - 'ha'Kol Modim she'ha'Ba al Chayvei *K'riysos* she'ha'V'lad Pagum'.

(c) And he learns this from the same 'Kal va'Chomer from Almanah le'Kohen Gadol as we tried to learn above (according to Shimon ha'Teimani) - because if, even when the La'av is restricted to a small section of the community (to Kohanim Gedolim), the child is a Pasul li'Kehunah, the children of Chayvei K'riysos, which incorporate everyone, should certainly be Pasul li'Kehunah.

(d) We cannot however, ask on this like we asked before (that an Almanah is different, since she herself becomes profaned) - since the woman by Chayvei K'riysos (just like the Almanah), does become Pesulah (because she is a Zonah).