Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHICH IS PREFERRED, YIBUM OR CHALITZAH?

1. Initially (before it was sanctified), it was permitted; it became forbidden (when sanctified), then again permitted (after part was offered on the altar). One might think, it returns to the original state of being permitted - "It will be eaten as Matzos in a Holy place" - this is a Mitzvah.
2. We understand according to Rava, who says that the Beraisa is as Chachamim. "It will be eaten as Matzos in a Holy place - this is a Mitzvah;

i. Initially, it was permitted - he may eat it or not. It became forbidden, then again permitted. One might think, it returns to the original state of being permitted, he may eat it or not.
ii. Question: How could one think so - "They will eat them in which there is atonement" - this teaches, Kohanim eat and the owner of the sacrifice gets atonement!
iii. Answer: Rather, One would think, if he wants, he eats; if not, another Kohen will eat - "It will be eaten as Matzos in a Holy place" - it is a Mitzvah (the Kohen should eat).

(b) Question: According to R. Yitzchak Bar Avdimi, the Beraisa is as Aba Sha'ul - what 2 types of eating are there?

1. Suggestion: If you will say, he may eat with appetite, or overeat to the point of nausea - is the latter really considered eating?!

i. (Reish Lakish): One who stuffs himself to nausea on Yom Kipur has not transgressed "One who will not afflict himself".

(c) Answer #1: Rather, he may eat it as Matzo or as Chametz.
(d) Question: But it says, "Do not bake their portion Chametz!

1. (Reish Lakish): Even the Kohanim's portion should not be baked as Chametz.

(e) Answer #2: Rather, they may eat it as Matzos or scalded.

1. Question: What is the status of scalding?

i. If it is Matzah - of course they may be eaten this way!
ii. If it is not Matzah - but the Torah said, they should be eaten as Matzah!

2. Answer: Really, it is Matzah. The Torah insisted that proper Matzah be used.
3. Question: For what law do we say that scalding is as Matzah?
4. Answer: That a person fulfills with it the Mitzvah to eat Matzah on Pesach.

i. Even though he first scalded it, since he later baked it in an oven if is called bread of poverty, and it may be used for the Mitzvah.

(a) (Mishnah): One who does Chalitzah to his Yevamah, is as a regular brother regarding inheritance; if there is a father, he inherits the deceased;
(b) One who does Yibum inherits the deceased; R. Yehudah says, in any case, if the father is alive, the possessions are always his.
(c) (Gemara): This is obvious (that he is as a regular brother)!
(d) Answer #1: One might have thought, Chalitzah is in place of Yibum, and he should inherit the deceased - the Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

1. Objection: If so, why does it say, 'He is as one of the brothers' - it should say, he is only as 1 of the brothers!

(e) Answer #2 : Rather, one would think, since he prevented her from doing Yibum, she should be punished - the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
(f) (Mishnah): If there is a father ...

1. A father inherits before any of his descendants.

(g) (Mishnah): One who does Yibum ...

1. The Torah said, "He will stand up on the name of his brother - and behold, he stood up!

(h) (Ula): The law is as R. Yehudah.

1. (Ula): R. Yehudah learns from "And the firstborn that she will bear" - just as a firstborn does not receive in the father's lifetime, so one who does Yibum.
2. Question: If so - just as a firstborn receives a double portion when the father dies, so to one who does Yibum!
3. Answer: It does not say, he will stand on the name of his father; rather, "on the name of his brother".

(i) Question: We should say, when there is no father, and he inherits the deceased, there is a Mitzvah of Yibum; when there is a father, and he does not inherit his brother, we should say there is no Mitzvah!
(j) Answer: Yibum is not dependent on inheritance - he does Yibum, and if he inherits, he inherits.
(k) R. Chanina: The law is as R. Yehudah.

1. R. Yanai: Do not teach thusly in the Beis Midrash - the law is not as R. Yehudah.
2. A reciter of teachings taught in front of Rav Nachman, the law is not as R. Yehudah.
3. Rav Nachman: Who is it as? Chachamim? That is obvious, we rule as the majority!
4. The reciter: If so, I will discard this teaching.
5. Rav Nachman: Do not discard it. You were taught, the law is as Chachamim. It was difficult to you, (why must this be taught), so you switched it - you were correct to do so.

(a) A Yavam does Chalitzah to his Yevamah. He is forbidden to her relatives, and she is forbidden to his;

(b) He is forbidden to marry her mother, grandmothers, daughter, granddaughters, and while she is alive, her sister;
(c) The brothers are permitted to her relatives; she is forbidden to his father, his father's father, his son, his son's son, his brother, and his brother's son;
(d) A man is permitted to the relative of the Tzarah of his Chalutzah, bur forbidden to the Tzarah of the relative of his Chalutzah.
(e) (Gemara) Question: Did Chachamim decree Sheniyos by a Chalutzah?

