Previous daf

1)

(a) A man is obligated to wait ten years to have children from his wife - before divorcing her or marrying a second wife.

(b) Should he divorce her, she is permitted to marry someone else.

(c) The Din of ten years still applies if she has a miscarriage - but he then counts ten years from the time of the miscarriage.

(d) A man who divorces his wife because she bore him no children, must nevertheless pay her Kesubah - because we assume that she was able to have children, and ascribe the fault to her husband's bad Mazel.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk (with regard to Avram's marriage to Hagar) "mi'Keitz Eser Shanim la'Sheves Avram be'Eretz Cana'an" - that the years that one lived in Chutz la'Aretz are not included in the ten years of childlessnes, once one moves to Eretz Yisrael.

(b) If either the man or the woman falls ill during that time - or if they were in prison, the period of illness is not included in the ten years.

(a) Despite the fact that Avraham was sterile too (as we shall soon see), we cite him as an example of the ten year waiting period - because otherwise, what is the Pasuk in Lech-Lecha (quoted in 2a.) coming to teach us?

(b) Yitzchak and Rifkah were childless for twenty years.

(c) Despite the fact that Yitzchak too, was sterile, the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to inform us that he was sixty years old when he fathered Ya'akov and Eisav - because it helps us to prove that Ya'akov must have spent fourteen years in the Yeshivah of Shem and Eiver.

(d) It is important for us to know that Ya'akov spent fourteen years in the Yeshivah of Shem and Eiver before going to Charan - so that we should know that Torah over-rides the honoring of one's parents (since although Ya'akov was punished for the twenty-two years that he spent with Lavan away from his parents [by losing Yosef for twenty-two years], he was not taken to task for the fourteen years that he spent learning Torah in Yeshivah.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Toldos "va'Ye'tar Yitzchak la'Hashem *le'Nochach Ishto* ki Akarah Hi" - that Yitzchak was sterile too.

(b) The Torah stresses "va'Ye'aser *Lo* Hashem, teaching us that Hashem answered *his* prayers and not hers - because the Tefilah of a Tzadik ben Tzadik is greater than that of a Tzadik ben Rasha (which Rifkah was) [not because the former is greater, but because his Tefilah is].

(c) The Avos (and the Imahos) were sterile - in order to induce them to pray, and Hashem loves the Tefilos of Tzadikim.

(d) The Torah uses the Lashon "va'Ye'tar" and "ve'Ye'asar" (whose root is 'Asar' - a pitch-fork) by the Tefilah of Yitzchak - because the Tefilah of a Tzadik works like a pitch-fork, turning over Hashem's anger into mercy.

(a) Rebbi Ami learns from the Pasuk "Habitu el *Tzur Chutzavtem* ve'el *Bor Nukartem"* - that both Avraham and Sarah were Tumtumin (and that their sexual organs had to be carved out). And we know that that Pasuk refers to Avraham and Sarah - because the following Pasuk explicitly says so.

(b) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah disagrees. He learns from the Pasuk "va'Tehi Sarai Akarah *Ein Lah Valad"* - that she was an Aylanis (who did not even have a Beis V'lad).

6)

(a) Rav Yehudah Brei de'Rav Shmuel bar Shilas says in the name of Rav that the ten years waiting period in our Mishnah is not relevant nowadays, because we do not live as long as they used to live then. According to him - one needs to wait two and a half years nowadays, corresponding to the three pregnancies of Sarah, Rifkah and Chanah, plus the one month of Tum'ah and Taharah that follows each pregnancy (a total of two and a half years).

(b) Rabah (presumably, this should be 'Rava') Amar Rav Nachman says three P'kidos - meaning the three years of Sarah, Rifkah and Chanan, because Hashem answered their prayers on Rosh Hashanah (so she needs to wait for three Rosh Hashanahs to pass and then, the nine months of pregnancy).

(c) Rabah refutes the above theories, due to the Pasuk "Yemei Sh'noseinu Bahem Shiv'im Shanah", from which we see that already in the time of David, man's years had diminished, yet Rebbi, who compiled the Mishnah, nevertheless spoke of a ten-year waiting period. Note: Nowadays, it is customary not to force a man to divorce his wife who bore him no children, after ten years.

(a) The Beraisa said earlier that the woman nevertheless receives her Kesubah, because it is probably the man himself who was not worthy to have children from her. We know that it is not due to the unworthiness of the woman - seeing as she is not commanded to have children anyway, and it is therefore unlikely that Hashem would punish her in this way (Rashi adds that since she is not commanded, she does not really care either).

(b) In spite of our Mishnah, which advocates that the man should marry a second wife, in the hope that he merits having children from *her*, Rav Aba bar Zavda told the Rabbanan that he did not intend to marry again because, had he merited, he would have had children from his first wife - merely in order to put them off, since he knew that he could not have children anyway, because he was sterile.

