Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Im Lo Yachpotz ha'Ish ... " - that the Mitzvah of Yibum takes precedence over that of Chalitzah.
2. ... "Yevamah Yavo Alehah" - 'bein be'Shogeg, bein be'Meizid, bein be'O'nes bein be'Ratzon'.
3. ... "le'Hakim le'Achiv Sheim" - a normal Bi'ah.

(b) The Tana of another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Lekachah" - that he acquires his Yevamah even through an abnormal Bi'ah.
2. ... "ve'Yibmah" (without the 'Hey') - that only Bi'ah is Koneh, but not money or Sh'tar.
3. ... the 'Hey' of "ve'Yibmah" - that he acquires her even against her will.

(a) We learned above that a man *cannot acquire his Yevamah* when he is asleep. We cannot reconcile this with the Beraisa which says that he *can*, by establishing the latter Beraisa when it was the Yevamah who was asleep and not the Yavam - because of a second Beraisa, which specifically compares a Yevamah to a Yavam in this regard.

(b) To reconcile the two conflicting Beraisos - by establishing the latter Beraisa by a Yavam who was dozing (but not fully asleep).

(c) 'Misnamnem' means - dozing to the extent that he can respond when he is called. He cannot answer a question that requires a logical answer, but remembers the logic when he is reminded.

(a) The criterion for being Chayav 'Boshes' is - that one must intend to hurt the person (even though he does not intend to embarrass him).

(b) If a Yavam made Bi'ah with his Yevamah intending to pour his seed on a wall, he *does not acquire her* - because he did not mean to perform Bi'ah; whereas if he did so having the intention of making Bi'ah with an animal, he *does* - because he meant to do Bi'ah.

(a) Ha'ara'ah is written both by Nidah and by Achos Av va'Achos Eim. The Torah writes "ve'Ish Asher Yikach es Eishes Achiv, Nidah Hi" - to teach us that a Yavam too, acquires his Yevamah through Ha'ara'ah, and we try to learn all the other Arayos from Eishes Achiv.

(b) It is not possible to learn Ha'ara'ah by all the Arayos with a 'Binyan Av' (also known as a 'Mah Matzinu') from ...

1. ... Nidah - because Nidah is different inasmuch as she (alone) renders her Bo'el Tamei.
2. ... Eishes Ach (which, as we just saw, we learn from "Nidah Hi") - because Eishes Achiv is different, inasmuch as it possible to increase his brother's wives (by his brother betrothing more women).
3. ... Achos Av va'Achos Eim - because they are different, inasmuch as they come naturally.

(c) We would be able to learn from ...

1. ... Eishes Ach - all the Arayos that are forbidden through Kidushin.
2. ... Achos Av va'Achos Eim - those relations that come naturally, such as a mother, sisters and daughters.

(d) We cannot learn Ha'ara'ah by all the Arayos from a combination of Eishes Ach and Achos Av va'Achos Eim, because they are all Asur because of 'She'er' - and we would not be able to learn Eishes Ish from them.

(a) So we try to learn Ha'ara'ah from a combination of Nidah and Eishes Ach. We refute the contention that we could not learn Eishes Ish from them, due to the fact that they have no Heter in the lifetime of those who cause the Isur - on the grounds that the statement is incorrect: Nidah and Eishes Ach have no Heter after their death either, since a Nidah remains Asur even after her husband's death (until seven days from the time the flow of blood ceases), and Eishes Ach remains Asur if he left children.

(b) The basic difference between Nidah and Eishes Ach on the one hand, and Eishes Ish on the other is - that by the former, the source that permits her (seven days by a Nidah, and the fact that the deceased husband of the Yevamah left no children) is not the same as the one that originally forbade her, whereas by Eishes Ish, it is (the dissolving of the Kidushin, which caused the original prohibition).

(c) We ultimately learn Ha'ara'ah by all the Arayos from Nidah with Hekeisha de'Rebbi Yonah - the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos ("Ki Kol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'eivos ha'Eileh ve'Nichresu ha'Nefashos ha'Osos ... ") which compares all the Arayos to each other.

6)

(a) When we talk about Eishes Ach being permitted during her husband's lifetime - we mean through a Get.