1. Did they only decree regarding Ervah, which is mid'Oraisa - or did they not distinguish?

(f) (Mishnah): 'He is forbidden to her mother, grandmothers ...' but it does not list her mother's mother's mother! (Apparently, we did not decree!)
(g) Rejection: This case was omitted because we wanted to teach later, the brothers are permitted to them - if her great grandmother was taught, I would think that the brothers are forbidden to her mother and grandmother.
(h) Question: Let it teach, he is forbidden to her mother's mother's mother. and the brothers are permitted to all of them!

1. This is left difficult.

(i) (Mishnah): She is forbidden to his father, his father's father, ...

1. Suggestion: She is forbidden to them on account of the Choletz (the Yavam that did Chalitzah to her) - because of the Chalitzah, she is considered the daughter-in-law of the son of the Yavam's father's father(this shows, we decreed Sheniyos by a Chalutzah)!
2. Rejection: No, on account of her deceased husband (she is truly the daughter-in-law of the son of the deceased's father's father).

(j) (Mishnah): She is forbidden to (the Choletz's) son' son.

1. Suggestion: On account of the Choletz, she is the wife of his father's father!
2. Rejection: No, on account of the deceased, she is truly the wife of the brother of his father's father.
3. Question: But Ameimar says that the wife of the brother of one's father's father is permitted!
4. Answer: Ameimar will explain that when the Mishnah says *his* son's son, it refers to *his father's* son's son (his father was mentioned before this).
5. Question: If so (by saying his son and his son's son), the Mishnah forbids the Choletz's brother and brother's son (which are explicitly forbidden right after this)!
6. Answer: The Mishnah teaches his paternal and maternal brothers.

(k) (R. Chiya): 4 are forbidden mid'Oraisa, and 4 mid'Rabanan - his father, his son, his brother and his brother's son mid'Oraisa; his father's father, his mother's father, the son of his son, and the son of his daughter mid'Rabanan.

1. Suggestion: The father of his father - this is on account of the Choletz, she is as his son's daughter-in-law (a Sheniyah)!
2. Rejection: No, on account of the deceased (she truly is his son's daughter-in-law).
3. Suggestion: The father of his mother - this is on account of the Choletz, she is as his daughter's daughter-in-law (a Sheniyah)!
4. Rejection: No, on account of the deceased.
5. Suggestion: The son of his son - this is on account of the Choletz, she is as his father's father's wife (a Sheniyah)!
6. Rejection: No, on account of the deceased, she is as the wife of the brother of his father's father.

i. Question: But Ameimar says that the wife of the brother of one's father's father is permitted!
ii. Answer: Ameimar will say it is on account of the Choletz; he must hold, we decreed Sheniyos by a Chalutzah.

7. Suggestion: The son of his daughter - this is on account of the Choletz, she is as the wife of his mother's father (a Sheniyah)!
8. Rejection: No, on account of the deceased, she is the wife of the brother of his mother's father.
9. Question: But the wife of the brother of one's mother's father is permitted!
10. Answer: Rather, we must say, it is on account of the Choletz - we did decree Sheniyos by a Chalutzah.

(a) (Rav Tuvi Bar Kisna): One that has relations with the Tzarah of his Chalutzah, the child is a Mamzer.

1. This is because she retains the prohibition of a brother's wife.

(b) (Rav Yosef): Our Mishnah supports this - a man is permitted to the relative of the Tzarah of his Chalutzah.

1. We understand, if the Tzarah has her original prohibition - therefore, he may marry her sister.
2. If the Tzarah is as the Chalutzah - he should be forbidden to her sister, (just as one is forbidden to the sister of his Chalutzah)!

(c) Suggestion: This refutes R. Yochanan!

1. (R. Yochanan): Neither the Choletz nor his brothers are liable to Kares for relations with the Chalutzah or the Tzaros.

(d) Rejection: The sister of a Chalutzah is not forbidden mid'Oraisa! (Therefore, even if the Tzarah is as the Chalutzah, we need not say that the Choletz is forbidden to her sister.)

1. (Reish Lakish): Rebbi taught in a Mishnah, the sister of one's divorcee is forbidden mid'Oraisa, the sister of one's Chalutzah is forbidden mid'Rabanan.
2. Question: Why is the relative of the Tzarah of one's Chalutzah permitted, but the Tzarah of the relative of one's Chalutzah is forbidden?