Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Elazar forbids Yibum with a woman whose husband divorced her and took her back. Eifah initially gives the reason for this as being - because she was once forbidden to the Yavam (since it is the *first* marriage that creates the tie with the Yavam, as we explained earlier).

(b) We reject his suggestion that, if that is so, she does not require Chalitzah either - on the basis of a Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar himself specifically requires Chalitzah.

(c) Eifah is therefore at a loss to understand Rebbi Elazar's opinion. According to Abaye, Rebbi Elazar is in a quandary - he is not sure whether it is the death of the husband that creates the tie with the Yavam (in which case even Yibum would be permitted), or the first marriage (in which case even Chalitzah would not be necessary).

(d) According to Rava, the prohibition (to perform Yibum) itself is a decree because, although everyone knows about the divorce, not everyone knows about the fact that he took her back. He gets round the Kashya that it ought to be the opposite (i.e. most people would know that they are now living together, but not necessarily about their previous divorce) - on the basis of those cases where he took her back in the evening and died the following morning (where more people will know about the divorce than about the second marriage).

(a) According to Rav Ashi, Rebbi Elazar decrees the previous cases in our Mishnah on account of a Yesomah be'Chayei ha'Av. We prove this answer from the fact that the Tana inserts a Yesomah be'Chayei ha'Av in the Mishnah - because in itself, it is obvious that she is forbidden to the Yavam, and the Tana can only have inserted it to inform us that it is the source of Rebbi Elazar's stringent ruling in the Reisha.

(b) In the Beraisa, the Chachamim agree with Rebbi Elazar (that the Yavam may not perform Yibum with her) when the father married off his daughter when she was a Ketanah and her husband divorced her and took her back when she was still a Ketanah and died. Should he take her back after she has already become a Gedolah however - the Yavam may even perform Yibum, because the second marriage too, is valid min ha'Torah.

(c) And they will even agree with Rebbi Elazar if he took her back when she was still a Ketanah - if they were still living together when she became a Gedolah (since the first Bi'ah after that will acquire her min ha'Torah).

(d) We prove from this Beraisa that Rav Ashi's explanation (in a.) is the authentic one - because the Tana begins with the words 'u'Modim Chachamim bi'Yesomah be'Chayei ha'Av ... ', implying that that is Rebbi Elazar's reason in the subsequent cases, where he says 'Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes'.

(a) Rava asked Rav Nachman whether, according to Rebbi Elazar, the Yavam may perform Yibum with the Ketanah's Tzarah. He replied - that the Ketanah herself is only a G'zeirah, so to forbid her Tzarah would be a 'G'zeirah li'G'zeirah'.

(b) The Beraisa, which states 'Hi ve'Tzarasah Choletzes', cannot be correct - because it would not be necessary for both Tzaros to perform Chaliztah.

(c) We initially amend it - to read 'O Hi O Tzarasah Choletzes'.

(d) This is not a disproof for Rav Nachman's reply to Rava (who holds -in a. - that the Tzarah may even perform Yibum) - because once we are forced to alter the text, we may as well alter it to read 'Hi Choletzes, ve'Tzarasah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes.'

(a) If two brothers are married to two sisters ...

1. ... who are Yesomos Ketanos, and one of them dies - his wife goes out (without Yibum or Chalitzah) because of Achos Ishto (since the marriage of both of them is only mi'de'Rabbanan).
2. ... one a Gedolah, and one a Ketanah, who are both Charashos (Rashi does not appear to have this word in his text), if the husband of the Ketanah dies - she too goes out because of Achos Ishto.

(b) If the husband of the Gedolah dies, Rebbi Eliezer maintains that we teach the Ketanah to make Miy'un, to enable the Yavam to perform Yibum with the Gedolah - because he holds 'Yesh Zikah.

(a) Raban Gamliel disagrees with Rebbi Eliezer. According to him - should she make Miy'un, well and good; but if not, the Yevamah waits until the Ketanah grows-up, and then goes out because of Achos Ishto.

(b) He disagrees with Rebbi Eliezer - because *he* holds 'Ein Zikah'.

(c) The Gedolah cannot perform Chalitzah immediately - because then the Ketanah would be forbidden because of Achos Chalutzaso.

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua bemoans the unfortunate fate of both women, because, in his opinion, the man's wife goes out with a get and his Yevamah with Chalitzah. He holds 'Yesh Zikah', like Rebbi Eliezer, yet he disagrees with his ruling - because he holds that one should avoid Miy'un at all costs (even if it is for a D'var Mitzvah).

(a) Bar Kapara quoting a Beraisa, advises that one sticks to three things and keeps well away from three others. The three things that one should ...

1. ... stick to are Chalitzah, making peace between warring parties - and having one's Nedarim nullified.
2. ... keep away from are Miy'un, Pikdonos (accepting to look after other people's articles) - and acting as a guarantor for a loan.

(b) The advice to keep well away from Miy'un seems to conform with Rebbi Yehoshua in our Mishnah. We reconcile it even with Rebbi Eliezer however - by establishing that he does encourage Miy'un when it is for a D'var Mitzvah (to enable a Yavam to perform Yibum).

(c) Bar Kapara's advice regarding ...