(b) Bearing in mind that the Torah prescribes a Mitzvah on a Yevamah whose husband died, we might have thought that he is permitted (without having a Mitzvah) to marry her in his lifetime (after his brother gave her a Get), or that he will transgress a La'av which is inferred from an Asei ("Yevamah Yavo Alehah" ... after his brother's death, but not in his lifetime), which is considered an Asei.

(c) By writing "Nidah Hi" by Eishes Ach - the Torah teaches us that, not only is marrying her in the lifetime of his brother forbidden [by means of an Asei], but that he is even Chayav Kareis.

(d) Zachur and Beheimah are not included in the Hekeishah de'Rebbi Yonah - because they are not included in "ve'es Mekorah He'erah" (the expression used by Ha'ara'ah of a Nidah), seeing as they do not have a Mekor.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Mishkevei Ishah" written by Zachur - that one is Chayav by a Zachar for an unnatural Bi'ah too.

(b) By mentioning 'Ha'ara'ah by Achos Av va'Achos Eim' - the Torah comes to teach us 'Im Eino Inyan' that one is Chayav on a Beheimah for an unnatural Bi'ah.

(c) We object at having to learn Beheimah from Achos Av va'Achos Eim - because whereas Beheimah is included among the Chayvei Misos Beis-Din (S'kilah), Achos Av va'Achos Eim are only Chayvei Kareis? Surely, it would have been more appropriate to have inserted Ha'ara'ah by Imo or Chamoso, which are also Chayvei Misos Beis-Din?

(d) The Torah nevertheless picked Achos Av va'Achos Eim to teach us Beheimah - because the very Pasuk is written for a Derashah (as we shall now see).

(a) Regarding ...

1. ... one's sister - one is Chayav for committing incest with a maternal sister no less than for a paternal one.
2. ... Dodaso (one's father's brother's wife) - one is Chayav only if she is the wife of his father's paternal brother, but not for the wife of his maternal brother.

(b) We cannot learn Achos Av and Achos Eim in this regard from ...

1. ... Dodaso (rather than Achoso) - because she becomes forbidden through Kidushin, unlike Achos Av and Achos Eim, who like Achoso, become forbidden naturally.
2. ... Achoso (rather than Dodaso) - because she is *his* blood-relation, as opposed to Dodaso, who, like Achos Av and Achos Eim, are blood-relations *of his father*.

(c) We learn the fact that there is no distinction drawn between his father's or mother's paternal sister or maternal one - from the (superfluous) Pasuk - "Ervas Achos Avicha Lo Segaleh ... Ervas Achos Im'cha Lo Segaleh".

(d) The Torah needs to tell us this, both by Achos Av and by Achos Eim. It could not just have written it by ...

1. ... Achos Av, explains Rebbi Avahu - because she is considered a full relative (because 'Mishpachas Av Keruyah Mishpachah'); whereas Achos Eim is not.
2. ... Achos Eim - because we know for certain that she is related to him, whereas by Achos Av, this is not the case (since we can never be quite sure that the man whom he takes to be his father is really his father).

(a) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Dodo" (Ervas Dodo Gilah") "Dodo" (O Dodo O ben Dodo Yig'alenah") - that one is only Chayav for incest with the wife of his father's *paternal* brother's wife.

(b) We know that, in the latter Pasuk, it is only his *paternal* uncle who is obligated to redeem him - because the Pasuk writes "mi'Mishpachto Yig'alenu", and, as we cited earlier 'Mishpachas Av K'ruyah Mishpachah, Mishpachas Eim Einah K'ruyah Mishpachah'.

(a) A man was told that his wife died, so he married her paternal sister; she too, died, and he married her maternal sister; when she dies, he married her paternal sister, and finally, her maternal sister. If it is then discovered that his wife is still alive - he is permitted to retain the first, third and fifth woman that he married (who are unrelated), but forbidden to remain with the second (because she is the sister of the first wife) and the fourth (because she is the sister of the third one).

(b) When the Tana says 'u'Potros Tzaroseihen' - he means that, if he dies, and the brothers make Chalitzah with one of the three women, the other two are permitted to marry le'Shuk.

(c) If he made Bi'ah with the second woman after the death of the first - he is permitted to the second and the fourth ones, and forbidden to the other three.