(c) Rav Aba bar Zavda, Rav Gidel, Rav Chelbo and Rav Sheishes had in common - the fact that all of them became so engrossed with the Shiur of Rav Huna, that they all became sterile. Altogether, sixty Chachamim were affected in this way through Rav Huna's Derashos.

(d) When Rav Acha bar Ya'akov quoted the Pasuk "ha'Chochmah Techayeh Ba'alehah" - he meant that he was the only one to act wisely. He, alongside the other Chachamim, contracted the illness that results from holding oneself back, and which results, in turn, in sterility. He suspended himself from a cedar-tree, and the matter emerged from him looking like a green palm-branch.

9)

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that if one brother after the other died as a result of the Milah, it is only the fourth son who becomes forbidden to circumcise; the third is still permitted (because he holds that a Chazakah is only created after *three* times).

(b) We have a problem with a Beraisa which inverts the two opinions, and which we try to resolve by citing Rebbi Chiya bar Aba quoting Rebbi Yochanan. Rebbi Yochanan relates how, at the end of his life, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel forbade the circumcision of the son of a *fourth* sister, after a son from each of the first three sisters had died as a result of the Milah - implying that the third son, he would have permitted. This proves our initial version of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel to be correct.

(c) We currently think that, had they asked him earlier, he would not have forbidden the third son too, to be circumcised - because in that case, what would Rebbi Chiya bar Aba be coming to testify?

(d) We refute this proof however, (that circumcising the third son must be permitted) - on the grounds that Rebbi Chiya bar Aba could be coming to teach us that two or three sisters create a Chazakah (regarding their sons, and that the babies do not need to be brothers in order to be forbidden).

(a) We can learn from the principle 'Achyos Mechazkos' - that one should avoid marrying into a family of epileptics or lepers (provided they have a Chazakah of three cases).

(b) Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef cited an episode when Rebbi Yochanan permitted the Milah of the son of a third sister, even though the sons of two sisters had previously died on account of the Milah. When Abaye commented that Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef was permitting a (Safek) Isur as well as a (Safek) murder - he was referring to the fact that he had permitted the Milah to be performed on Yom Kipur which fell on Shabbos.

(c) We know that Abaye nevertheless accepted his ruling - because he married Chomah, even though she had already lost two husbands (Rachba from Pumbedisa and Rav Yitzchak, the son of Rabah bar bar Chanah).

(d) Rava expressed surprise at Abaye's acceptance of Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef 's previous testimony of Rebbi Yochanan - because Abaye had himself stated that Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef was not as reliable as Rav Avin, because he did not revise his learning (or because he did not sit constantly at Rebbi Yochanan's feet, like Rav Avin did).

(a) What makes us think that Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel confine their Machlokes to Milah, but do not argue by marriage - is the fact that whereas by the former, it is logical to ascribe the weakness of the babies to a family, to say that one particular family is prone to die as a result of the Milah, and another is not; by the latter, what reason could there possibly be to ascribe the death of three husbands to the Chazakah of one woman?

(b) We nevertheless know that they argue by marriage as well - because they argue explicitly with regard to marriage in a Beraisa.

(c) According to Avimi from Hagrunya quoting Rav Huna, the Chazakah determines that she causes the death of her husbands through intimacy. Rav Ashi maintains that it is through her Mazel.

(d) The difference between the two explanations would be one of two cases; one of them, when the first husband died after the engagement - the other, if he died through an accident (such as falling off a tree), where it is clear that he did not die through being intimate with his wife.

(a) Rav Yosef the son of Rava asked his father whether, when Rav Yosef (Rava's Rebbe) once told him that the Halachah was like Rebbi and another time, like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, he was pulling his leg. Rava replied - that that was most certainly not the case. but that he ruled like a S'tam Mishnah is each of the cases (because the S'tam Mishnahs themselves, did not rule unanimously like either opinion).

(b) Regarding Nisu'in and Malkiyos, he told him, Rav Yosef ruled like S'tam Mishnahs that followed the opinion of Rebbi; by Vestos and Shor ha'Mu'ad, like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. The case of 'Malkiyos' - is when someone who had committed a La'av that carried with it Malkos, was duly punished and then repeated the sin (just once). They would place him in an extremely confined room, and feed him raw barley until his stomach split.

(c) The two aspects of the case of 'Vestos' - are 1. to become a Nidah: after three consecutive sightings at equal intervals (which make her a Nidah with regard to not rendering Tamei retroactively, any Taharos that she touched between one period and the next), and with regard to assuming that she is Temei'ah when her time to see arrives); 2. to lose her Veses, which she only does after fixing a new Veses three consecutive times.

(d) The case of Shor ha'Mu'ad - is that of an animal that damages willfully, which is considered a Tam (to pay only half-damages from the body of the damager), and which becomes a Mu'ad (to pay full damage from one's own pocket) after it has damaged three times (see Tosfos DH 've'Shor').