1... Chalitzah is based on the opinion of Aba Shaul - who says that if someone acquires his Yevamah for any motive other than for the Mitzvah of Yibum, it is considered as if he was guilty of incest, and the child was almost as if he was a Mamzer.
2. ... making peace is based on the Pasuk "Bakesh Shalom ve'Radfeihu". Rebbi Avahu learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Pasuk Rodef Tzedakah va'Chesed, Yimtza Chayim Tzedakah ve'Chavod" - that pursuing peace is a branch of Chesed, and that it is one of those Mitzvos for which one receives reward in both worlds, life and Tzedakah in the World to Come (the principle) and honor in this world (the fruits) (One wonders whether one could not have learned the other way round: life and Tzedakah in this world and honor in the World to Come).

7)

(a) 'be'Hafaras Nedarim ke'Rebbi Nasan'. Rebbi Nasan considers someone who ...

1. ... makes a Neder - as if he had constructed a Bamah (an altar - an act that became forbidden once the Beis Hamikdash was built).
2. ... someone who fulfills it (rather than having it rescinded) - as if he had sacrificed on it.

(b) Despite the fact that he has already made the Neder, he is made to rescind it, to prevent him from getting into the habit of making Nedarim.

(c) One should keep one's distance from Miy'un - because the girl might later regret it.

(d) And one should keep one's distance from Pikdonos - referring specifically to receiving a Pikadon from a townsman, because he knows his house well and is likely to come and take his Pikadon without the Ba'al ha'Bayis' knowledge, then claim it again (see also Agados Maharsha).

(a) ... 'and from acting as a guarantor for a loan'. This applies specifically to Arvei Sheltzi'on - a guarantor to whom the creditor has the right to go immediately to claim his debt (without first approaching the debtor).

(b) 'Sheltzi'on' may be the name of a place. It might also be the acronym of 'Sh'lof Dutz' - meaning to 'remove oneself' (from the debtor) and to 'attach oneself' to the guarantor.

(c) This is, in fact, one of the three things which Rebbi Yitzchak extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ra Yaro'a Ki Areiv Zar". Zarim also pertains to Geirim. Rebbi Chelbo said - that Geirim are troublesome to Yisrael like (the plague of) Sapachas (a form of Tzara'as) because they do not observe the Mitzvos with the necessary care (see also Tosfos 47b. DH 'Kashim').

(a) The third thing to which the Pasuk hints is 'ha'Toke'a Atzmo li'D'var Halachah'. Rebbi Yossi explains 'Kol ha'Omer Ein Lo Torah, Ein Lo Torah'. This statement is so obvious that it is unacceptable. We initially amend it to read - 'Kol ha'Omer Ein Lo Ela Torah, Ein Lo Ela Torah'.

(b) But that too, is obvious. So we amend it further to conform with Rav Papa's interpretation of the Pasuk "ve'Limad'tem va'Asisem" - from which Rav Papa extrapolates that whatever is subject to fulfilling, is subject to learning (meaning that learning Torah without keeping it is absolutely valueless).

(c) The correct version of Rebbi Yossi's statement is therefore - 'Kol ha'Omer Ein Lo Ela Torah, Afilu Torah Ein Lo'.

(d) Alternatively, we accept the initial amendment ('Kol ha'Omer Ein Lo Ela Torah, Ein Lo Ela Torah') - pertaining to someone who teaches Torah (but not with the intention of fulfilling his teachings himself). He receives reward for the teaching, but not for the Mitzvos that his Talmidim subsequently fulfill (from which we can infer that, if he taught with the added intention of fulfilling the Mitzvos himself, he *would* share in the reward that his Talmidim receive for fulfilling the Mitzvos).

(a) A third explanation of 'ha'Tokei'a Atzmo li'D'var Halachah' pertains to a Dayan - who knows the Halachah, and who issues rulings based on what he extrapolates from that knowledge, without first consulting his Rebbe.

(b) Based on the Pasuk in "Hinei Mitaso she'li'Sh'lomoh Shishim Giborim Saviv Lah .... *mi'Pachad ba'Leilos"*, Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan says - that a Dayan in the process of judging, should consider as if a sword was placed between his thighs, and Gehinom was open beneath him.

(c) The "Giborim" mentioned there - refers to the Dayanim.

(a) According to Raban Gamliel in our Mishnah, when the Ketanah grows-up, the Yevamah goes out without even the need to perform Chalitzah. Rebbi Elazar asked Rav for Raban Gamliel's reason: One of the options is that the Kidushin 'grows with the Ketanah' - meaning that, the moment she becomes a Gedolah, the Kidushin becomes valid retroactively, revealing that the Zikah of the Yevamah was not effective.

(b) The other option is - that it is the Bi'ah after she becomes a Gedolah that renders her married to her husband, and the reason that the Yevamah has to wait is because he holds 'Ein Zikah' (like we explained in the Mishnah).

(c) Rav replied that the latter explanation was the correct one, at which, Rav Sheishes commented - that Rav must have been asleep when he said that.

(a) Rav Sheishes interpreted the Beraisa 'ha'Mekadesh es ha'Ketanah, Kidushehah T'luyin' - to mean that, as soon as she grows-up, the Kidushin takes effect retroactively.

(b) But Ravin B'rei de'Rav Nachman reconciles Rav with the Beraisa - by interpreting it like Rav: that as long as she is a Ketanah, her Kidushin hangs in the balance; should he make Bi'ah with her after she grows-up, they are married, but if not, they are not.

(c) When the girl declares 'I am better than him, and he is better than me', she is referring to the period between her Gadlus and the first Bi'ah (like Ravin Brei de'Rav Nachman). What she means is - that he has the right to divorce her should he wish, but she has the right to make Miy'un should she wish (see Tosfos DH 'Hu Adif').